Not really. A real life politician can delegate pretty much everything. The only thing a politician needs to be good at is getting elected, and even for that they hire hordes of advisors, spin doctors and campaigners. In a game you're the only one handling everything. In real life you handle almost nothing yourself.
This. Not a politician obviously, but the leaders of national intelligence agencies right now are playing the most complex strategy game anyone could imagine. Literally gamers.
>Command thread
Does CMO still not have an AI? I almost bought it at one point but then found out there's basically no single player unless you just move the pieces around with yourself like it's tabletop simulator or something
Limited ai exist , if a plane or something get the sensonrs on you it will react but it dosnt plans new flights from scratch every enemy flight that you will see in the game was preplaced by the scenario creator.
It isnt as bad since there are scenarios been released every day and i think at this point a good part of the game is the scenario creator
It only has AI in the sense that pre planned missions and various parameters let units act on their own by following their orders.
"Patrol here, use these EMCON and WRA settings, follow targets such as such."
It takes effort on the scenario creator's end.
For anyone playing the scenario itself. They still have to deal with enemy units which actually do things.
What you can't do is place a squadron at an airfield with no orders at all for the AI. Those will never act
"aurora 4x" this game where your brain and eyes explode (literally)
this
There's pretty much more to witp:ae than movement and combat. And in about any strategy game ever in general. "Complex" shouldn't mean "hard to learn" anyway as that's just shitty design, it should mean lot of meaningful decisions that matter in the grand scale of things and may or may not come back to bite you in the ass far down the line.
to answer that we would need a clear definition of "complex" it literally could just mean it has the most convoluted and expansive code
>it should mean lot of meaningful decisions that matter in the grand scale of things and may or may not come back to bite you in the ass far down the line
like what?
>a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
this too, the more interconected systems and pieces the game has the more complex it is. Aurora lets you customize every single ship, its cargo and the attack formations in battles that involve a bunch of ships
'Complex games' just demonstrate the maxim 'if you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it' is true. If they sell you a spreadsheet game, devs don't understand the ideas they're pretending their game is based on. A genuinely rich game is one where presentation is clear, the surface experience is simple, but the depth is expressed when the player explores for it, not a UI gouging out your eyes with meaningless drivel.
Any Paradox 'grand strategy' game. Also recent Total War games. A game can represent complex ideas using numbers as the implementation, and all games are that when abstraction is stripped away. The problem is when game mechanics are not based on any model of reality or a subjective re[resemtation of it, but on numbers that are not abstracted from the technical design and heavily abstracted from the idea superficially being represented. Specific examples of this are resources that are given names that bare no relation to what they actually do: mana. They're usually just an alternative currency and do the exact same thing, except for stuff which arbitrarily can't be acquired with the vanilla currency. If you're just managing different currencies to acquire more to invest and get more currencies; you're not ruling an empire, you're working a spreadsheet. Did you lose 25 relationship with your ally? The trigger for that doesn't matter and for anyone actually playing the game as it's designed and not role-playing(a good game should synergise both, not make them conflict), only the adjusted numbers matter.
When only numbers matter, nothing else does.
There's pretty much more to witp:ae than movement and combat. And in about any strategy game ever in general. "Complex" shouldn't mean "hard to learn" anyway as that's just shitty design, it should mean lot of meaningful decisions that matter in the grand scale of things and may or may not come back to bite you in the ass far down the line.
>it should mean lot of meaningful decisions that matter in the grand scale of things and may or may not come back to bite you in the ass far down the line
like what?
>What is the most complex strategy game of all time?
The Campaign for North Africa
If it has to be digital... maybe one of the Dominions in multiplayer? There's a lot of depth, a lot of details you can fiddle with that can have a huge impact on your success.
Eve online.
It is absolutely /vst/, in fact it's perhaps the only true /vst/ game in the sense that you can actually rule vast empires completely populated by human players, admittedly rising to the top of such an organization is pretty much impossible for most, but the fact remains that it is doable and people have done and are doing it.
Also economy studied by various universities and even the IMF. In terms of complexity and depth nothing else can hope to compete, game's a bona fide marvel.
'Complex games' just demonstrate the maxim 'if you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it' is true. If they sell you a spreadsheet game, devs don't understand the ideas they're pretending their game is based on. A genuinely rich game is one where presentation is clear, the surface experience is simple, but the depth is expressed when the player explores for it, not a UI gouging out your eyes with meaningless drivel.
Easy, pdx magnum opus, Victoria 3, they even hired people with economics degree to design it!
>they even hired people with economics degree to design it!
Plenty of people with degrees went on to make absolute shit games
Please don't mention that game here
Just thinking about it empties my bowels!
the same economists that think giving the israelites exclusively right to print money is a good idea, I bet. It all makes sense now.
Real world politics
Not really. A real life politician can delegate pretty much everything. The only thing a politician needs to be good at is getting elected, and even for that they hire hordes of advisors, spin doctors and campaigners. In a game you're the only one handling everything. In real life you handle almost nothing yourself.
