What Are you Playing 7: Deadly Sims

[warty goblin]

Gladius is apparently a reasonable budget Civ-in-Warhammer-40k clothing.

Age of Wonders Planetfall is Civ-ish in terms of city building but has more fighty stuff.

Gladius looks like a Civ type game, but it really isn't. It's a turn-based RTS. Cities are just RTS bases, complete with each building having its own production queue, and the game is entirely about fighting. There's no diplomacy, just murdering everything. Thematically appropriate!

Gladius is also excellent. You should play it.

I'm not really sure what genre Planetfall is. It's definitely a strategy game, but not a Civ type, or it isn't really a tactics game, or an RPG either. What it is is really complicated, and full of oddly cool and slightly weird sci-fi stuff. Play as bugs and eat people today!

[Taevyr]

If my logistics is maxed out at 5 ( the max pre-act 4, iirc), does building more 'waste' the xp it would generate?

Don't think so: If I'm not mistaken it carries over to later acts. I'd have to look it up to be certain, but I seem to remember being able to almost instantly finish up the diplomacy councils when late-game came knocking due to carry-over exp.

[The Glyphstone]

Good to know, thanks.

[Rynjin]

It helps that the game, in a move that can only be described as good game design, put a rest point right outside the boss room. No five minute hike through dumb weak enemies, just respawn and go.

Probably the second most welcome change in Elden Ring, next to the jump button.

The other thing that Thymesia does, which took a minute for me to notice, is ditch the gooddamn stamina meter. Thank you game developers, I hate the stamina meter. I really cannot express how little I want to interrupt what is supposed to be a thrilling fantasy sword fight to stare at a tiny little Nope bar in some obscure corner of the screen.

The lack of a stamina bar is what made me scratch my head at people calling it a "Soulslike". Lacking a stamina bar makes it a straight character action game, akin to God of War, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc. That's really the main thing separating the Soulsbornering franchise from other character action games: resource management.

It did look neat though, what I saw of it a while back. The health regain "plague" mechanic seemed really interesting, but the animations looked clunky. Reminded me of Darksiders in that way.

[Anonymouswizard]

Eyes have healed enough that I can read for a couple of hours, so I've been playing a bit of Shadowrun Hong Kong.

I really wouldn't mind full voice acting, but yeah this is what I want out of an RPG at the moment. Rolled up an ork mage called Sparkles, and it's nice to just spend a lot of time talking to people. It's also nice not to have to worry about romance options, and to have solid if plain turn based combat. It's certainly a worthy successor to Dragonfall, even if not as entertaining.

I also really like that orks are now tall and relatively lean. It really helps visually differentiate them from trolls, and it feels like they've got better posture.

It's making want to run an actual Shadowrun campaign, although maybe not with the actual rules.

[Rynjin]

Yeah. I love the Shadowrun setting, but the rules are pretty off-putting. Though that's mostly because of the ENDLESS GEAR TABLES, the rules themselves for resolution etc. seemed pretty intuitive the one time I tried to make a Shadowrun character, but my dumb ass chose to make a Rigger as my first character and it was...just so much to take in, I had to withdraw from the game.

[warty goblin]

The lack of a stamina bar is what made me scratch my head at people calling it a "Soulslike". Lacking a stamina bar makes it a straight character action game, akin to God of War, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc. That's really the main thing separating the Soulsbornering franchise from other character action games: resource management.

It does have limited healing, saves that respawn enemies, and that thing where you drop all your XP when you die, so it's got like 80% of the standard Soulsalike kit of features. Most of which bug me, but the lack of the stamina bar, faster animation, and what feels like some degree of animation canceling improves combat immensely. I actually feel like a skilled swordsman with magic, not a bungling incompetent.

It did look neat though, what I saw of it a while back. The health regain "plague" mechanic seemed really interesting, but the animations looked clunky. Reminded me of Darksiders in that way.

It doesn't look the smoothest maybe, but it feels very smooth to play. It's roughly the sort of third person action game I really like.

[WritersBlock]

I played both the Snes and the Genesis/Megadrive versions of Shadowrun not that long ago. Both are great in their own completely different ways. The latter does follow the rules a little bit closer than the former and has an extremely high tier character from the setting making an appearance going for it.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah. I love the Shadowrun setting, but the rules are pretty off-putting. Though that's mostly because of the ENDLESS GEAR TABLES, the rules themselves for resolution etc. seemed pretty intuitive the one time I tried to make a Shadowrun character, but my dumb ass chose to make a Rigger as my first character and it was...just so much to take in, I had to withdraw from the game.

