Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Don't take my bitchin the wrong way, DD.  I'm glad you posted about it.  I didn't know it was happening.   :)

No worries. I have had the original paperback for many years now and only spent $10 for that so my investment has been really minimal so far. I'm guessing most of the 'backers' are long time supporters looking to finally get a good quality hardback as well as support Shane and the gang. I know I won't be going all in, no need for all the extras, at least for me, but the hardback is a definite want, that and the World Builder's Guide.

Maybe it'll finally entice me to put my Fantasy Grounds copy of SW to work instead of just thinking about  doing it.  :coolsmiley:
Don't take my bitchin the wrong way, DD.  I'm glad you posted about it.  I didn't know it was happening.   :)
Computer Wargaming / Re: The greatest space 4x to conquer them all
« Last post by WargamerJoe on Today at 02:27:05 AM »
Polaris Sector's tech system and it's ship building/tactical layer are the best bits about that game. Unfortunately, they're too good in comparison to the rest of it - I don't think it holds together well as a complete experience.

If we're talking about genre burdens, I think MOO2 has done more to influence space 4X games than anything else, although one could argue that in turn derives itself from early Civ games.

It's weird how little innovation there's been though, especially since a couple of years ago there was a mini-boom of new space 4X games, mainly under Iceberg Interactive. It was as if a bunch of gamers decided to make the 4X game they always wanted... excepted they just ended up making every other 4X game again.

Current Events / Re: Hurricane Michael
« Last post by em2nought on Today at 12:11:56 AM »
I thought it was bad when New Orleans mayor left all those $chool buses to get trashed by Katrina, I guess the USAF brass felt they had to one up them by leaving $2 billion worth of F-22$ for Michael to trash.  L:-)
Computer Wargaming / Re: Clad in Iron: Sakhalin 1904 Naval Wargame
« Last post by em2nought on Today at 12:01:30 AM »
I like this water, it makes the ships stand out much better.  No sense spending all that time on detail if you can't see the ships for the water.  This game needs some Jap music for atmosphere  ;)
Computer Wargaming / Re: AI War 2
« Last post by Huw the Poo on Yesterday at 11:42:32 PM »
Doesn't the sequel have some shoddy looking 3D graphics, or am I thinking of a different series' sequel?

They've been using placeholder graphics until fairly recently so perhaps that's what you saw.  If you look through the last few news posts on Steam you'll see some examples of the new unit models etc.
Computer Wargaming / Re: AI War 2
« Last post by FarAway Sooner on Yesterday at 10:50:32 PM »
The original was a fine game, although it certainly took some grokking to appreciate the elegance of it.  As the sequels went on and on, they added too much complexity.  The final result was too hard for me to keep everything straight with all the content added in, but this game gave me some of the most satisfying solitaire gaming I've ever had.

I've never found another asymmetrical 4X that worked half this well.

I do wonder what the new game offers?  The devil will be in the details, as the Steam page is vague and it's mostly going to be about whether they got the little stuff right.
Computer Wargaming / Re: DCS Discussion
« Last post by Nefaro on Yesterday at 10:39:16 PM »

Computer Wargaming / Re: Mount and Blade Bannerlord
« Last post by Toonces on Yesterday at 10:33:16 PM »
^ Wow.  I've probably got 150-200+ hours in this game and I didn't know a lot of that.  Maybe I should RTFM one of these days.   ::)
Computer Wargaming / Re: Combat Mission status
« Last post by Michael Dorosh on Yesterday at 10:32:28 PM »
Hmm, looks like the demo is missing a bmp for a damaged roof skin?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10