I recently remarked to MysticMimm, that for the first time in living memory, I had not asked “Santa” for a video game of any kind. Not one. This hit me last night as I began to reinstall Rome: Total War on my computer. I’ve been spinning me wheels the past week and a half, trying to find a game that offered me any kind of challenge.

As I’ve mentioned on the show several times in the past few weeks, I’ve been playing Dynasty Warriors Online which has eaten up some of my time. While fun, its certainly not challenging enough to keep me intrigued for long. Its in an open beta status, so obviously its not the final form of the game. But there HAS to be more to the game then doing the same repetitive quests and same melee/pvp battles. There is no exploration of the game, there’s no quick travel options around the city like there is in the traditional DW franchise games. So, I’ve bored of that quickly.

It’s quite a problem. This Christmas season has not been overly stocked with games that I haven’t already played, or have much interest in. SC2? Boring, not the same magic that SC1 or War3 had. WOW? Won’t ever play it again. Black Ops? Done.  Reddead? Finished. Final Fantasy 13? Can’t bring myself to play it. Halo: Reach? I wouldn’t debase myself to play a game that requires such marginal talent or skill. That’s pretty much how the list goes. It’s either a rehash of something already out, something I already own, or something I don’t give a damn about.

I believe that may be the underlying issue. I’ve thought for sometime that it’s a weak list this year of quality titles, and it may very well be. But I think part of it is as well that being a gentleman now 30 years of age with a career, I don’t wait for a major holiday in the hopes a family member or a fat, bearded semi-mythological figure dressed all in red who breaks into people’s houses, eats their snacks and watches their children sleep, to give me the things I want. I go buy them. So when it comes time for gift-giving, by and large I already have what I need/want.

The other part of it too is, with the above career/family and age,  I find I have to filter out certain games I no longer have time for.  MMO’s are a prime example. I simply don’t have the time to invest into a game that requires me to sit at my pc for 3+ hours straight to accomplish anything. And don’t hand me any garbage about being “casual friendly.” You try running a heroic dungeon in less then 2 straight hours and then come tell me about “casual friendly.” I have to look for games I can play in 30-90 minute spurts.

The Spring video game season however is looking promising. Actually, that’s the same as the past several years. On my docket of games coming out, it definitely has an Oriental flavor to it. At the top of that list are Dynasty Warriors 7 and Shogun Total War 2. A hack-n-slash I can do map by map, and a wargame I can save at any turn I need to. Perfect. But what I greatly miss is a good twitch based FPS and any kind of combat flight sim. Gone are the good ol’ days of Tie Fighter I suppose. At any rate, enough of my rambling thought process. Have a safe and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year  to all of you in radioland, and I’ll see you after the first of the year!

            I use two of histories most famous rivals to illustrate my point. Kindly humor me in a brief history lesson. This will come as no surprise to either my clanmates at Clan Imperial Guard, or any of my long time listeners, that the thesis of the article revolves around Napoleon and his wars. Trust me, there is a parallel. It just takes a minute to get there.

            Napoleon Bonaparte I, Emperor of the French, is arguably histories greatest general and soldier. His mantra was to always go on the offensive, even if he was supposedly on the defensive. His defensive campaign of 1814 is one of his finest moments, when he took an army of half trained children and repeatedly attacked invading Coalition armies, throwing them back in defeat after defeat. His only standing order: March to the sound of the guns.

            Arthur Wellsely, First Duke of Wellington, was his nemesis and opponent both in Spain against Napoleon’s Marshals, and during the Hundred Days/Waterloo campaign. Wellington was a cautious soldier, relying on strong fixed positions and patience to win out the day. His strategy was to wait for the enemy to make a mistake, then exploit it. If he had to sit behind fortifications for weeks and months on end, so be it. Even when attacking, he fought defensively.

            I suppose a more modern example would be to say “The best offense is a good defense.” The reverse has also been said. It’s a matter of opinion as to which style is more in line with you, the player, when it comes to various games of competition. Despite my name and clan name in patronage of that self made monarch, I personally fight more like Wellington then Napoleon, at least in most cases.

            Napoleon: Total War, released in late February, allows players the flexability to either be the aggressor or the defender, with most maps giving certain advantages one way or another. The way I choose to play this game, as well as most of the 1G’s who play with me, is to take a “wait and see” approach. We find the high ground, and fortify it to the best of our ability. Light infantry with longer range at the bottom of the hill, line infantry along the slopes or at the top, with the artillery at the apex of the hill. The idea behind it is to get an extended range boost from the elevation for the cannons, and a “pay by the inch” strategy that forces  enemy troops to fight their way up hill under constant fire by musket, cannon and howitzer.

