OT: Recommendations?

[Taqwus]

Originally posted by Kel:
King Of Dragon Pass

Don't recall a URL but it is probably the most *unique* style of game I have ever seen and addictive at the same time.

Not MP but an amazingly fun and unique SP game.

- Kel

Definitely. It's a weird cross between a role-playing game and a strategy game, without the usual micromanagement. In fact, being able to only initiate two major actions a turn prevents being bogged down in micromanagement...

Production company is A-Sharp, URL is http://www.a-sharp.com/kodp.

And remember to think like an Orlanthi, instead of min-maxing or adhering too much to modern sensibilities.

[fahdiz]

Thanks again to everybody who posted! You folks are fantastic.

I've actually read a bit about Europa Universalis 2 (I like a lot of the things Strategy First publishes, especially Kohan and Disciples II - while neither game is especially deep, they are intensely entertaining ) and I've been itching to try it. Now I'll have to break down and do it.

Steep learning curves are not a deterrent to me. I actually love them, because I feel a sense of accomplishment when I finally learn to do something useful.

[ March 10, 2004, 02:02: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

[Saber Cherry]

Stars!: http://www.crisium.com/stars/index.html

Originally posted by fahdiz:
2) I don't have a Playstation.

No problem. I bought one just so I could play Xenogears, and consider it a good bargain. PS's are cheaper now, too...

For reference, I didn't like Europa Universalis II (I was so disappointed after all the build-up). In the RTS genre, I consider Kohan (which you've played) much better. And Total Annihilation is still, IMO, the best RTS ever (especially multiplayer). If you enjoyed Kohan you should give it a spin... or Warlords Battlecry II, which is a more traditional RTS than TA or Kohan.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by fahdiz:
I've actually read a bit about Europa Universalis 2 (I like a lot of the things Strategy First publishes, especially Kohan and Disciples II - while neither game is especially deep, they are intensely entertaining ) and I've been itching to try it. Now I'll have to break down and do it.

EU2 should be available in the bargain bin, so try not to pay full price for it. Also be sure to check out the official EU2 forum *before* you play the game. Fair warning (and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Paradox fanbois here) but EU2 is still, after seven patches, buggier than Dom 2 (some of the bugs are quite serious), and has a weaker AI than Dom. The game is very educational, if you're into history (I recommend buying a copy of EU1, for ~$6 in bargain bins, just for the excellent manual it has), but EU2 has a very weak and seriously-flawed AI if you're expecting any sort of challenge from the game.

A better Paradox game would be HOI with the latest CORE mod. HOI still has some fundamental AI flaws that are ingrained in the engine that no amount of modding has been able to fix, but HOI plays more "intelligently" than EU2 by far. The EU2 AI makes a lot of bad decisions (some truly stupendously stupid), and it's simply too easy to win against it.

Okay, Bosse, have at me ...

[ March 10, 2004, 02:12: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
For reference, I didn't like Europa Universalis II (I was so disappointed after all the build-up). In the RTS genre, I consider Kohan (which you've played) much better. And Total Annihilation is still, IMO, the best RTS ever (especially multiplayer). If you enjoyed Kohan you should give it a spin... or Warlords Battlecry II, which is a more traditional RTS than TA or Kohan.

I love Kohan. Love it, love it, love it. One of my favorite RTSes - I enjoy it more than I did Total Annihilation. (Heresy, I know.) I can't wait for Kings of War.

I have and frequently play Warlords BC II. It's great! Unfortunately Warlords IV was a real letdown, coming off the greatness of Warlords III and then going years ahead to...IV. Hardly the update many thought it would be.

As far as realtime goes, in addition to Kohan, WBC II, Homeworld, and Age of Mythology, I'm somewhat a fan of the (now slightly long in the tooth) Majesty. I also really liked (and still play, on occasion) Sacrifice.

[ March 10, 2004, 02:51: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by Arryn:
EU2 should be available in the bargain bin, so try not to pay full price for it.

I try *never* to pay full price unless there are no other options. I am a Bargain Bin Hunter of the Third Degree.

Thanks for your comments on the AI...I sure wish there was a demo available, so that I could see for myself.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by fahdiz:
One of my favorite RTSes - I enjoy it more than I did Total Annihilation. (Heresy, I know.) I can't wait for Kings of War.

Heretic! Witch! BURN HIM! BURN HIM!

[Bossemanden]

Originally posted by Arryn:
EU2 should be available in the bargain bin, so try not to pay full price for it. Also be sure to check out the official EU2 forum *before* you play the game. Fair warning (and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Paradox fanbois here) but EU2 is still, after seven patches, buggier than Dom 2 (some of the bugs are quite serious), and has a weaker AI than Dom. The game is very educational, if you're into history (I recommend buying a copy of EU1, for ~$6 in bargain bins, just for the excellent manual it has), but EU2 has a very weak and seriously-flawed AI if you're expecting any sort of challenge from the game.

A better Paradox game would be HOI with the latest CORE mod. HOI still has some fundamental AI flaws that are ingrained in the engine that no amount of modding has been able to fix, but HOI plays more "intelligently" than EU2 by far. The EU2 AI makes a lot of bad decisions (some truly stupendously stupid), and it's simply too easy to win against it.

