X-Men Apocalypse: It's the end of the world... again... but it's awesome.

 Note: I use italics to refer to the movie title, to differentiate from Apocalypse the character ;)

This year has already been a great one for comic book films, starting with the Valentines Day romp of Deadpool, and the magnificence of Captain America: Civil War. It has also been a bit of a disappointment, with Batman V Superman leaving its community split between those that hate it, and those that desperately defend it, in spite of its critical drubbing. X-Men has had a string of successes in the last few years, maintaining a pretty high-standard of entertainment, and proving that Marvel Studios isn't the only safe bet in town for a good night at the movies. X-Men: Apocalypse wasn't my most anticipated film this year, but I'm glad to report that it delivers pretty much exactly the level of action, character, and social awareness that you've come to expect from the franchise. However, it also falls victim to its competition, as movies like Deadpool (a loose alumni of the X-Men franchise) gave a fresh breath of air to the comic book genre just recently, while Apocalypse rather fittingly sticks with the kind of overdone "big baddie wants to end the world" scenario. Civil War will still remain my pick for best comic book movie of the year for now, as it took the Avengers, a team known for saving the world on an epic scale, and boiled its story-line down to a deeply character-driven narrative, devoid of the stereotypes that have started to become routine in comic movies. Don't get me wrong, Apocalypse is great, and you'll love it if you have any love for fairly straight forward comic movie, but it is following some pretty tough acts this year.

Apocalypse is one of the X-Men universe's most popular, and threatening villains. The comic books have dedicated year-long events to the character, and he remains as one of the biggest baddies in the whole Marvel universe. Making a film about him seems like it would need to be big, and carry a hell of a lot of gravity, and X-Men: Apocalypse certainly tries its hardest to deliver. The stakes are about as high as they've ever been, with the titular villain attempting to wipe out all of humanity in a grand scheme that would leave only the strongest mutants alive to rule the world. So, great right? We've had Deadpool, and Civil War both offer smaller, more personal stories, it's probably time for a big doomsday scenario (actually, considering Batman V Superman, maybe we shouldn't ever ask for Doomsday again). Brian Singer, long-running X-Men director, does an outstanding job of building the seriousness of the threat that Apocalypse represents, and bringing to a head the character arcs of the generation 2 actors that started in X-Men: First Class. The film's biggest reward is its final shots, where the classic X-Men team assembles in full, zany uniforms, finally paying off on the years of black leather biker outfits, and half-measures towards the classic X-Men aesthetic. It's all so good, and yet I somehow feel like this could have been better.

***Minor Spoilers Ahead***

Call me a spoiled comic book fanboy, but I can't help but wonder if the character of Apocalypse deserved something bigger. Part of the problem with the current era of comic book movies is that we the audience are finally becoming as jaded as the comic book readers of old. We saw the Avengers save New York from an alien invasion, and then saw them prevent a comet from obliterating the world. We've had Superman save/annihilate major cities to save the world twice recently. We just had a movie called X-Men: Apocalypse, and the next Thor film will cover Ragnarok, the revelations chapter of Norse mythology. The doom of the world being thwarted by spandex-clad heroes is becoming the one thing that it should never be: routine. We've kind of gone over this all before, and it seems like we the fans are getting harder and harder to please. Marvel has found a way to address this by introducing Thanos, a villain so serious and powerful that he's been kept in reserve, operating from the shadows before he will finally be revealed in Avengers: Infinity Wars. This use of a recurring character that is just too big, and too powerful to deal with directly builds a suspense, and sense of impending doom that far outweighs a villain that is simply introduced, built up, and defeated in one film. This is kind of what I felt was missing for good old Apocalypse. What made Apocalypse great in the comics was his inevitability. No matter what you seemed to try, the bastard always survived, and always remained impossible to defeat. While it may be a slight spoiler, I must now mention that the good guys win in X-Men: Apocalypse (oh, shut up, of course they did), and Apocalypse is definitively defeated. While the film does a great job of making his defeat seem all but impossible, and makes it really come down to the wire, it does end with Apocalypse being destroyed on a pretty much atomic level. For a character that is "invincible", and has lived for thousands of years, to be beaten and definitively killed in a single film (with an in-film chronology of maybe a month at the most), it kind of feels anti-climactic. Maybe the creative team could have chosen to draw it out over more films, or end with at least some ambiguity over the finality of Apocalypse's death, and that might have made it more satisfying.