            This is not an end-all strategy. There are a select bunch of maps that’s are gaining popularity within the NTW community that are flat and devoid of most vegetation. (musket and cannon balls don’t fly well through trees!) So the advantage of height can be diminished, but the strategy of, as Napoleon said of Wellington “This one fights sitting on his ass” isn’t invalid. Part of the reason why we as a clan, and myself as an individual, stand pat during a multiplayer game is communication.

            What I mean is, most random teams, and even a large number of selected teams, have horrid communication. They don’t deploy their armies together, they separate during combat, 1 will advance while the other forms squares and sits at the edge of the map. By sitting still, you force the other team to take the initiative, especially in a situation where they aren’t sure HOW to take it. When after a few minutes nothing happens other then trading artillery battery fire, more often then not one or more players on the opposing team will begin to move. As soon as they have committed to an assault, the game is lost for them. By agreeing to face me on MY terms, you have already ceded your chance at victory.

            I create a killing field of round shot and canister fire, supported by long range light infantry and finally the cold steel of the bayonets. By the time the enemy closes with me, he’s already bled his army white to rival that of Picket’s Charge at Gettysburg. Take in to account loss of soldiers, fatigue and morale erosion, and the battle is half won before he ever draws within musket range of my lines.

            Steady and slow wins the race. At least, in most cases. Now take Starcraft II as our example. In this game, the “rush” is the tactic of choice for many, to dispatch their opponents as quickly as possible. Even if the rush is unsuccessful, in many instances it throws the intended target on the defensive. They will build cannons, bunkers and the like to await a follow up attack. At this point, they have invested a sizeable amount of their early game resources into defending an attack that either never comes, or is at best  diversionary. All the while, their opponents are on to tier 2 or 3 in the tech tree and preparing for a different kind of assault.

            This is where Gnome and I pick up the conversation during the video streaming of Starcraft II. It’s the tried and true Warcraft 3 strategy of “counter-creep.” In other words, build tier 1 and wait for the inevitable rush, then counter attack. Starcraft II is a different format then the Total War genre, and in SC2, fortune favors the bold. Being Napoleonic in style and substance counts for a lot more. By attacking early, you get a good scouting of your opponents building order, what units he is looking to go, and perhaps even knock down an early expansion base. By sitting tight in base and sending out only the occasional scout, one gives up the ability to match move for move with your opponent.

            The key difference is that in Starcraft, you are saddled with the FOG of war. In other words, you can’t see what your opponent is doing until you have a unit that can physically see the enemy. In Total War, the only thing you can hide are units that are lying in ambush in the woods, or in tall grass. Other then that, you get to see the 100,000 strong enemy army deploying a mile in front of you across the field. In Staracraft, you have the ability to replace losses as they occur, because the game is designed for building an infrastructure and then an army. In NTW, you have only what army you brought with you, and that’s it. Make 1 wrong move, and you lose your cavalry. Now your mobility is hampered. Make 1 wrong calculation, and your artillery is overrun by flanking enemy Hussars and now your long range threat is removed. Caution and careful is the order for the day. Ironically enough, Napoleon Total War caters to the Wellington type player. Starcraft II caters to the Napoleon in all of us, setting the pace of battle, and taking it to the enemy.

            So I pose the question to you, the reader. Which are you, the Emperor Napoleon, always taking the initiative and going on the offensive and forcing your enemy to make mistakes, or are you  the Duke of Wellington, sitting behind your fixed defenses, waiting for your opponent to make a wrong move and then exploiting it?  I suppose ending this article with a quote from the Emperor himself seems fitting:

“Never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake, its poor manners.”

Napoleon, Waterloo   June 18, 1815

FEEL: the first thing to strike me is, indeed, the feel of the game. It is abundantly clear that you are playing an upgraded version of the first installment of the franchise. The unit sounds, looks, soundbytes are so similar or identical to the original, its like a version of de ja vu.  Its clear the game is using a derivative of the Warcraft 3 engine, with updated graphics and animations. If the goal was to make an old fan of the original comfortable in the new version, they have succeeded.

The game is surprisingly polished. There seem to be fewer glitches and bugs, and while it is evident there are some balance issues that require attention (more on that later) its clear this game has been tested quite a bit by the internal crew at Blizzard. The animation, music and sound flows smoothly on my machine, which is a decent rig, nothing exceptional, and that’s why settings at high across the board.

This is a sharp contrast to the original Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos beta where there was a great deal of trial and error right from the start, especially where hero abilities are concerned.

