Recent reviews by Tentacle Shogun

ATT:T is, so far, an enjoyable little game that allows you to design tanks, compete with other designs for contracts, and see how your designs perform on the battlefield.

Pros:
- All tank parts are fully modeled and represented on the tanks, down to the nuts and bolts.
- The research and development system is intuitive and fairly easy to pick up.
- The game fills a pretty unique niche in the tycoon market.
- The reverse engineering system for foreign tanks allows for some wierd designs.
- There are bugs, but the game is pretty stable on my machine.
- Tinkering with different components to make the perfect tank is a lot of fun!

Cons:
- A lot of time since the original demo has been spent on reinventing the wheel; there have been a lot of changes, but not a lot of real progress since the demo.
- The original battle system from the demo release was, in my opinion, a better experience and more engaging than the current end-battle stat comparison.
- Part compatibility is less universal than you may expect at the moment.
- Performance is fine, but the load screens between every menu are a time sink.
- There are a lot of different sub-stats. This isn't inherently a problem, but it can be difficult to determine the pros and cons of a build beyond the top-level statistics.
- There feels like a disconnect between what the computer orders in its contracts vs how they're actually used in combat. The combats take a variety of things into account, like battlefield terrain and combat intensity, that you can't review while designing your tanks.

Neutral:
- The original design of this game was only built around the UK. The Kickstarter unlocked playable Germany as a future stretch goal, but most foreign tank parts are discovered through reverse engineering.
- It feels like a lot of resources have been devoted to the Testing Grounds. Given that it is the only part of the game where the player controls the tank directly (combat is all text), this seems like an odd allocation of resources.
- Contracts are very clear on what scores you'll need to beat your competitors. It's something I like, but I can see it being too much info for many players.
- The game follows historical developments, but not specific conflicts.

That said, progress has been slow on the development side with much of what's in EA being content that's been in the game for quite a while. I think it would have benefitted from adding some of the Tier II/Interwar techs before launching in EA, as the increased time limit seems like it will run up against the end of the tech tree pretty quick.

Regardless, give the game a shot if you've got a bit of money to spend on an ambitious tycoon title. This is clearly a labor of love by the studio, and I've certainly gotten $30 of fun out of it. I 100% recommend the game, and am hopeful it will fulfill its potential as development continues.

This is an underwhelming sequel. The siege changes haven't made the game more fun, the campaign mechanic isn't actually enjoyable, and the company has been crapping on its customers lately. I'd give it a pass at full price and pick it up when it's on deep discount.

This has been an exceptionally enjoyable clicker/idle game, with good graphics for what it is and some surprisingly interesting facts. I'd definitely recommend it for something to play while you work from home for the next year.

This is a prettier, more feature-complete version o the original Mount and Blade. What does that mean?

- The combat system is smoother, but fundamentally the same.
- The skill system has gone from a bare-bones point dump, to a more RPG style skill selection system.
- The AI doesn't seem to have seen much improvement (Note: I haven't seen any sieges yet).
- Some new systems have been added (Forging, Clan Management) or adjusted (Property Ownership).
- The graphics and character models are much improved.
- The mission system, while having undergone some tweaks, is pretty much unchanged.

What it comes down to for me is this: Mount and Blade: Bannerlord is really more of an updated engine than a game. There's a lot of fun to be had playing in the base game, but I think we all know that the modding community will either make or break this title much like it did the original. If you're a Mount and Blade fan, pick this up. Otherwise, I'd steer clear.

The game won't progress beyond character creation. It's unfortunate, as I heard it was a good title.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert at these kinds of games.

I hit a bottleneck on the Rush the Apennines scenario. The turn limit balancing isn't great, and I always end up sitting around the final objective for 2-3 turns until the timer runs out. It's incredibly frustrating and I wouldn't recommend this game as a result. Overall, I find the game's feedback systems to be lacking. While there are some numbers in a sidebar to give you insight into the results, it's insufficient. I frequently look at a matchup and wonder why my elite tank corps are taking 5:0 casualties against a worse force.