In summary, this film felt a little routine, and I kind of wish Apocalypse had been given a bit longer in this universe to really build his sense of threat, but all of that aside, I also feel that Singer, and Fox Studios are still safe hands for this franchise. X-Men: Apocalypse looks great, the characters are wonderful, and the villain works extremely well with what he has. I'm still kind of glad that X-Men is separate from the Marvel Comic Universe movies, since it allows it to act as its own player in the game, and we're not stuck with a duopoly of Disney and Warner Bros. Given that the first film came out 16 years ago, it is encouraging to see that the franchise, and its director, have still got the touch that helped save the comic movie genre.

Battlefleet Gothic Armada: buy the shit out of this game

I am not a proponent of early access games by any means, and I have traditionally frowned upon companies that try to force pre-orders by offering pre-release content. There are a lot of reasons for this, such as the content not reflecting the ultimate product, or the ultimate product having little over the pre-release materiel. PC gamers have been forced to defend themselves from anti-consumer practices from companies like EA, Sega, and Ubisoft, who desperately seek pre-release sales as a way of incentivising, or simply impressing their investors. I've gone on record saying that I deeply disaprove of Sega, and Creative Assembly's decision to hold the Chaos Warriors content from Total War: Warhammer hostage behind a pre-order scheme, and I have also been disappointed by some other early access Warhammer titles, such as Eternal Crusade (disappointing, but improving).

So, it is with that full disclosure in mind that I want you to believe me when I say that Battlefleet Gothic Armada is perhaps one of the most satisfying, and enjoyable early access purchases I have ever made. For those that are totally unfamiliar with the game, it is a video game adaptation of the cult classic tabletop game from Games Workshop, Battlefleet Gothic. Armada recreates the tabletop game's look, and spirit perfectly in a real-time strategy structure, which keeps the game fast paced, and accessible for those not looking for a turn-based game.

I had limited expectations going in, but had been encouraged by videos from commentators, such as John Bain. Armada scratches a pretty specific itch for me as a gamer, as it offers 2d strategic space combat, with a focus on tactics and micromanagement. Part of the original board game's appeal was that it was framed as "tall ships in space", with the ships acting less like realistic space craft, and more akin to 18th century galleons. The ships are all high-tech, and you'll find yourself blasting down energy shields with plasma cannons, only to then launch boarders, as though you'd thrown grapnels, and swung across the gap between ships with a dagger in your teeth. The lore does a good job immersing the player, and explaining the odd fusion of sci-fi and bucaneering. The gameplay may seem odd to those used to space as a 3d plane. Homeworld this is not. Armada also gives you a massive amount of ship customization, as well as skills to use, in combination with ships arsenals. The maneovers, orders, skills, ship's abilities all contribute to ships having a great number of different options and play styles. This makes the combat somewhat more tactical, since you need to choose when to use your panoply of abilities at appropriate times.

What is currently playable in the pre-launch build is a set of tutorial missions, which introduce the coming campaign, and the solo/multiplayer skirmish options. I just spent the whole of my day today, and most of the night before hammering out as much of this game as I could play, and I'm still keen to play more tomorrow. The core gameplay (I mostly experienced it through the skirmish mode) is so damn solid that I would have happily paid for the current level of content as though it were a release product. Obviously, I'll be much happier when the final touches are made, and the campaign is fully playable, but for what amounts to an extended demo of the game, Armada's early access build is amazing.

This title has all the things I would generally avoid as a purchase. It is an early access game, which means you are basically paying the company to play test their game for them. It has a pre-order incentive (the Space Marines are offered free after launch to early adopters), which normally stinks of cut content, or as I like to call it, "hostage content". It is also a cash-in on an old and disused GW license, which has been a mixed bag to say the least, looking back at the last few years of GW video game adaptations. But I want you to do me a favour and forget all that shit. Battlefeet Gothic Armada lives up to its promises, and to be frank, it offers more unbridled joy in its pre-release build than most games offer in their final build. If you are into space combat, the 41st millennium, or just a good RTS, I would say you should buy the shit out of this game. It is currently 10% off its launch price, and the pre-order bonus didn't really bother me that much. I know it's space marines, but they aren't the real movers and shakers of BFG, like they are in regular 40k, so as a pre-order bonus, I don't feel jipped. Defend the Gothic Sector, or burn it to ashes. This one's a keeper.

