This game's tutorial is a bit of a hastily implemented mess. I actually lost it during my first time playing because the pirate faction managed to kill the alien leader before I got there. For what it's worth, my understanding is that it's pretty much entirely developed by one guy which can probably help explain a few things. That said, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the single biggest UI issue of the game in my experience, although that was perhaps because you never got the chance to encounter it: there's absolutely no way to check on planetary unrest besides clicking on a planet, and then clicking again to go into another menu. Your advisor doesn't even butt in to tell you that planetary unrest is getting high like they do with everything else, so the only way to make sure there won't be a rebellion is to go through every planet individually and make sure that their building layout is sustainable. It's a really baffling decision that I don't think can be excused by the aforementioned single-man dev team. Also, since you mentioned it and because it was obviously an influence on Chaos Galaxy, I watched the original Gundam earlier this year and was pleasantly surprised. It's surprisingly hard sci-fi for a space opera (one of the first works to make use of O'Neill cylinders, just 2 years after they were first conceptualized among other things) alongside goofy, 70s retro-futuristic, marketable vehicle designs, and of course the titular Mobile Suits which are essentially Heinlein's Mobile Infantry on steroids. I'd definitely recommend giving it a watch if you have some spare time.
I was also super surprised about how much I liked the original Gundam. I was totally expecting an almost "monster of the week" kind of show like many mecha anime of the time, but not at all. The characters and story were more serious and well done than I expected as well, it's obviusly quite aged but it's worth giving it a chance for anyone who likes sci fi.
To be fair with the game, i'm pretty sure it's made by a single person. Even the localization, the developer is chinese and you can see in his steam updates and such how the english used does in fact sometimes look like translated chinese text. Totally get why all the small issues you mention can turn off someone from the game, you were pretty fair pointing out the good as well. I think it can be really worth it for people who can grow to like the setting and gameplay. I played Chaos galaxy one, so it was super cool to see the canon progression in the story of all the different factions and characters that you got to know before, and all the new additions.
Sorry it's unrelated but: any chance you'd cover the recently rereleased GalCiv4? Seems like it might be your cup of tea and the game could use the advertising I'd say
It's vaugely on my radar, I did enooy gc2 quite a bit. I might even have a review code for 4 somewhere in my highly spammed inbox. As for when, I don't know, got the next couple of things I want to play lined up, and I want to replay distant worlds 2 with the new dlc which is pretty similar to galactic civilisation.
Btw a year ago I did point it out on the Steam forums that the game had too many clicks (tried the Demo), even more compared to the 1st one and the dev did say he was going to try and streamline it a bit, haven't played the finished product to see if he got around to do it. Tho the impression I got they were aiming to scratch a particular nostalgia itch. Oh and the 1st game had skippable combat animations in their own window for every attack. Also it seems 2 is just a retread of the story in 1 just bigger, more fleshed out and the aliens actually show up.
I asked an ai about this sort of concept, and tldr it seems in favor of it. If General Cao Cao from the classic Chinese historical novel "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" had an intergalactic spaceship and the story took place in space, it would certainly introduce some fascinating and unique elements to the narrative. Let's explore some possibilities: 1. Expanded Scope: With an intergalactic spaceship, the story would expand beyond the boundaries of ancient China. Cao Cao's ambitions would likely extend to conquering not just the three kingdoms, but potentially various planets, star systems, or even entire galaxies. 2. Technological Advancements: Cao Cao's spaceship would provide him with advanced technology, weaponry, and resources. This would significantly enhance his military capabilities, making him a formidable force in space warfare. He could use futuristic weapons, shields, and propulsion systems, changing the dynamics of battles. 3. New Factions and Alliances: The inclusion of space travel could introduce other alien civilizations, each with their own agendas and power struggles. Cao Cao might form alliances or wage wars against extraterrestrial forces, adding layers of complexity to the story. 4. Strategic Conquests: Instead of controlling territories on land, Cao Cao would seek to dominate planets or space stations. He would engage in interstellar battles, strategically maneuvering his spaceship and commanding fleets in a bid to expand his influence across the cosmos. 5. Character Transformations: The characters from "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" would need to adapt to the futuristic setting. They might acquire cybernetic enhancements or possess unique abilities granted by advanced technology. Their personalities and motivations could evolve to reflect the challenges and opportunities of space exploration. 6. Cosmic Rivalries: Cao Cao's arch-rivals, such as Liu Bei and Sun Quan, could also possess their own interstellar vessels, leading to epic space battles and rivalries that mirror their historical conflicts. Each faction would vie for control over resources, territories, and influence in the vastness of space. 7. Mythical Elements: The infusion of space exploration could provide an opportunity to incorporate elements of Chinese mythology or folklore. Characters might encounter celestial beings, ancient artifacts, or mysterious phenomena during their interstellar journeys. Overall, reimagining "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" in a space setting with General Cao Cao at the helm of an intergalactic spaceship would introduce a blend of science fiction, historical fiction, and mythology. It would offer a fresh take on the characters, their ambitions, and the dynamics of power as they navigate the vastness of the cosmos.