Companies that actively ban modding for their non-competitive titles (as opposed to simply not offering native support) are being short sighted and are potentially impacting your play experience.

If that bothers you and don't like being told what you can and can't do with a product you purchased, then vote with your dollar and stop buying Rockstar games - I certainly will be, which is a shame because I was looking forward to the new Red Dead release.

Simple as that, you have the power as a consumer to punish and correct. Use it.

A friend of mine said, when I told him I'd picked this game up, that it looked like the kind of game that he would play for a couple hours and then drop. After having played it for a couple hours and gone from enjoying it to being deeply frustrated I find myself agreeing with him. So keep in mind that while I haven't put forty hours into the game, I don't believe that it offers much more variety the further in you go.

The Good:

- The Visuals: While not ultra realistic 3D, they're nice enough. I enjoyed the kind of old school style they've got going and it reminded me of a couple Civil War games I played when I was a kid. The maps are simple, but it's pretty clear what the different kinds of terrain are supposed to be.

- Progression: The progression elements (sort of). The ability to equip your different units with a variety of historical weapons was a nice feature, and the skill bonuses that you can add as a unit gains in veterancy give you the ability to customize yur play style without being overly complicated.

- Consequences: Permanent consequences for your units give you a feeling that your tactical decisions matter - to an extent. While you can replenish your troops with veterans following a particularly costly battle, I can see money getting tight as you get further into the game. Admittedly this is a portion that I didn't experience fully, but it's pretty clear what can happen if you toss your veteran units into the grinder every mission.

The Bad:

- Controls: The biggest problem with the game. Your units will rarely follow your orders to move or shoot at distant enemies, choosing instead to fire on enemies in close range. When they do decide to move, they do so in a way that frequently results in them being shot in the flanks or even the rear. Melee detection is spotty at best, and get used to having troops so exhausted that they can't charge or fight effectively. It's very easy to accidentaly use the battle-line drag tool, which will result in being flanked again. Skirmishers shoot and move, which could be useful except they run away from the enemy the fire at (even if they're outside that enemy's fire arc) which leads tho them being - you guessed it! - fired on in the flank or rear. Considering the progression and carry-through mechanics, this causes permanent damage to your campaing experience. In my opinion, this is what leads to the game not being fun.

- Difficulty: The enemy always has more men than you. This is a constant, you'll have to get used to it if you decide to play past the tutorial. They also have more units than you, at least in the missions I completed. You'll end up getting swarmed and there's not much you can do about it besides weather the storm. It means you don't get to go on the offensive very often, and when you do you're likely to get cut off and destroyed.

- Map Information: There appears to be some form of elevation system in place - or at least cannons seem affected - but I didn't see any way to display that information in-game. Similarly, the only way to see the cover values is to watch a unit as it travels over land. This makes it hard to do much more than eyeball things and some light forests don't supply as much cover as you might expect. It is possible that I missed an option to display that during values, so keep that in mind.

- Map Objects: A lot of things on the map don't function as you'd expect. This ties into the last point, but there's no option to have your troops hunker down behind a stone wall or wooden fence. Considering how many of these terrain features were important during the actual Civil War, this feels like an unfortunate oversight. Things like fields offer cover when they should probably only obscure sight lines.

- Battle Advice: Don't follow it, it's terrible. The advisor will tell you to take forward positions to delay the enemy - this is suicide, givent hat the enemy will normally outnumber you by about 1.5X your unit count. Delay the enemy with a unit of skirmishers? Get hit with three infantry squares and a cannon. Hold outside the town waiting for reinforcements? Nope, the enemy circled behind you with as many men as you'll have *with* reinforcements and claimed the town. The best option is always to turtle.

In summary, I think this game has some good ideas but the execution was shoddy. A strategy game, especially one with such a large difficulty handicap for the enemy, isn't fun for me if I can't command my troops effectively. Overcoming long odds can be an enjoyable experience, but Ultimate General: Civil War doesn't give its players the tools to do it effectivley.

Rating: 2/5 - Wait for a 50%-75% sale.