Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
12 Mar 04
I've been doing a lot of work on the site, but I realized that I haven't really put much up of my own writing. Today I thought I'd give you a little story from Silent Storm. I've already talked about Silent Storm, but just to refresh memories, it's a turned based squad tactical game set in WWII.
I can't believe I'm doing this. I'm a sniper, a loner, not a leader. But here I am leading this team. So far they've done pretty well. Except Viper, of course, he was trying to show off and stumbled right into an ambush. We barely got him out alive. It's not like we need to compete, there's only one best sniper and it's not him.
We've followed the leads to this house in the country. Sure it's surrounded by British troops, but we're all on the same side. So why am I so uncomfortable. Perhaps it's just that I have to walk in there and accuse their commander of treason. The young officer who greets us is courteous enough if a little aloof. He leads us into the foyer. Suddenly his trap is sprung as young soldiers appear all around us. We can't surrender to the traitor and he's betrayed all these boys. With a slight sigh of regret we leap into action.
These poor kids have no experience like my crack team. Without a command they all leap to the best cover with weapons in hand. I could take out the officer, but the way his hand shakes with his pistol, I know he's not much of a threat. Seemingly in the same breath we all open fire before the soldiers can react. Gator mows down some with way too many rounds from his heavy machine gun. By the time he stops firing all our enemies are dead. He only took down two (and most of a wall) but my team is deadly efficient.
We've made quite a racket and the whole house is responding. This foyer is too exposed. I signal to viper to open the hallway door and jump out of the way as I take a bead. As the door flies open, I see my enemy has crouched to minimize his profile. Unfortunately for him, it didn't do anything to reduce the size of his head. I didn't think about how close the range was until the explosion.
The house must have a basement with fuel or weapons down there. Whatever it was the down angle of my bullet carried it right down through the soldier, through the floor and into whatever lay beneath. The explosion was momentarily blinding, but when my vision cleared I could see the hallway was gone, just gone. The stone exterior walls still stood, but everything else including the soldier's body was gone along with my escape plan.
I tried not to look confused as I signaled our retreat back to the road. Sure there we more soldiers there, but there were also trees for cover. Outside it all became a blur. I thought I knew what the word team meant, but once I saw us fighting together, I really understood. The check point guards were down in a flash, Viper and I pinned down another officer and his escort. A group of soldiers tried to come around the building the opposite way, but Gator suppressed them and the rest of the team chucked grenades ending that threat.
We took out soldiers popping up in the upstairs windows like some kind of bizarre carnival shooting gallery. Doc was back there bandaging up the wounded so quick they were back before the enemy reloaded. Suddenly it was quiet.
It was almost unbelievable, the carnage. We swept the house. There had been some soldiers in the basement, but the explosion had taken care of them. There was an officer in the back trying to hide some files. We took him out and grabbed the file. There were strange files all over the house, but they didn't make sense to us. Intel would probably have more luck.
There was no one left, but the traitor. He had a guard that he sent on a suicide mission to take us. He was dead before he could pull the pin on his grenade. The traitor, I can't even speak his name, put up token resistance. He was relieved, none too gently, of his consciousness. We needed him alive. I hope the interrogation boys made him pay for a long, long time.
There was one good thing out of this. I knew my team was ready for anything. Or so I thought. . .
Today we've got a game for the turtler in us all. It's Besieger (official site, Dreamcatcher site) from Primal Software. This is a game that actually encourages you to build big walls and hide behind them. This two sided feudal fantasy pits the Vikings against Cimmerians. There are 12 levels with units gaining experience and carrying it over between levels of the single player campaign.
It offers deformable terrain allows you to destroy just about anything you can see. The focus will be on, ... wait for it ..., yes sieges. You actually gain strength as you hide behind your walls. It should be out this summer and looks to have some interesting multiplayer modes. It also include cooperative multiplayer something it never hurts to see more of. Start planning your walls now.
Jason
11 Mar 04
Do you ever think about what the term "hardcore gamer" means? I usually don't, but I was poking around FunAgain Games, a board game retailer, and found a reader review commenting that a certain game would only appeal to hardcore gamers. I wonder how many interactive gamers would ever consider a board gamer hardcore?