Okay, Bosse, have at me ...

Heh . I think that you are partially right in your criticism, but only partially. IMO the buggyness of EU2 is comparable to Dom2, though the Paradox crew has had a lot longer to fix it.

Comparing the AI for Dom2 and EU2 strikes me as unfair. Dom2 deals with disrcrete situations, that can be allowed to take unlimited calculation time. EU2 deals with fluid "real time" situations, in which limited calculation resources are available.
In HOI as in EU2 or Vicky the best results are often achieved by exploiting the fluidness of the situation (That is attacking where the enemy is weak). Often my feeling is that Im dealing with a somewhat slow human, that sometimes doesnt understand the "rules" too well.
In Dom2 you can with a high degree of probability determine beforehand where the AI will attack.
It is my belief that the Dom2 AI is much weaker than possibly the EU2 one and certainly the HOI and Vicky AI´s. What makes the Dom2 AI adequate is the simpler overall picture (turnbased vs. real time mainly) and the unlimited computing time.
On the other hand I will agree that the EU2 AI habit of stacking troops up in heaps and heaps when sieging forts is a big weakness.

In the end I see the strengths as more important and the weaknesses as less important than you do. The weaknesses are there to be sure, but there is a difference in viewpoint.

So no Im not gonna chew you out, but my conclusions differ

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Bossemanden:
IMO the buggyness of EU2 is comparable to Dom2, though the Paradox crew has had a lot longer to fix it.

Strategy First is much more interested in milking the EU engine for all the mileage they can get out of it than in having Paradox put out quality products, and/or address the fundamental bugs the engine has had for many years now. (On Sunday I was in a local Ebgames store and saw yet another, new, EU-engine game by Paradox, dealing with just France and England.) Strategy First/Paradox is to strategy gaming as Hasbro/WotC/TSR is to pen & paper gaming.

Comparing the AI for Dom2 and EU2 strikes me as unfair. Dom2 deals with disrcrete situations, that can be allowed to take unlimited calculation time. EU2 deals with fluid "real time" situations, in which limited calculation resources are available.
{snip}
What makes the Dom2 AI adequate is the simpler overall picture (turnbased vs. real time mainly) and the unlimited computing time.
On the other hand I will agree that the EU2 AI habit of stacking troops up in heaps and heaps when sieging forts is a big weakness.

We've debated this before and the time-slice argument simply does not hold water. If you slow down the time passage rate of EU/EU2/HOI to the slowest setting, which gives the AI plenty of time to think, it doesn't play any better than it does at normal or faster "turn" speeds. And EU2/HOI has no more provinces to deal with than Dom2 does when using very large maps. Couple with the fact that Dom2 has more complex unit interactions than EU2 does. Only HOI can approach the complexity of Dom2 unit interactions. And the HOI AI, while having more "work" to do each "turn", doesn't play "worse" than EU2, which is a simpler model. So explanations such as time available or model complexity simply do not wash for EU2. The EU-engine games simply suffer from an AI with weak internal algorithms, and no amount of excuses can alter that fact. The Dom2 engine isn't better because it has a "simpler" model. It's better because it's been coded to be better. It manages resources better, it evaluates the strategic situation better, and conducts combat better than Paradox's AI does in comparable circumstances (and yes, you can rig up comparable situations, despite EU-engined games being continuous-time).

Even more annoying in EU is not the brain-dead overstacking but the "mouse that roared" syndrome when some piddly little country will suddenly, for no discernable reason, declare war on a "superpower". I see this in Victoria too.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Arryn:
We've debated this before and the time-slice argument simply does not hold water. If you slow down the time passage rate of EU/EU2/HOI to the slowest setting, which gives the AI plenty of time to think, it doesn't play any better than it does at normal or faster "turn" speeds.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point.

As you probably well know, very few game AIs are written to scale their computing to the actual processor time on the target machine. Apart from the considerable efforts involved, it would lead to the AI playing differently on different computers. This is not desirable from a support point of view.

Rather, they are written such that certain algorithms are processed in a time frame that will likely not cause slow-down on the target machine at the default speed level. It is exactly the same AI algorithms that are executed whether you run slower or faster, but if your computer is below recommended specifications [or if there are particularly many units active, each having to be handled], going slower will make for a more fluid game, and likewise going faster will likely result in a more choppy game performance.

An alternative adaptive routine that adjusts to processing power is seldom used elsewhere than pathfinding (where extra nodes may not be necessary, but may present smoother movement, thus not affecting the overall game logic) or the graphics presentation.

When writing something to run in perceived real time, processing power is ALWAYS at a premium. It is simply not an option to rewrite your core algorithms to take longer time, if you are already pushing the envelope on your target machine. Otherwise you will make the game run choppy for the target customer, and that is not a smart thing to do. Writing some smarter code, yes, that can perhaps be done, but only if you do not significantly increase the number of CPU cycles it takes to compute.

And what makes this different from turn based games, then? Only one thing: the processor time that can actually be allocated to making decisions is typically larger in turn based games and, even better, TBS's typically do not have to devote a large amount of resources to graphics while doing their AI computations.