World of Warships: I'm back, and also, Russian DDs

It's been a while since I've done a WoWs post, and to be frank, I've not been playing for ages. I originally said to myself that I'd resume playing once the British were in the game, so I could take my Warspite captain, and put him to work in the new ships. Since Wargaming has continued updating the game without any sign on the horizon of a British line (I'm hoping that they release the whole fleet on WoWS anniversary), I decided to come back and check out the state of the game, as well as try my flipper at a bit of Soviet DD action.

The game has had a few cool updates. I noticed that BBs felt a bit more dangerous than last time I ventured into the game, and can see from the patch notes that a few buffs were finally made to their dispersion. The skill-trees have been revamped, and the retraining system has also been redesigned, reflecting a need for the captains to actually fight to gain their skills back. At its heart, WoWs is still good old WoWs, complete with everything that made the game great, and just a few less of the things that made it a pain in the ass. A persistently annoying issue that I noticed straight away was the rarity of aircraft carriers in higher tier matches, making my Pensacola's AA build risky to take, since about half of the games I loaded into had no carriers. This problem is still a fundamental one, where you can't force players to play carriers just to make the game fun for others.

Having enjoyed my time in the Gremyashchy, the tier 5 Russian DD, I figured I should transfer my captain to the Russian DD line, starting at tier 2. Low tier games are still fun, more so than World of Tanks in my opinion. I already knew going in that the Russian low tier ships had a shitty reputation, suffering the atrocious 3km torpedo range. Coming from an American DD background, I was already pretty comfortable with close range combat, and death-defying torpedo runs. The Storozhevoi looks like a submarine that surfaced and forgot how to dive again. It is narrow, sleek, and has a super sad armament of 3 DD guns, with two located at the rear rather than the front. These guns aren't even superfiring, meaning that if the enemy is in your rear quarter (you know, where the guns are concentrated) that you can't fire both at once. This means that the Storozhevoi ends up frequently only able to fire one gun at its foes, making it look less like a warship, and more like a kid spitting peas across the classroom. I make a big deal of these shitty guns because the torpedoes are so close range that you'll want to rely on your guns a lot more, and that is supposed to be the Russian way. On this ship, you really do need to learn proper ambush tactics, and get in to use those torpedoes. In that department, Russian torpedoes have stunningly short ranges, but this is complimented by the high speed, and evasive nature of the tiny Russian ships. Also, the other flavour of these ships is that they launch a lot of torpedoes, and have super fast loading tubes. Once you can initiate a favourable ambush, you can start wreaking absolute havoc, since torpedoes launched at those kinds of ranges basically can't miss. It is an even more suicidal tactic than American torpedo strikes (bet you never thought you'd be longing for that 5km range), but it does lead to a fast and furious lifestyle. In Russian DDs, you live fast, die young, and leave a lot of beautiful flaming wrecks. As this line progresses, the Russian guns start to get really good, but I feel this early ship is meant to force you to get used to this style of torpedo play.

I still recommend that new players steer clear of DDs as a rule, and you need a pretty advanced skillset and understanding of concealment to make these ships work, but I would probably recommend them to newbies over the Japanese line, who become a massive hazard to friendly ships. Stick to American cruisers if you really want a friendly learning tree. It's good to be back on the high seas.

Total War Attila: Slavs, Valentines Day, and the Swansong of The Hun

Pictured: Slavic Cataphracts

About a week ago, Creative Assembly announced what looks to be the final DLC for Total War: Attila, and this one comes in with about 2 months left before the release of CA's next big title, Total War: Warhammer. It may be a little while before we see another historical title from CA, and while this DLC doesn't exactly look as though it will revitalize the game, it may be just the thing that's needed to round out Attila's lifespan. The Slavic Culture pack is a faction pack, much like those that preceded it, containing 3 new playable faction. These factions will effectively be the final missing piece in the puzzle of Attila's campaign map. Much like the other faction DLC that came before it, this one will attend to a part of the map that is otherwise quiet, without majoy playable factions present. Like those that came before it, the Slavic pack will likely shift the meta of the game, making campaigns play out differently than they had previously. This faction announcement also comes with the news that it may be free, if CA is victorious in the Make War, Not Love competition, currently running on Steam.