This looks like one of many games that confuses "mechanics" and "depth:" having weapons break after a battle instead of during, for example, leads to the same need of worrying about logistics, but without slowing the game down quite as much. And if you only needed to worry about front/back facing instead of also including the sides, you wouldn't need a ship facing mechanic bogging things down at all, while still keeping most of the strategic element from moving. Being told "this person joined this person" at the start of each turn is also uninteresting; it's almost certainly better to have characters drop tidbits like that as they become relevant (like before fighting them on a battlefield,) so it feels like the characters have an actual history.
I disagree on not having to worry about ship sides, the entire facing system is quite a breath of fresh air in modern strategy games, despite being an old mechanic, which allows for greater tactical depth and challenge. There are ships with more powerful weapons only facing forward, there are ships which have less range on the side, or the firing lines are stricter and ofc you are limited by movement, you can't always get behind the enemy, and all of this compares to "full shield / armor / weapons coverage everywhere and it's just a dps focus fire race" that we get in other space games (stellaris, gal civ, homeworld, eve, starcraft, etc). It's just that it should have been streamline and it wasn't and it also in a game full of other mechanics that could have been streamline but weren't and it all adds up.
I know the first game was based on the Gihren's Greed franchise (Which in turn, was based on Nobunaga's Ambition) but I never tried the 2nd one. Looks fun albeit still kinda goofy
no, i played a little of the first one and its the same expositional mess over what *might* be a deep tactical rpg, but i'll never know because the dialogue was such a slog.
If u want a game where you always hit you should try warhammer mechanicus. Also i heard you mention godless tactics i feel like you would like that game almost like it was made for you.
I've had that game installed for like a year and somehow have never actually opened it, not even sure why, guess there are so many other things that keep catching my attention. But yeah, some others have recommended it to me too, so I will try it out.
@@OffyDGG Invicta hires you to narrate. You then leave Invicta without a narrator and go to K&G. K&G isn't even an unbiased history source anymore. You left Invicta to join a channel that is clearly and openly pushing a narrative. You guys aren't even trying to hide your bias with Russia/Ukraine conflict. so you personally sold out once, to Invicta. then you and everyone at K&G sold out again and became the first of the OG TW history channels with an agenda to push biased interpretation of military conflicts (aka: literally a form of propaganda). So we can't even trust the content that K&G pushes out nowadays.
You don't understand this at all. Invicta is the narrator on their own channel. They hired me as a guest one or two times like 6 years ago, as a favour to me because I asked them to. That was all there was to it. K&G did the same thing, only they kept asking me to come back, and have every since. Invicta didn't ask me to come back. If you call doing work for money 'selling out' then I don't know what you tell you, you're gonna hate how society works. So I don't know where you can this backstab idea from, it's all good, and years ago now anyway. What do you think the K&G bias is on the ukraine conflict? Remember, claiming that everything is 'propaganda' is a red flag that you have been affected by propaganda yourself. Not that unbiased accounts even exist, but K&G does a decent job at weeding out stuff that is only speculation and rumours, especially on the russian side of things (the owner/producer speaks russian I believe).