I find that Anarchy is better for that reason, although it has the annoyance of having Plot Points as well as Edge. It also doesn't have reaction enhancers as the be-all and end-all of combat. But honestly I'd still rather run it in Modern AGE or the like.

Like, I just can't deal with eight different augmentation tables these days. Even having to buy starting equipment is annoying.

[Cespenar]

Tabletop systems really need to have a redux version for people who already have fulltime jobs and just want to enjoy the worldbuilding, setting and atmosphere.

Go crazy in the CRPGs, fine, but when I'm crossreferencing tables after a certain age just to be able to start playing a game, I'd rather do some actual work and get paid.

Also, easier entrance = more people getting their feet wet = better things for the system and all that, but never mind.

[LibraryOgre]

It's making want to run an actual Shadowrun campaign, although maybe not with the actual rules.

Did I mention I have a Shadowrun Savage Worlds hack recently?

[Alcore]

Anyone have suggestions for a Civ-like game? I play and like GalCiv, but sometimes I want to climb a mundane tech tree and build an empire. Civ, however, often strikes me wrong... the insistence on using the BC/AD calendar, and the juxtaposition of historical rulers ("In 500 BC, Catherine of Aragon conquered Ghandi in the name of Islam" breaks my brain) just rubs me the wrong way.

Endless Legend.


It leans heavily into fantasy. Each race has their gimik (the Vaulters are the most 4X civ) and I am presently playing the Cultists of the Eternal End. They can have only one city but the eventual population of that city can dwarf whole empires on smaller maps.

I have been spending the last hour keeping one of my converted villages mine in the west. The Vaulters annoyed me enough to war on them for a bit resulting in a no man's land but the Roving Clans keep bitting. I wasn't ready before but now? I don't think I'll stop when they cry. My north is reasonably secured by the Silics (who number 5 and counting) and my south ends in an ocean but I do need to send a preacher down to collect the remainder of the demon villages.

Soon the slaves will be gathered... I just need an extra hero to lead them.

[AlanBruce]

I recently got my hands on Tormented Souls. Developed by a small studio, it pays homage to old school survival horrir games like Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil & Silent Hill.

It has fixed camera angles and tank controls. The details into the environments is astounding, which cannot be said for the protagonist. Still, it encapsulates the survival horror feeling rather well. And the myriad of puzzles keep you guessing for a good while.

[Anteros]

Endless Legend.


It leans heavily into fantasy. Each race has their gimik (the Vaulters are the most 4X civ) and I am presently playing the Cultists of the Eternal End. They can have only one city but the eventual population of that city can dwarf whole empires on smaller maps.

I have been spending the last hour keeping one of my converted villages mine in the west. The Vaulters annoyed me enough to war on them for a bit resulting in a no man's land but the Roving Clans keep bitting. I wasn't ready before but now? I don't think I'll stop when they cry. My north is reasonably secured by the Silics (who number 5 and counting) and my south ends in an ocean but I do need to send a preacher down to collect the remainder of the demon villages.

Soon the slaves will be gathered... I just need an extra hero to lead them.

Endless legend looks decent, but the ridiculous number of DLCs they've sold has always stopped me. I can't justify over 100 dollars on a single game, even if I can afford it.

I do need to say thanks for the RTS suggestions. I haven't gotten around to trying them yet, but hopefully I'll have some time to do so soon.

[Rynjin]

Endless legend looks decent, but the ridiculous number of DLCs they've sold has always stopped me. I can't justify over 100 dollars on a single game, even if I can afford it.

I do need to say thanks for the RTS suggestions. I haven't gotten around to trying them yet, but hopefully I'll have some time to do so soon.

You don't really need all the DLCs to play, and I think it's well worth picking up without them. Easily my favorite 4X game of all time. It's $30 for ENDLESS hours of entertainment!

The main thing some DLCs add is new factions, and the only two that add new universal mechanics are The Forgotten (which add espionage mechanics) and Morgawr (which overhauls seafaring). Others are much more minor mechanical shifts. So adding those two, it's still under $60.

[Alcore]

Endless legend looks decent, but the ridiculous number of DLCs they've sold has always stopped me. I can't justify over 100 dollars on a single game, even if I can afford it.

I do need to say thanks for the RTS suggestions. I haven't gotten around to trying them yet, but hopefully I'll have some time to do so soon.

I do not have all the dlc. I only pay what I think a game is worth. It was for sale so I gambled and knew a dozen hours in that I underpaid.


Try it (it's just 30 for the base game, I think?)


When finances permit I think I'll pay full price for the water themed dlc. The seas are underused.