Those that are familiar with my blog may recall the positive review I gave The Empires of Sand DLC. While I don't always like DLC, and believe that a game charging full retail price should always ship as a complete product, I do also believe that DLC is an important part of game development, and can vastly improve a gamer's experience if handled well. I ranted angrily at Attila's release, when CA shamelessly brought out 3 DLC's in quick succession, which I felt devalued the game (note, one was a pre-order bonus, but that has its own pitfalls). Empires of Sand came much later, spacing itself out, and coming at a time when the game was growing stale. Slavic Cultures also feels like it has come at just the right time. While CA has recently released a DLC for Attila, the Age of Charlemagne, it is a separate campaign, and does not affect the main game. A change to the main campaign at this time will spice things up one last time.

Slavic pack will introduce a whole new culture to Attila. Currently, the factions in the North-East of the map use the Germanic unit roster. The Germanic roster has copped a lot of flak for being the "generic unit roster" of Attila. It is the base roster for most of the Barbarian Kingdoms, the Great Migrator factions, the Longbeard factions, and were until recently the basis of the Alans. Attila's DLC seems to have spent most of its time chasing after cookie-cutter unit rosters, and replacing them with better developed ones. The Slavic pack will replace the factions in far-east Germania, and The Steppe with Slavs, who will have their own look and feel (view the roster here).

Who you calling German?

The new factions are the Anteans, the Sclavenians, and the Venedians. The theme of these new campaigns will be building of wonders, and the desperate fight to hold off the nomadic hordes. Life in the east of the map will be hard to begin, since you are starting in the lands that the Huns will be ravening, and it looks as if CA has built in a new "Last Stand" mode, in order to help you survive those early days. Other than that, these three factions will have bonuses such as:

Antians- These guys are consummate ambushers and, and gain bonuses for fighting in woods or by rivers, but are penalized for fighting in open ground. This will likely be annoying at first, but would lead to a unique play style. Their starting position is closest to Germania, with its prodigious forests, so it might not be too bad early on.

Sclavenians- These fellas might be the easiest ones to play of the bunch, as they gain bonuses vs nomadic tribes. Given that they start in the farthest of the eastern positions, this makes sense. Also they gain bonuses to income for enemies killed, so expect them to be the most combat-intensive faction.

Venedians- This faction gets a huge bonus to farm economy, and no penalties to squalor or happiness for the presence of farms. This is cut by a penalty to their income from commerce, industry, and culture. Their starting location is farther north than any other, so they will likely avoid combat with hordes early on, but suffer from contact with the Nordic factions. I expect a slower-paced campaign, with easier food management.

The other thing to address here is the Make War Not Love competition. According to CA, if they win Sega's little competition, they'll give us this faction pack free of charge. I like it when CA does little pro bono factions for the users, and it is sporting of them to make it up to us the players to work for our supper here. You can help get this content free, simply by playing the main campaign of Attila, and fighting as many battles as you can. You cannot auto-resolve these fights, and only victories are counted. I'm currently trying out The White Huns, and I recommend that if you want to get involved, you play a migratory faction (Huns, Vandals etc.), and that you sack and burn as many towns as you can. If Total War does not win the competition, the DLC will likely cost the usual amount for a 3 faction DLC ($8AUD in my case).

I'll look at the content in greater detail once it releases, but for now, I can say that I'm happy to see one last boost to this game as it gets closer to bowing out. In spite of my occasional frustrations, I believe in CA, and in Total War as a franchise. I believe CA is a company that loves and respects its users, even when it does occasionally clash with them on some issues. Total War: Attila was a great title, and stayed strong till the end. I hope this bow out cements its place in the hearts of its fans.

Total War Update: Modders Triumphant, CA Giving Mixed Signals

Hey there, wargamers! Just a quick update today on the state of TW, and what you need to know. As we reach the end of January, we find ourselves growing ever closer to the release of Warhammer, and we see CA's interest in renovating Attila slowly dying off. They've had a good run this year with their product, which launched last February, and it has had its share of good and bad updates. Only a single final DLC or content pack is rumoured, and as is the tradition with most TW games, Attila will soon pass into the curatorship of the modding community. But it seems that there is both triumph and controversy brewing there also.

Recently, two Attila mods have drawn praise from the TW community. Firstly is the Rise of Mordor mod, and the other being Medieval Kindoms 1212. Those who have a history with TW might remember the glorious days of modding Medieval 2. Medieval 2 seems to be a high point for many TW veterans, myself included, and although my copy wasn't a steam version, thus denying me a play time count, I'm sure it was the game I spent more hours on than any in my gaming history. Many modern TW players have asked, "was M2 really that good?" and most old schoolers will argue for hours why it rocked so hard. My love for M2 mostly came from its extensive modding scene, and I remember discovering the Third Age, a Lord of The Rings themed mod, and practically falling in love with M2 as if I were seeing the game for the very first time.

