What Game Are You Currently Playing?

After a couple of years steering clear, I started another playthrough of Crusader Kings II. Weekend of nothing but playing a feudal lord and trying desperately to stop my family members marrying each other... Incestuous animals :)
 
I have a love/hate relationship with CK2.

I desperately want to like it, because I really enjoy the empire building and family intrigue and intercharacter connections... But as soon as I start a war I remember why I hate it. The combat mechanics are so shallow, so completely out of any meaningful control, that it ultimately boils down to whoever started the war with the bigger army is going to win. And that's just not entertaining for me.

I have the same problem with the Total War series but in reverse. I love the combat in the Total War series (though the original Shogun handled this best because it was the most complex without relying needlessly on micromanaging individual unit "skill buttons" and similar silliness). But the diplomacy, empire building and campaign aspect of it always seems so terribly shallow.

The Nobunaga's Ambition series that I mentioned earlier is something of a compromise between the two. It's empire building and city management aspects (especially in Ascension) are far better than anything CK2 and Total War have to offer. But it's diplomacy is still pretty shallow, and the combat mechanics are better than CK2 but not as good as Total War.

There's a spot in the market that can thread the needle between the two well, and I'd love to be a part of it, but I don't have any coding experience nor the time and financial resources to dedicate to opening an independent studio and figuring that career path out by scratch.
 
I think the problem with marrying a deep diplomatic system like Crusader Kings 2 has with an indepth battle system like Total War is that you end up with a game with two very complex areas that heavy rely on each other and yet are very deep in their own right. I think the result is that you end up with a game that, on paper, sounds great; but in reality can be too complex for many to wrap their heads around how to play and what choices to make. The result being many would lean heavily toward one aspect or the other, which would continually trip them up. The heavy diplomatic player might be able to stave off wars and such, but if they got involved they'd get smashed; whilst the heavy combat player would find themselves getting beaten down by diplomatic angles.
Total war games have fairly simple diplomacy, because the prime focus is to get into fights. Alliances and such are there to balance out the fact that you can't war with everyone at once and survive, but its not there to really win the game. I think if they made it too deep you'd run the risk of players winning games without raising armies and battling it out on the maps; which is sort of a big point of them.

My main problem with Crusader Kings 2 is that along with a combat system that I think is too watered down; I also feel like the game hasn't got a steady pace to it. I find that you're either endlessly waiting for something to happen if the speed is too slow; or suddenly everything is happening too fast if you speed things up. Try as I have I can never find a point at which the game feels "fun" to me; and yet every review and opinion I read of it makes it sound SO much fun.
I often think I'd enjoy it better if it were turnbased instead of realtime.

Personally I've got hopes on Knights of Honour 2 and hope it keeps its edge that the first game had, whilst also being quite relaxing to play compared to some other 4* games. It's still one of the few that actually makes a big empire harder and harder to run as you get bigger; capping your armies and creating rebellions and such - you can easily end up losing whole segments of your kingdom if you get too big. Though against the AI two vs one armies (you send in two) tends to be a bit of a broken trick to expanding pretty fast and reliably.
 
@etaylor @Overread

I know what you both mean (and the reasons I've stayed away for the last few years).

I actually prefer the combat in CK2 to that of EU4 (which overall is a much better game). It's a lot less about min-maxing and rolling that impossibly high stat general to counter the AIs. I also appreciate the smaller scale of the wars. It's much more of a relationship management game that while I do play as a map painter, can be just as much fun as a vassal for some AI, where all you have to worry about are said incestuous sisters and the odd assassination attempt. You can also turn against your lord with fun little faction mechanics and plotting etc.

At this point in the game I'm a little out of control as I've been hoarding my dynasty and taking massive prestige hits to bring in husbands for the women rather than sending them away. It's a staggering family tree full of the best traits I could scrabble together... and yes that makes a medieval eugenicist. It's not without it's flaws though, I have a least one branch that are ugly clubfooted imbeciles, but at least they make compliant vassals... well not compliant so much as incapable of successfully plotting against me :) Unfortunately it leaves me constantly busy with micromanagement and hardly any time to declare my random acts of warfare on neighbouring states.