[MCerberus]

Wood elf apocalypse armies have bonus ammo.
Lord Croak has like 75% missile resist and they just... melted him back dead. Then they turned on my poor, defenseless t-rexes.

The dwarves were right, should have never trusted the damn pointy-ears.

[Anteros]

On the topic of 4x games...can anyone explain to me the purpose of economic buildings in Total War games? They seem completely useless.

Example: The kislev storehouse. At the base level it gives you 100 gold per turn. There's 5 upgrade levels, and at max level it gives you 500 gold per turn. In order to achieve this you need to invest a whopping 18,000 gold. Factoring in building time, you're looking at something like 45 turns for the building to pay for itself in an absolute best case scenario where you can upgrade to maximum immediately. More realistically you're looking at something like 70ish turns for the building to pay for itself. In a game where the typical map length is 100ish. Why does anyone ever build these? You could have invested that 18k into your army and snowballed the whole game into a win instead of upgrading one building. Outside of rare exceptions, building economic buildings almost always seems like a massive trap. I don't know if it's just badly designed, intentional in order to discourage turtle strats, or I'm missing something but it seems completely nonsensical.

This was just a random example, but it's something I've noticed across various Total War games.

[MCerberus]

Generally you're going to want to put economic buildings in regions that you can work multipliers into. Also the lower level buildings are generally more efficient. So you're playing dwarves and have a region with a gem mine. That's good money, but you put a storehouse in that region and you get extra money... and oathgold! and you can trade the gems for more to other factions. And since you have a multiplier running, might was well put an industry building in the region. And when it comes time to make big investments, make sure you always have construction cost reduction.

Or a different example, say you're playing orcs.
The orc buildings have really bad RoI for passive income. Don't build them. But there is a building that increases battle, sacking, and raiding loot. And it stacks.
So you build that and get to crumping.

Kislev is just generally poor and the regions they give it don't have much cash opportunity, so you end up barely able to afford your doom stack of bears, even though you have the lord that gives you 50% upkeep reduction. I don't like Kislev, they make it hard to field their fun units. Like the ice bears, the guns pulled by bears, and the bear sleds. However, there seems to be a gold mine region with 4 settlements just down south and nobody would mind if something... happened to the vampire counts.

[Anteros]

Right. The lower tier buildings are more economical, only taking 10 or so turns to pay for themselves. It just makes me wonder why these awful buildings even exist though except perhaps as a trap for people who are bad at math. I'm the type of player that typically enjoys building up a base even though I know offensive strategies are far more effective, but these options are so terrible I can't even justify them.

I mean, it's nice when you capture a town from the AI and they've built one for you I suppose, but I can't see why anyone would ever want to build one in the first place. I'd like it better if the economy actually made sense and gave the player meaningful choices is all.

[Resileaf]

Personally I find that even if the return on investment isn't that good, the extra gold per turn is still necessary to increase how much upkeep you can pay every turn. Sometimes you have downtime in your conquests, or your faction isn't focused on raiding and destroying enemy cities or even gets penalties from doing so (Bretonnia), so building up your economy will be most of what you can do for the moment.

[Anteros]

Personally I find that even if the return on investment isn't that good, the extra gold per turn is still necessary to increase how much upkeep you can pay every turn. Sometimes you have downtime in your conquests, or your faction isn't focused on raiding and destroying enemy cities or even gets penalties from doing so (Bretonnia), so building up your economy will be most of what you can do for the moment.

I've seen this argument before, and maybe there's something I don't understand...but it seems to me that if the building hasn't even paid for your initial investment to build it then the extra income isn't actually helping you at all. Like, sure 500 gold a turn is nice for paying upkeep, and it's nice to have a surplus instead of a deficit...but it cost you 18k to get there that you would have otherwise banked that you could have also used to pay upkeep...not to mention giving you an enormous power spike to go take other towns and take their money.

Again, I'm not talking about the lower tier buildings that are actually somewhat efficient. I'm talking about the awful ones that take 50+ turns to repay your investment. They're just never worth it unless you can absolutely guarantee you won't get attacked while you recoup your losses.

[Resileaf]

Again, I'm not talking about the lower tier buildings that are actually somewhat efficient. I'm talking about the awful ones that take 50+ turns to repay your investment. They're just never worth it unless you can absolutely guarantee you won't get attacked while you recoup your losses.

If the campaign lasts more than 50 turns after that point, it has paid for itself.