This. Not a politician obviously, but the leaders of national intelligence agencies right now are playing the most complex strategy game anyone could imagine. Literally gamers.
Yeah and they suck at it.
Oh like we could do any better.
>Command thread
Does CMO still not have an AI? I almost bought it at one point but then found out there's basically no single player unless you just move the pieces around with yourself like it's tabletop simulator or something
I've read AARs where they play against AIs. It may be where you have to set up the AI for a scenario.
Limited ai exist , if a plane or something get the sensonrs on you it will react but it dosnt plans new flights from scratch every enemy flight that you will see in the game was preplaced by the scenario creator.
It isnt as bad since there are scenarios been released every day and i think at this point a good part of the game is the scenario creator
Still seeing plenty of threads where players get their asses handed to them by the "non-existent AI" and ask for tips.
"CMO has no AI" is such a forced excuse to not play it that it's not even worth refuting.
Then why do people say it has no AI?
Because it doesn't.
It only has AI in the sense that pre planned missions and various parameters let units act on their own by following their orders.
"Patrol here, use these EMCON and WRA settings, follow targets such as such."
It takes effort on the scenario creator's end.
For anyone playing the scenario itself. They still have to deal with enemy units which actually do things.
What you can't do is place a squadron at an airfield with no orders at all for the AI. Those will never act
Lands of Lords
Land of Trannies more like
No kidding, Ingerland's last stand before rolling over was pathetic.
Nobody cares, homosexual. You shouldn't even be allowed to have that general for a fricking facebook-tier game on this board anyway. Frick off to /vg/
being a gay
Aurora?
this
>a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts
this too, the more interconected systems and pieces the game has the more complex it is. Aurora lets you customize every single ship, its cargo and the attack formations in battles that involve a bunch of ships
any example?
Any Paradox 'grand strategy' game. Also recent Total War games. A game can represent complex ideas using numbers as the implementation, and all games are that when abstraction is stripped away. The problem is when game mechanics are not based on any model of reality or a subjective re[resemtation of it, but on numbers that are not abstracted from the technical design and heavily abstracted from the idea superficially being represented. Specific examples of this are resources that are given names that bare no relation to what they actually do: mana. They're usually just an alternative currency and do the exact same thing, except for stuff which arbitrarily can't be acquired with the vanilla currency. If you're just managing different currencies to acquire more to invest and get more currencies; you're not ruling an empire, you're working a spreadsheet. Did you lose 25 relationship with your ally? The trigger for that doesn't matter and for anyone actually playing the game as it's designed and not role-playing(a good game should synergise both, not make them conflict), only the adjusted numbers matter.
When only numbers matter, nothing else does.
>subjective re[resemtation
>re[resermtation
The frick did I type here? 'Representation', I meant
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition would be a contender.
That just takes long. Not hard to understand how the combat and movement works.
Learning the basics in CMO is also fairly easy.
There's pretty much more to witp:ae than movement and combat. And in about any strategy game ever in general. "Complex" shouldn't mean "hard to learn" anyway as that's just shitty design, it should mean lot of meaningful decisions that matter in the grand scale of things and may or may not come back to bite you in the ass far down the line.
>it should mean lot of meaningful decisions that matter in the grand scale of things and may or may not come back to bite you in the ass far down the line
like what?
Enjoy being raped in the ass hard by fatigue.
football manager
Legoland
to answer that we would need a clear definition of "complex" it literally could just mean it has the most convoluted and expansive code
Rock Paper Scissors because it's 100% a metagame.
>What is the most complex strategy game of all time?
The Campaign for North Africa
If it has to be digital... maybe one of the Dominions in multiplayer? There's a lot of depth, a lot of details you can fiddle with that can have a huge impact on your success.
Eve online.
It is absolutely /vst/, in fact it's perhaps the only true /vst/ game in the sense that you can actually rule vast empires completely populated by human players, admittedly rising to the top of such an organization is pretty much impossible for most, but the fact remains that it is doable and people have done and are doing it.
Also economy studied by various universities and even the IMF. In terms of complexity and depth nothing else can hope to compete, game's a bona fide marvel.
Based and true. Also commanding fleets in EVE is very unique and cool experience.
Is eve still a thing? Are there players and how to get into it?
"aurora 4x" this game where your brain and eyes explode (literally)
'Complex games' just demonstrate the maxim 'if you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it' is true. If they sell you a spreadsheet game, devs don't understand the ideas they're pretending their game is based on. A genuinely rich game is one where presentation is clear, the surface experience is simple, but the depth is expressed when the player explores for it, not a UI gouging out your eyes with meaningless drivel.
sex
im gay
I don’t understand how the hell anyone could play a game like this. Not even real generals have to keep up with that much bullshit.
Because realistic mil sims are the closest you'll get to the real commander experience
Aurora 4X
Aurora
working for the DoD
>i glow