Another problem is that after a generation or two, you start acting less like a person and more like an evil mastermind who will murder your own son to put the better traited twin on the throne after you die... I mean comeon... strong, tall, and quick vs dim and ugly. No contest... :(

-

All that said there is a turn based sci-fi game in development that seems very similar except that you get only so many 'moves' per turn and then you watch as your advisors and whatnot play out your plans (to mimic you not being an omnipotent overlord). I can't recall the name of it right now but if I come across it again I will be bookmarking the page.
 
@Overread @.matthew.

Have either of you tried the new Imperator: Rome? It's something of a fast paced blobfest but it's entertaining.

Also, I had no idea a Knights of Honor 2 was in the works. I loved that game.

I think my favorite old PC strategy games would have to be Lords of the Realm 2 and the original Shogun Total War.
 
@etaylor

Not tried it, was going to give it a go on that free week but after that disastrous release that got completely slated I figured I'd give it a year or two to become a full game. I've still not started on Hearts of Iron 4 either :)

I do like Stellaris. The equal starts and exploration early game is fun, but as with all Paradox titles I've given up on dlc at this point. Even on sale they don't seem worth the money anymore. I also like the battle cinematics.

The best thing about their games, and honestly the only thing that keeps me playing them is mods. There are so many, and it's super easy to tweak the game to how you like it if there isn't a mod to do what you want. Oh so many mods.

-

I bounce off Total Wars even though I have most. The strategy layer gets dull and overly finicky (building certain troops only in certain provinces for the massive bonuses you get there) and constantly upgrading every region. Then the battles are just not good anymore. I remember Med2 and Empire were really fun, but since then it's just been stupidity (and looking back there was definite stupidity in those as well). I played half a game of Shogun 2 last month, and took every other province with armies of 80% archers who just shot over the walls and killed everyone as they lined up to replace the troops I'd just killed in that exact spot... They make pretty games but the AI just sucks on every level.
 
@.matthew. Oh the Total War AI is absolutely pitiful. And they try to make it more challenging by just letting the AI cheat with boosted stats and income without actually making it any smarter. It's a cop-out method that always falls flat.

But, like you said, dang is it pretty. Lol.

Something happened in their development team on the strategic level though around the development of Rome 2 where they just got flatout stupid. The building aspect of the game got so pointlessly convoluted and just...silly. they would have been better off staying with the way things were before.

And I pretend Rome 2, Attilla, and at least one other I can't remember don't even exist because the battles were just so...awful.
 
@etaylor

It's why I prefer the Paradox ones that have that deeper strategy element and diplomacy that feels meaningful. Even if the fighting is awful.

I have, and I do like them, but not for long. The scripted stories are fantastic, until you've seen how they play out, then it just feels a bit empty to me. At least with Endless Space 2 (can't recall the others at the moment) the AI is possibly worse that Total War's though.

I had one game where I was B, A and C empires on either side of me. A on contact proposed an immediate alliance, so sure why not. C at some point decides to declare war on A (through my space) and even though I had only 1 main manufacture world and a fleet a third of their size, they warped right over me to reach A. I had a dozen turns to become the sleeping bear and began attacking their planets. Their response... continue to slowly annex A and reinforce their fleets over there, while I'm seiging their capital...

That same game, not a single AI did anything other than scout ship the story locations you have to seize so I won those eventually having to travel like 20 turns to reach some of them.

And not forgetting the constant "Do you want a research agreement?" spam from my ally... EVERY TURN... which wouldn't be so bad but the whole aesthetic of the game is that swishy polished thing that makes the notifications pop up with no way to dismiss beforehand, meaning I had to hear the opening few words of their greeting message about 60 times, for something I didn't want and couldn't afford to maintain. Grrrrr.

Very pretty games but I think they went overboard on the tech tree (even though I love the idea of teching up specific trees to unlock wonders and stuff. Plus the AI sucks as much as Total War (seems they were built more for multiplayer).