[GloatingSwine]

I've seen this argument before, and maybe there's something I don't understand...but it seems to me that if the building hasn't even paid for your initial investment to build it then the extra income isn't actually helping you at all. Like, sure 500 gold a turn is nice for paying upkeep, and it's nice to have a surplus instead of a deficit...but it cost you 18k to get there that you would have otherwise banked that you could have also used to pay upkeep...not to mention giving you an enormous power spike to go take other towns and take their money.

Again, I'm not talking about the lower tier buildings that are actually somewhat efficient. I'm talking about the awful ones that take 50+ turns to repay your investment. They're just never worth it unless you can absolutely guarantee you won't get attacked while you recoup your losses.

Armies are less reliable than background income from buildings.

The cost of armies doesn't scale linearly, every army you recruit makes all your armies more expensive to upkeep, and for almost all factions even if an army has a good battle every turn it won't make its own upkeep back. That means that if you just try to run an economy entirely off of armies without something backing them you need to be a faction that either makes an incredibly large amount of money from battles and sacking settlements or one that can greatly reduce its upkeep and operate with very few armies.

That means that the value of raising another army and sending it to go out and get loot is extremely dependent on who you are playing as, who you are nearby, and whether you can guarantee a consistent stream of high value targets.

Also, armies have relatively high spin-up costs because you have limited slots for recruitment, which means that when you do start a new army it will sit there being a giant upkeep sink for several turns before it has even had its first fight.

That means that it is generally better to operate with only as many armies as you can keep active at all times (either having a fight or going to a fight every turn), and use the rest of your income to get more stable income by constructing economic buildings.

[Rodin]

Started up my first Elden Ring Randomizer run. Items randomized but with key items still in "important locations", all regular enemies randomized equally and all bosses randomized within the same category (major, minor, and mini).

So far it's been the most fun I've had with a randomizer. The Dark Souls 1 randomizer had more than a little jank in it and you could get utterly screwed by RNG placing an unbeatable boss in a mandatory early location (like getting Gwyn on the Taurus Demon bridge) . It also didn't have level scaling and the item pool was small enough to pretty much guarantee some OP items early.

Elden Ring has been much more balanced. There's quite a few bosses I can't beat because the solo boss was replaced by a dual or even triple boss, but the great thing is that I can just search elsewhere! The level scaling is also a godsend. It has been interesting to see that non-boss minibosses (like Crucible Knights) are still way stronger than everything else and some enemies benefit greatly from being put on an even keel with everything else. Bears (not runebears, bear bears) are actually surprisingly dangerous, especially if you meet one in a dark cave.

The only bit of OP luck I've had so far is getting the Elden Beast's soul off a random enemy. I debated not using it, but then I found out that Margrit's position is being filled by Malenia. Chugged those souls right away after I learned that, I'm going to need as many levels as I can get if I want to have a chance of getting Stormveil Castle's juicy piles of loot.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well I nearly got the elders arrested, but I was missing one freaking piece of evidence. So it became a choice of killing them or killing Gaichu.

I did at least subdue Porter Lambecause evidence suggests he wasn't involved

Suffice to say that my team has a new member. He might be as amoral as Ratcer, but out of the two sides he's the one who demonstrated a sense of honour by agreeing to try to talk it out. Plus while I might have put Koseci on the melee track I'd rather have a dedicated melee character in the team.

So my standard loadout looks to be:
-Main character: ranged DPR, debuffs, Academic and Shadowrunner etiquettes.
-Duncan: AP damage, occasional full auto bursts
-Gaichu: melee DPR
-Is0bel: matrix stuff

Ratcer night sub in for Gaichu if it feels the run fits him better, and while Gobbet's support spells would be useful I just kind of can't fit her into the team (maybe if I'd started giving Duncan lethal skills).

Also visiting Crafty Wu after every mission. Partially to see if there's new spells I can nab, partially to see if I'm wrong and the Devs snuck in romance options. Going to have to buff my INT a bit to get some of the good stuff, but that's not inherently a bad thing.

[Rynjin]

Started up my first Elden Ring Randomizer run. Items randomized but with key items still in "important locations", all regular enemies randomized equally and all bosses randomized within the same category (major, minor, and mini).

So far it's been the most fun I've had with a randomizer. The Dark Souls 1 randomizer had more than a little jank in it and you could get utterly screwed by RNG placing an unbeatable boss in a mandatory early location (like getting Gwyn on the Taurus Demon bridge) . It also didn't have level scaling and the item pool was small enough to pretty much guarantee some OP items early.