Third Age completely rebuilt the world in M2 around the Tolkien mythos, with full rosters of Gondor, Rohan, Mordor, Sylvan Elves, Dwarves, lavishly recreating the aesthetic of the films, but also adding units from the books that never made it into the films, like Hobbits equipped for war, and The Knights of Dol Amroth. The badass team behind Third Age has risen from the darkness to build their successor mod using the Attila engine. Attila feels like a good place to remake this mod, since it verges on the early medieval era, has appropriate unit types to fill most of the Lord of The Rings aesthetic, and has sufficient modding tools to support these designs. The mod is only in its infancy, but it is already evoking the excellence of its predecessor. The only thing that seems to be a stumbling block for it so far is that CA hasn't provided nearly as many modding tools as they once did. The map of Attila is proving difficult to adjust in order to give the players a true Middle Earth campaign experience, and so far CA has refused to release their map editor. We'll touch on this subject again at the end of the article, but for now, know that this modding team has earned my thanks for their efforts, and they are in fact petitioning CA in order to release the tools they need to bring you a superior Middle Earth experience.

Give em the "Gondorian experience" ;)

The second mod making similar waves is the Medieval Kingdoms 1212 mod. This mod looks to capture the sprawling landscape of M2, complete with its multiple eras of the medieval age, from the late dark ages, to the introduction of gun powder. This mod is a simpler, but equally welcome change of pace than Rise of Mordor. It hopes to give the gamer the feeling of M2, but with the advent of the graphical quality of Attila. It feels great to see familiar M2 style units clashing on my screen again, and I recommend you all check it out, as many famous youtubers, such as Lionheart, Warrior of Sparta, and Heir of Carthage have already been taking a look at the early access builds of the mod.

This all leads me to my final thoughts about TW for the day. The most enduring legacy of games like Rome Total War, and Medieval 2 has not only been their inherent quality, but the dedicated communities that they earned, who tirelessly built amazing mods and game fixes, free of charge, long after they got their money's worth from the games. Modding has been near the heart of TW since its inception, and CA has even acknowledged this, holding their own little awards show, recognizing the efforts of community contributors. It is, therefore, rather disheartening to see that CA has offered little in the way of a full array of modding tools for the community. Don't get me wrong, I know this isn't CA so much as it is their publishers, clawing tools out of the public's hands, so that they have exclusive rights to the game's content. Sega probably foams at the mouth when they think that modders can simply unlock all factions in a TW game, thus reducing the value of DLC packs, but removing these tools will ultimately harm the longevity of their games, and even hurt potential sales. Famous mods can actually sell a game. There are many among the TW community that had no interest in Attila, since the time period did nothing for them, but having access to the high medieval era, or a faithful recreation of the Tolkien mythos can do a lot to spur sales, even so long after the game's release. Mods can do what DLC sometimes can't: renovate the game's commercial appeal, and draw in new customers. Limiting modders' tools may be a slow path to the death of TW's community if they are given no way to participate, other than eating whatever the publisher offers them. Which leads us to this:

Total War: Warhammer recently announced that they would not be supporting mods, or providing modding kits. This is pretty bad news. Credit to CA, they are clearly not happy about this, and probably wish they could give us full access to modding tools. It's likely that this state of affairs is due to the licensing of the Games Workshop units and aesthetic. It makes a certain amount of sense that the community would be given limited access to in game assets, when they represent intellectual property that simply doesn't belong to CA or Sega outside of narrow, licensed usage. However, I cannot express enough how disappointing this feels. Games like Dawn of War were very much open to modding, and they were licensed products, published and developed by THQ and Relic. CA has promised that modding tools will be available for future historic games, but I'm not yet convinced that we the community are slowly losing our stake in the game. CA is a company made up of game devs who are gamers themselves, but they are responsible to corporate overlords as sure as any developer. I hope that you enjoy what you see in the mods I've mentioned, and that you hold hope in your heart that TW will continue to support the community that supports it so lovingly.

Update: Warman from the Medieval Kingdoms 1212 team has informed me that the modding tools used on Medieval 2 were community developed, and not provided by CA, whereas the tools used on Attila were from CA. As they've demonstrated with their mod awards, CA really does care about the community, and I hope that the next historic game continues that trend, and that campaign map tools emerge.