Edit: Oh, and the battles are terrible. I wish there was a way to make them more interactive, like giving you a choice of tactics per stage instead of only pre fight. Maybe letting you actually choose a formation as well.
 
@.matthew.

That's actually a really good descriptor for those games. It's also why I don't play them single player. They're interesting when you play multiplayer against actual people. But yeah, the AI is a bit dull.
 
Have you tried the TW WArhammer games? The AI in those is far more aggressive than regular TW games where the AI tends to get a bit fixated on drawing up rank and file and letting you come to it. In the Warhammer its far more eager to come to you.

They also reduced map sizes, which sounds bad, but in reality it makes for a more engaging battle experience I find. You've still got room to wheel and turn and flank and rear attack; just now it happens without the 5 min wait for things to get into position. Same for Sieges - the maps are much smaller but you get a lot more combat on the walls and far less of the "chase the AI around the castle" experience.
 
Yes, warhammer 1 anyway, not played 2 as I'm assuming it'll pop up in the humble monthly at some point. I know what you mean though, I think they took the decision weighting from Shogun 2 after the realm divide where everything just goes ballistic. The are some really good siege map mods available as well (that makes the city battles a lot more lifelike and epic).
 
I have played both of the warhammers. And they probably were my favorites of the recent releases. But something happened with my game and now no matter what I do (delete, reinstall, direct x update, etc) it crashes on startup and I can't play them. :-(

I really liked them though. Even the building trees seemed less goofy and senseless than the historical releases lately. Still thought it was silly that they restricted the number of buildings in a settlement though.

But ultimately those were great games.

Undead for life! ...wait...lol. you know what I mean.
 
They did steadily allow at least starting settlements to build more of the tree, I recall early in Warhammer 1 many of the core cities were very very restricted. I think its a neat idea because its trying to get you to use your whole empire rather than just a single power-core of one powerful settlement.

Etaylor I hope you can get it to work - have you asked on their TW Access forums in the support bit (you also get some free stuff if you've not got a TW access account - a whole load of regiments of renowned for some of the Warhammer 1 factions). Posting something like your DxDiag (google it if you don't know how to get it - its really simple) and details of your install and what happens and hopefully someone can give you the help to get it running again.
 
@Overread I haven't gone through the effort of reaching out to their support team yet. Im waiting on getting a gaming laptop because sitting in front of my PC is just not practical at the moment for real life reasons. But a gaming laptop I can manage.
 
@etaylor ahh I'm sorry to hear that, but good luck with your gaming laptop. Do some good research on it though and ask around on the steam forums and game forums for games you play before you buy for some good models to look at within your price range. Laptops are funny things for games at times and what might appear powerful enough on paper might have a mobile graphics card with some niche issues.
 
Very true - though if you can run a modern TW game like Warhammer 1 or 2 then you're doing really well since big RTS games tend to be one of the most demanding things. Supreme Commander and Ashes of Singularity are another two big RTS style games that can grind PCs to a sluggish halt very easily.
 
I'm lucky in that I've got a pretty beefy rig (even if it is a few years old now). Never has any problems with anything. Except Stellaris after they introduced that population rework and the game has to calculate stuff for every one of them :/
 
My PC is probably close to 4 years old, and it was probably an 8/10 when I bought it. So today it's hovering somewhere around mid tier. Except for Warhammer TW, which inexplicably crashes, I can run anything I want on it, but that doesn't mean it's going to be running at full steam so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Elckerlyc Game of Thrones Movie in the Making? General Film Discussion 1
B How is it That Games of Thrones Is As Popular As It is With Its Cast Of Less Than Heroic Characters that Populate The Seven Kingdoms and Beyond ? George R R Martin 34
B Books that Would Make Really Horrible RPG Computer Games Game Discussions 5
Foxbat The USA's First Boardgame? Game Discussions 0
Vladd67 Is this the game for us? Game Discussions 2

Similar threads


Back
Top