Elden Ring has been much more balanced. There's quite a few bosses I can't beat because the solo boss was replaced by a dual or even triple boss, but the great thing is that I can just search elsewhere! The level scaling is also a godsend. It has been interesting to see that non-boss minibosses (like Crucible Knights) are still way stronger than everything else and some enemies benefit greatly from being put on an even keel with everything else. Bears (not runebears, bear bears) are actually surprisingly dangerous, especially if you meet one in a dark cave.

The only bit of OP luck I've had so far is getting the Elden Beast's soul off a random enemy. I debated not using it, but then I found out that Margrit's position is being filled by Malenia. Chugged those souls right away after I learned that, I'm going to need as many levels as I can get if I want to have a chance of getting Stormveil Castle's juicy piles of loot.

I've been having fun with a co-op Randomizer run as well. I love how customizable this one is so you can cut down on some of the BS usually inherent in Randomizers, like getting randomly softlocked or enemies not being scaled.

Lobsters are still awful in Limgrave but at least they're not literally unstoppable because they're using Leyndell Sewers level values.

That didn't stop me from getting my ass kicked by the tutorial boss: Crucible Knight Ordovis of Godrick (and his brother Crucible Knight of Godrick), but still.

[Rodin]

I've been having fun with a co-op Randomizer run as well. I love how customizable this one is so you can cut down on some of the BS usually inherent in Randomizers, like getting randomly softlocked or enemies not being scaled.

Lobsters are still awful in Limgrave but at least they're not literally unstoppable because they're using Leyndell Sewers level values.

That didn't stop me from getting my ass kicked by the tutorial boss: Crucible Knight Ordovis of Godrick (and his brother Crucible Knight of Godrick), but still.

I had to re-roll my starting character because I hadn't reckoned on the tutorial boss. Godskin Apostle of Godrick stomped my face when I strolled in there with only a Cinqueda. Since I had rested at the tutorial Grace and hadn't unlocked any others that was it. I started a new character and came back later and showed him what's what.

The coolest part so far for me is how the randomizer changes how I approach points of interest in the world. I have several areas marked that have chests I can't get because the enemy camps are full of terrifying enemies. There's also a lot of places in the overworld that you are permitted to use Spirit Ashes but which do not contain a baoss. In the base game this is kind of pointless - the camps are easy enough to clear out without using a summon. In the randomizer it's necessary to have a tank for some of these areas that drop a bunch of high tier knights on you if you move towards the treasure chest.

Biggest concern at the moment is that questlines give items, which means I want to actually do Roderika's questline and get the reward from her. Unfortnuately, the item required for her quest is locked behind Malenia. ...I may just have to bite the bullet on this one and hope it's not important.

Coolest thematically appropriate random placement so far: A Stonedigger Troll in one of the the big mine caverns. It looked like the room was designed for him, and you come in on an upper level to give you an appropriate "Oh crap..." moment.

[Rynjin]

Coolest thematically appropriate random placement so far: A Stonedigger Troll in one of the the big mine caverns. It looked like the room was designed for him, and you come in on an upper level to give you an appropriate "Oh crap..." moment.

My favorite is finding the "Unseen Assassins" note in a grave, and then a few minutes later getting jumped in the woods near the Frenzied Village by one of the perma-invisible Black knife Assassins. Cue panicked screaming.

[Anteros]

If the campaign lasts more than 50 turns after that point, it has paid for itself.

Sure, but alternatively you could leverage that money into an advantage now which will snowball into an even larger advantage later.

Armies are less reliable than background income from buildings.

The cost of armies doesn't scale linearly, every army you recruit makes all your armies more expensive to upkeep, and for almost all factions even if an army has a good battle every turn it won't make its own upkeep back. That means that if you just try to run an economy entirely off of armies without something backing them you need to be a faction that either makes an incredibly large amount of money from battles and sacking settlements or one that can greatly reduce its upkeep and operate with very few armies.

That means that the value of raising another army and sending it to go out and get loot is extremely dependent on who you are playing as, who you are nearby, and whether you can guarantee a consistent stream of high value targets.

Also, armies have relatively high spin-up costs because you have limited slots for recruitment, which means that when you do start a new army it will sit there being a giant upkeep sink for several turns before it has even had its first fight.

That means that it is generally better to operate with only as many armies as you can keep active at all times (either having a fight or going to a fight every turn), and use the rest of your income to get more stable income by constructing economic buildings.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I've simply never had a problem with maintaining my upkeep from battles in any Total War game with any faction on any difficulty. I'm sure it would be different against human opponents, but the AI absolutely loves to throw tons of garbage armies at you. Now, I haven't calculated it out or anything, but I've been playing these games for years and I've never once felt the need to build an economic building. You end up with plenty of them anyway with the lands you take from the AI.