Armored Warfare: The World of Tanks Challenger

For about two years now, World of Tanks has dominated the field of massive multi-player online armoured combat games. World of Tanks achieved a great deal of success by targeting a gap in the market between arcade shooters and historical combat/tank simulator games. It tickled the tank enthusiast's desire for a game that modeled cool armoured vehicles, and loosely simulated the intricacies of tank warfare, while still being easy enough to pick up and play that the casual gamer had no difficulty getting on board. While World of Tanks did a great job appealing to that niche, they also built a number of negative qualities into the game that have niggled at its success, and its customer's satisfaction since inception. This has led to a spree of competitors looking to dethrone, or at least challenge World of Tanks's monopoly. The first major competitor to challenge World of Tanks was War Thunder, which promised combined arms warfare and a more realistic simulation of warfare. While it has had some success, it has still failed to achieve the same level of appeal, perhaps due to its steep learning curve and lack of professional competitive play appeal. This leads us to Armored Warfare, perhaps the closest match to the World of Tanks formula that we've seen yet (other than the flat out knock-offs you'll find in the internet's backwater).

Some will tell you that Armored Warfare is among the World of Tanks knock-offs, with its near identical control scheme and overall gameplay. Much in the same way that I would not call League of Legends a ripoff of DOTA, but merely an emulation of a formula with its own flavour and specialty, so too is Armored Warfare an emulation of World of Tanks. World of Tanks specifically covers tanks from the 1920s, the era of inter-war experimentation, up until the 1960s. World of Tanks claims to cut its vehicles off around the point when smooth-bore guns came into fashion, and armoured combat began to shift its focus toward lighter armoured vehicles, computer and night vision developments, and of course, the shift to guided missiles. That's pretty much exactly where Armored Warfare picks up. It's almost amusing to see vehicles like the T-54, the M60, and other top tier World of Tanks vehicles hanging out at tier 2 and 3 in Armored Warfare. Armored Warfare differentiates itself from World of Tanks by focusing on modern warfare, adding new ideas such as missile systems, and high-tech armour that actively defends without simply relying on armour thickness and angling. It seems to offer virtually everything that World of Tanks does and more, save for World of Tanks' historical period.

Wargaming, the company that produces World of Tanks, has a lot to be concerned about, perhaps far more than they ever needed to with War Thunder. While World of Tanks will likely remain in its prime position, Armored Warfare’s greatest potential power is that it may force World of Tanks to start reassessing some of their less popular policies and features. Much like Guild Wars took on the role of challenging World of Warcraft's unpopular features, Armored Warfare attacks some of the longest standing gripes that World of Tanks players have. World of Tanks' players have long begrudged three major problems: pay to win consumable ammunition, frustrating artillery, and a lack of a PVE (player vs environment) mode.

Ammunition in WoT is highly simplistic. Most tanks in the game carries three ammo types, an armour piercing type, a high explosive type, and a form of premium ammo that costs gold (paid for with real world money) or extortionate amounts of standard currency. The higher the penetration on the shells, the better. While it is sometimes better to use high-explosives, this is typically a gimmick, and higher penetration variants of ammunition are almost always better. This not only rewards players for spending real money on a disposable assets, it also flies in the face of realism, as super high penetration ammunition is actually not that effective against lightly armoured targets in the real world. Armored Warfare addresses this by making the penetration mechanics more complex, having high penetration rounds over-penetrate light targets, causing minimal damage. World of Warships actually implements this same mechanic, leading to shell choice becoming a much more important factor of the game, and adding to the required skillset. War Thunder took this mechanic to the extreme, and based its entire damage system on critical hit locations. Armored Warfare comes closer to War Thunder by rewarding the targeting of critical modules, and penalizing overuse of high penetration ammo. Yet, Armored Warfare retains the hit points based system of World of Tanks, thus avoiding War Thunder's less fair and random feeling combat. Armored Warfare also adds missiles and reactive armours, which add their own unique challenges for players to learn.