@@OffyDGG Literally, every single time you mention something reported by Russian sources, you guys need to emphasize the fact that it came from "the Kremlin" and therefore it is questionable whether to believe or not. Then when you mention something reported by Ukrainian sources, most of the time you don't even tell us it was reported by Ukrainian sources and more importantly, you never mention how the source is questionable. Ukrainian sources are treated as gospel. I mean i get it, Kremlin as a source is sketchy and I would have no issue for you guys to point out how what they say is questionable. But Ukraine as a source is equally sketchy and so it makes no sense how you treat Ukrainian sources compared to how you treat Russian sources. Furthermore, just watch all your Ukraine v Russia videos. Literally every single video is full of Ukrainian victories. The takeaway anyone would get from your videos is that Ukraine is just destroying Russia. All of the titles for your videos paints this same picture. When in reality, it seems to me like Russia and Ukraine are both struggling but Russia is kind of winning at high cost.
lol nope, what are you even talking about? You have only exposed yourself here, for the second time. Not my job to defend k&g, but since you started this with an attack on me personally, let me tell you all the stuff you got wrong here as well. First, 'the kremlin' is not cited as the source for all russian sources (lol obviously). Nor are either the kremlin or other sources assessed for their credibility at all in the vast majority of cases. If you simply believe that all russian sources are lying even when no assessment is presented, that is your decision to make, you can't blame k&g for it. I suspect your own misinterpretation is the entire reason behind your comment - an easy mistake to make, and given the mistakes revealed in your earlier claims, I'm happy to believe you messed this up here as well. Second, when a source is ukrainian it IS mentioned, contrary to your claim, oftentimes down the individual person who said it. Ukrainian sources are indeed biased, which is why they are named in this way. You somehow missed this entirely, and it's in every video so that's a pretty big mistake to make (you made it deliberately I guess). Furthermore, the ukrainian side has better independent/non-government sources, or foreign reporters, so the Ukrainian perspective is usually the easier and more credible one to report on. Russian political narrative is so insane that no credible reporting can touch it with a ten foot pole, making it hard to include at all, and russian censorship is extremely strong so information can be straight up limited, moreso than with ukrainian affairs. Your claim that ukraine is 'equally sketchy' is just untrue, that's the crux of it. Clearly they lie constantly, but it's not the grand fantasy you find from russian official sources, and some of it can be at least verified to the point that it is worth using as a source. This even happens with russian sources sometimes to, which you have wilfully ignored. You are desperate to find bias, and sure, I actually DO think k&g has a pro-ukrainian bias. But given the information available, it's somewhat justified, and is less intense than most places I've seen. You claim every video is full of ukrainian victories. Obviously untrue so hard to even respond to that, I can only assume bad faith. All battlefield events are at least somewhat mentioned, including ukrainian withdrawals, stalemates, and failed assaults, so I don't know what you tell you. Similar to the above point, ukraine's minor victory's are more 'confirmed' than russia, so perhaps that is the reason you feel they are mentioned so much - to put it another way, russia claims victories in battles constantly at all times, and it's harder to find the independent info to verify such claims, whereas ukrainian battlefield events are somewhat more documented, outside of anecdotes on telegram or news pundits saying whatever they want. And ukraine really *has* won a lot of battles, hence them not losing this war a long time ago. But k&g is one of the rare places you'll find ukrainian equipment losses reported precisely, and one of the only places I've ever seen in the western media talk about the manpower losses and conscription troubles they have. So you are really being disingenuous, even if I give you benefit of the doubt on this one. Overall, it's good to question bias and the like, but you got the details completely wrong, so you probably won't be able to succeed in this task. Ignorance aside, just because you question biases, *doesn't mean you aren't biased yourself*, or just unaware of how biased sources are used in reporting history. Sure, it's all fake, it's all narrative, but picking the 'least wrong' narrative takes work that you probably don't appreciate.
@@Rufoaxe if you can put up with the constant clicking it is. I finished the 1st one a couple of times but from the demo of the 2nd it seemed to have fewer clicks. It is a unique experience in the modern day.