TERRAN: The humans of the Terran Confederacy seem to have an answer to most problems. Some of the same staples from SC1 are still here, like the Ghost, marine, siege tank, and battle cruiser. However they have removed the firebat, wraith, medic, science vessel, vulture, goliath, valkyrie. Instead new units have taken their place, and old units have had their names changed (for reasons I don’t understand, but make things more confusing.)

The Terran strength lies in their versatility. Their air is arguably the best in the game (thus far and in my opinion) where they have strong air to ground support, as well as air to air capabilities. The dual modes of fighter and ground mech of the Viking is a perfect example of this. If anyone has ever seen Robotech Macross, it looks and acts almost exactly the same.  Support of arms, ground/air/mechanized armor make for an awesome combination.

I also like some of the building upgrades. The command center now can be upgraded to sport a large defensive gun turret that crushes most light-medium units. Supply depots no longer trap your scv’s after construction, as they can be lowered into the ground, allowing units to roll right over.

PROTOSS: The Protoss are nuts. If you allow a Protoss player to reach tier 3/end game, you are going to have a very hard time contending with the heavy hitters they can bring to the table. With the loss of a Science Vessel for the Terrans, their shields become that much more difficult to contend with. Granted, there are smiliar abilities in the Terran units, but nothing as specialized as the Science Vessel was.

Zealots are still the best tier 1 unit. Dragoons have been somewhat nerfed and turned into “Stalkers” that have less hit points and shields, but can blink short distances instantaneously. The air power of the Protoss isn’t as significant as it was in the previous game. The Phoenix which has replaced the scout is pretty useless. Carriers roll their fighters out much faster, and the Mothership you can build helps make up for some deficiencies. It cloaks all units underneath it, as well as having abilities to incapacitate ground units for a short time.

My guilty pleasure, however, is building none of these. Its creating some Colossus and marching them over the mountains, or walls into the enemy base. These are huge, taking up a nice chunk of your monitor screen. They look, shoot and move exactly like the war machines from the newest version of War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise. They are expensive, but they shrug off all but the most focused fire, deal a fair amount of damage, and can literally walk over any and all terrain.

ZERG: One word suits them in my mind right now: useless. Ive both played AS and AGAINST the Zerg, and they are not the powerhouse they once were. This could be a result of some nerfstick beating, or it could also be that players (myself included) haven’t “gotten them” yet. The removal of Lurkers from the rotation greatly weakens their versatility. Having to upgrade Overseers to see invisible units is also an annoyance. Short of insanely out massing your enemy, the Zerg just don’t have the punch. One nice feature was the upgrade to the Ultralisk from “worthless” in SC1 to “not bad” in SC2. Always liked the way that thing looked.

MAPS: This is one of the things I have so far found disappointing for the beta. Keep in mind it IS a beta, and they may not be showing all their best material, but these maps are unimaginative and rehashed. They make little pretense by bringing back Blizzard map staple Lost Temple, for instance. Most maps also have two modes. One is a normal mode, the other is “novice.”  This places a large boulder/small hill in a choke point allowing access to your base. The enemy must clear this with a fair deal of firepower to gain access to your bases. Apparently these maps are to prevent the rushing of their opponents.

“10 min no rush kk?”

The point being that it’s the same old same old. There is one new feature, and these are sensor towers placed throughout various maps. By placing a unit near one, it opens a large area around it revealing the fog of war and map to your view.

BATTLE.NET 2: Another disappointing feature thus far is the Battle.net itself. Im not going to get into the argument of regionalization, as that’s out of my realm of interest and expertise. However, the lack of a chat lobby I think really hampers multiplayer play. And as the single player is blocked from our testing currently, that’s kind of a big deal. It does allow a streamlined way to invite friends to your Friends List and the creation of a party for chat. This only works though if you already know who your friends are. I cant tell you how often awesome discussions or impromptu clan matches broke out in the middle of our clan’s Warcraft 3 and Starcraft lobby. This was a major criticism of the Total War series being moved by Creative Assembly to Steam for the same reasons.

To be fair, it could be a feature that is just disabled at the moment. On top of that is that the ladder is now divided up by skill. There is a novice ladder, and a regular ladder. Essentially you have to win games at the lower rungs to work your way up to a higher rank. I understand the want to separate those players of lesser skill from those of higher, but I contend a player learns more being stomped by a superior player then by muddling through against opponents of equal suck.

Overall I think this is a fantastic start to a solid beta. Granted, its been less then a week into the testing, things can change in a beta. I think the polish of the game to this point coupled with the excitement of a highly anticipated game is going to prove to be very fun for all who have the luxury of playing and helping to shape the game into its final form.