Gaming is my hobby, but hobbies are limited by the amount of time you can devote to it. Strategy games are usually pretty long and involved. Even as a floater, I don't scratch the surface of all the strategy gaming options out there. Then, of course, there are all the other genres out there. Now I'm wondering if there's someone like me out there with a love of strategy board games. I guess that could have been me.
While I did play some board games as a youth, I think Monopoly killed it for me. I enjoyed the game, but my big brother always insisted on being the banker. I think everyone knows what happens when your big brother is the banker. I didn't win much.
There was some gaming I could do with my brother. In the early eighties (around the time Tom Hanks was warning us of the dangers of losing touch with reality and jumping off big buildings), we started role playing. We started playing Dungeons and Dragons, Gamma World and AD&D. My brother could still enjoy his youthful power trip as the Dungeon Master, but he was smart enough to realize that he had to keep it fun for us as well. We had many adventures over several years of playing. We also tried the D&D board game, but it was so weak compared to the real thing that it never caught our imagination.
Around the same time, home computers, arcades and consoles were taking off. I got into a little of each of them. Early on there wasn't much depth, but soon things like Kampfgruppe and Phantasie were coming out. It still didn't stack up to a good D&D session, but I could see where things were head.
I really wonder where I would have ended up if we had started playing Battletech. I could really lose myself in that game. By the time I found that and Car Wars, I'd already played Doom and X-wing. I had already chosen my side. I can't say I regret it. Interactive gaming has taken me on some wonderful journeys. I've saved many worlds and even whole universes. What more can you ask from a hobby?
If my board game alter ego is out there, I'd like to meet him. I'm sure we could have some great conversations (and arguments).
Today's game is another soon to be released game. It's Nemesis of the Roman Empire (official site) by Haemimont Games AD. It's the follow up to Celtic Kings. It's another European combination of RTS and RPG. This one, however, has a historical setting pitting Carthage, Iberia, Rome and Gaul against each other. Each nation has a leader for you to follow in the single player campaign.
The engine is capable of supporting up to 5000 units in battle at once. Hero units can be hired for each side. Rituals can be performed and neutral parties must be dealt with. Of course, there are also special items and units to create your army just the way you like it. Check it out.
Jason
10 Mar 04
It's been pointed out that my rants lately have covered wide and ranging aspects of gaming, but haven't really been reminding people why this site is here. Contrary to what it may seem, this site is not here to house my philosophies on gaming. No, this site is for you.
The idea is to create a gaming community. Not a clan or a team, but a community of strategy and tactical gamers who are willing to get together and discuss those games. That's why one of the first parts of the site I put up was the forum. We needed a place where we could talk and set up games. The forum has grown steadily, but we always need more people to get it to where it's a place worth visiting on regular basis. If nothing else, I'd suggest you register and put a game or two in "Everyone's Game List" so people can challenge you.
That brings us back to real purpose of the site. I have a theory that the best way to get better at a strategy game is to discuss what you tried to do, what your opponent tried to do and see how it worked out. Winning or losing without knowing why doesn't help you get better. Replays can help, but it's not always clear why someone did this or that. If you discuss it publicly on the forums, other experienced players can chime in on how to improve your strategies.
That's the strategy side, but how does the story side fit in? Well, I'm glad you asked Mr. Rhetorical. The other realization I had was that reading these strategies was fun. It's what the academics like to call an emergent experience. You and your opponent acting through the medium of the game created a virtual battle whose story could be told. Those stories turned out to be very interesting. In fact, a well designed single player game could result in a story as well. Those stories turned out to be interesting. So this site came about as a place to collect those stories. If we had a mission statement, it'd probably be something like, "gather the people, start the battles and tell the stories." Check out our games section for more information.
So while we do have some strategy gaming news, reviews and value updates, that's not the heart of the site. If there's something you'd like to see, let me know. I'll see what I can do.
