I guess many people thought it was good, but I just don't see why. The camera controls alone are a good reason to avoid this game. The makers are very proud of their 3D battle maps, which means your view is constantly blocked by overhanging levels. You can rotate the camera, but you cannot change the angle. The camera jumps to every enemy that attacks, forcing you to painstakingly reset the view several times each combat round, so you can see the party. There are so many small animations that combat takes a long time, and very often there is no real progress, as everybody misses their target. They did away with dungeon floors, ceilings, and walls. Instead, all surfaces are highly irregular, and it's very hard to tell where you can move, and often you'll be unable to see or target an enemy that seems to be in plain sight. Movement is sluggish, and the 3D surfaces just clutter the screen. The roleplay aspect is fine, I suppose. The writing and voice acting are not bad. The artwork is fine. But the mechanics are cumbersome. Everything takes too long to execute. Between the camera issues and the sluggish movement, progress and combats drag on too long. I hate to knock a 5e crpg, but this thing just wears me out. I dislike the party members in Pathfinder Kingmaker, but if you're debating between the two, I'd go with that one. At least it keeps up a certain pace.
Spent 10 minutes crashing around the rocks and uninstalled.
It's an old game for sure, but I didn't expect it to be so much fun. Today's devs could take a lesson from these guys. They made additions and improvements that are very good for gameplay. There's quite a bit more to Armada 2 than the original. Trade routes, colonizing, more kinds of stations, some new ship types also. You will have many more ships on the field than in the first one, and they die much faster. In the first one, a whole fleet took a long time to nuke a freighter. Not in this one. Stray enemies die real fast. The Ferengi keep stealing my derelict ships, the little chumps. I think it will take a lot longer to finish the campaigns than in the first one. I have heard some people rave about the voice acting and others rail against it. There is nothing wrong with the voice acting, and the writing is pretty good. Don't expect 100% accuracy with Star Trek lore. It's a 4x game, and they do a pretty decent job of making it Star Trek. And it's a good 4x game. The graphics and the engine are quite old, but they were awesome back then, and they still look okay. The interface is a little different, but it's not bad. If you liked the first one, I think you will really like this one too. But it's true, the whole story line is not as grand as the first one. Patrick Stewart does some voice acting, but during the scenarios there are no celebrity voice actors. But it's fine. Recommended!
As they say, inspired by Master of Orion 2. And look, I don't want to spout heresy, but MoO2 was made a very long time ago. This game is much better, much more. It's what MoO2 might have dreamed of becoming. Turns are thoughtful and decisions matter. You can screw up while learning the mechanics. But with a little time, the gameplay, mechanics, strategy, the whole is experience is top notch. There are no annoyances that come to mind and lots of pleasant surprises. Extensive tooltips make the mechanics transparent. After a few games, you'll notice some good strategies that will win fairly easily on normal difficulty. But the higher difficulty is still the same gameplay. It isn't a matter of exploits or choosing the same thing every time. It's just being careful and slowly sculpting your empire. Stellaris has lots of atmosphere, but honestly I think ISG has better gameplay on a much lower budget. Terrific turn-based space 4x.
I'll give an example of why I don't like this mod. In battle, the enemy will run for the furthest corner of the map, then essentially run in circles around the perimeter of the map when you approach, stalling for time, trying to burn up 25 turns (when battle automatically ends). It will do this even when it is powerful enough to possibly win. You can't use auto battle, because the AI doesn't know how to intercept a fleeing unit. So most battles are a matter of fanning out and cornering one unit after another. It's very tedious and just dumb. Also, power inflation. The author doesn't know how to really balance things. He just keeps heaping on power here and there, then more to make up for the new imbalances, then more here, then more over there. In no time you're swimming in gold and mana and units. I'm not into quantity. He left out quality.
I know the sequel just came out, but I got the first version on sale here at Gog. Lots of inventory and crafting elements. I find myself really engaged. The card-based conflict resolution Takes only a little time to grasp. A good Let's Play may help. Now I find it easy. Playing on easy difficulty for my first playthrough and enjoying exploring the exploration, stories, outfitting, and crafting. Recommended.
There is a great game idea buried somewhere inside Ironclad Tactics. Your units move from left to right across the field and engage the enemy units marching the other way. Score victory points by marching your automatons off the enemy's side of the map. The pace is fairly fast. There are no turns, contrary to the game description. It is pretty sad when a company cannot correctly identify its games' basic mechanics. Play is in real-time with cyclical events such as card processing, moving, and shooting, all at regular intervals. The action aspect of the game is fine, though you will need to learn through trial and error - not much is explained. The inclusion of comic-style storyboxes is a great idea, but the prose and organization is poor. The story characters are passive. Things simply happen to them. Our heroes mostly complain and have no motives or ideas of their own. The artistry is good, but the overall presentation lacks both caring and skill. I found myself clicking with annoyance past the story boxes without reading them. The game also misfires on the 'flavor text' of the cards. It is not only vapid but sometimes very flawed. An example is the carbine weapon, described as "perfect for short range". What they actually mean is "only usable at short range". The limited range is not a niche or specialization; it is merely a limitation. The game's text is frequently misleading in this fashion. Ironclad could very easily have been a superb game, worthy of Zachtronics' reputation, had it been executed with diligence and artistic vision. Instead it seems to say, "We're not sure what turn-based play is. Stories are dumb but necessary. Describing things is hard, don't you think?" That said, there is a genuinely challenging action card game here. My criticisms apply to the game's context and presentation, not to the core action.