One thing I do to try to keep people coming back is to highlight a strategy game each day. I try to give a link to the official site if you want more information. Sometime I go with the big names, sometimes it's classics, sometimes it might be a bargain bin find. I try to mix it up to give people a little heads up on the options out there.
Today's game is the soon to be released expansion pack to Rise of Nations (RoN), Thrones and Patriots (official site). First a little background, RoN basically combined Age of Empires with Civilization and threw in a little Risk for fun. You start with one city in ancient times and try to build it into a thriving empire. It's all real time, but you can give orders while paused. You have things like national borders and wonders and special units for each country.
Thrones and Patriots adds six new nations, four single player campaigns, three new wonders and adds government types to the options available to players. Each government type will offer a special "patriot" unit. I particularly enjoy the fact that capitalism increases your oil income. That should make the late game interesting.
Jason
9 Mar 04
What makes a game addictive? How about a strategy game in particular. I think there are a few things that make games like Starcraft, Xcom or Silent Storm stand out. I should point out that I don't think there's some magic formula that if you follow it guarantees an addictive game. There's always some creative synergy that must go on.
1. A sense of progress. Whether progress is in the story, tech tree, unit levels or territory, the player needs a constant sense of moving forward. There's always something just around the next corner that's worth playing for. That in turn leads to something else.
2. Balance. Addictive games have the ability to turn on a moments notice. A mistake can turn things against you, but then a solid strategic move can turn them back. The game is hard without being unfair. Also if you do the exact same thing each time, you're not going to get the same results.
3. Pressure. While they may start calm, as addictive games progress the pressure mounts. Resources might start to get limited or you've expanded to where enemies are on all sides. There might even be multiple paths you want to go down, but not the time or resources. You have to make these decision often without all the information you'd like.
I think those are the key ingredients. You might want to add things like story telling, consistent world, or a memorable visual style, but I think those things are subject to the vision of the game the designer is going after.
We can hope today's game will be addictive. It's Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders (official site) by Phantagram Entertainment for the Xbox. You might remember the first KUF for the PC as an RTS similar to Warlords Battlecry. The Crusaders goes a different direction. It's more of an action strategy game.
In Crusaders, you are a hero trained in battle and war. You lead your armies personally into combat. You choose numbers and types of troops to lead. You select their equipment, train them and lead them into combat. If you and they survive, you'll gain experience and grow more powerful. It will be interesting to see how the action and strategy balance out.
Jason
8 Mar 04
AI is always a tricky issue. It's often based around the question 'how do you want it to think'? I'm not sure players take the time to really consider that. Saying things like 'I want a challenge' or 'Good, but not infallible' aren't really helpful. Even when we can program AI that does really think we haven't answered that question.
I think our best bet for a long time will be modeling AI based on selected individuals. Given the right series of tests we could have reasonable approximations of how a person would react in a certain situation. Obviously getting to the point where generalized responses were decent would be prohibitive, but that's not what we're looking for. We only want to know how the person would react in the game space. That seems much more possible and testable.
When we get to that point, who would you want? Do you want a SEAL's AI when playing a tactical combat game? Or would you rather have a professional FPS player? Or perhaps a designer of the game? A lead tester?
I remember when game developers decided to do their own voice acting. That didn't turn out well and they've gone to professionals. Would actors make better AI templates by getting into character? Perhaps it could be a new profession, AI template.
Personally, I think I'd make a better NPC than an opponent. I'm not a great game player, but I think having an approximation of me tagging along on your quest could make things interesting. Of course, I'm biased.
Since we had a game from Codemasters last time, I figured I'd stick with them for our next game. This time it's Perimeter (official site), a RTS game set in the far future. I'm kind of up in the air on this one. It's going to be a brilliant step forward, a been there done that or a huge failure. At least they're taking chances and you have to applaud that.
Perimeter is basically a land grab. You gain resources by terraforming land. You can build an impenetrable force field (kind of like a super weapon in reverse). You can even transform units on the battlefield. The units look interesting and the concept seems to offer good strategic choices, but I want to see this one in action.
Jason
© Talk Strategy 2004