Artillery was also a sticking point in World of Tanks. Artillery units were meant to discourage camping behaviour by putting a unit into the game that was great at targeting people that sat still in cover. However, due to a complicated series of issues, which we may discuss another time, arty in World of Tanks seems to do the opposite, being rewarded much more for targeting tanks on the front lines. This led to huge frustrations for most medium and heavy tank drivers, who found themselves leading the charge, only to be punked by arty. This problem was compounded by the arty damage models being super random, with the distinct possibility of blasting a front line heavy tank in one shot, or bouncing off a light tank without a scratch. This led to massive frustrations, since most players didn't even know that they were being targeted until the pain train slammed down from the sky. The slow firing and aim times, plus the relatively boring play style for arty meant that it wasn't even really all that fun for the arty drivers, leading to low class population. Again, this is where Armored Warfare came screaming in on their modern warfare eagle. Armored Warfare attacked the arty problem with gusto. Arty fires faster and more accurately than in World of Tanks, but mostly does consistent amounts of smaller damage. It still wrecks modules, and splashes multiple targets, plus the addition of special arty ammo that can reveal hidden enemies and conceal friendlies, making it feel more like a support class, a la a priest from WoW, who can throw debuffs and offer more than mere damage. All tanks in the game get a notification when they are being targeted by arty, giving them precious time to move before being blapped, thus making the game feel fairer, and death by arty feel less of a cheat. The game is made more fun for the arty player, too. Arty now play a fun mini game where they are notified of enemy arty positions when they fire, which allows them to counter battery their opponents. Their position is only given away if they choose to continue firing without moving, thus seeing to the issue of arty player just sitting on their arse for most of the game. Armored Warfare’s efforts to fix the arty issue have not gone unnoticed by Wargaming, who have already proposed similar changes to World of Tanks.

The final feature that sets apart Armored Warfare is the prominent PVE mode, which allows players to fight cooperatively against an AI opponent, rather than focusing the game entirely on monotonous PVP battles. Some players will see this as a waste of their time. After all, isn't it always better to play against human players? Well, even those players may find themselves reconsidering that position when they consider that World of Tanks style games all still have the same sticking point when it comes to PVP. These games almost always include a double experience boost for your first victory of the day. Many players end up tearing their eyebrows out in frustration when they play an absolute monster game, racking up massive damage, worthy of a humongous doubled reward, only to have their team suck a fat one, and throw that whole bonus away. By including a PVE mode, you can be assured that a first victory of the day will at least be a guarantee within a few games, rather than the randomness of team games. These co-op games also still feel like a competition with other players, since you'll be fighting to get the most damage done, and be the biggest contributor to your team's success. Furthermore, it helps the player to skip the horror of the "stock tank" syndrome. World of Tanks players will know full-well the pain of playing a tank without all of its upgrades, or without a fully developed crew. Having to say to your team, "sorry guys, I'm a stock tank," can generally be avoided by grinding out the modules in the lower stakes game of PVE, where failure doesn't carry such a stigma of failing your comrades.

I'd love to rant and rave for a lot longer about Armored Warfare and how it differs, and improves on the World of Tanks formula, but I don't want to sound too sycophantic, as the game is still imperfect. The game's graphics still feel like they have a little catching up to do, and the engine is still a tad buggy. Many tanks need balancing, and it will be a little while yet before the game reaches World of Tanks' level of polish. World of Tanks players should consider downloading the game, trying it out, and then going on forums and talking about ways that World of Tanks could be improved by studying Armored Warfare. As consumers, we all need to take advantage of opportunities to prevent big companies like Wargaming from getting too comfy with having a monopoly on a niche like tank combat. World of Tanks has sat on its hands too long about issues like arty, and premium ammo, and while Armored Warfare is far from threatening World of Tanks' dominance of the industry, it is certainly a solid enough challenger to shock Wargaming into action. Those World of Tanks fanboys that have no interest in playing Armored Warfare should still rejoice that a true challenger has arrived, as this can only mean innovation and improvement for you. Players looking for a new experience, with a familiar formula should get on Armored Warfare right now, and try out all the new features. I'm confident that Obsidian Entertainment's Armored Warfare will rattle some cages, and bring a whole new generation of heavy metal excellence to the armoured combat simulator genre. World of Tanks, get off your arse and show us that you rock just as hard, because this challenger has you in its sights.

Age of Charlemagne : Big Heart, Tiny Dollars

Right action is better than knowledge; but in order to do what is right, we must know what is right... So, I chose for it to be right to rock!

While I've recently been as vocal as I'm able to be over the whole TW: Warhammer fiasco, I've also been as positive and praising of TW: Attila's DLC and expansions as possible. While the early DLC angered many fans over the "Cut Content" debate, the later stuff was all pretty excellent, with Empires of Sand earning a special place in my heart (all hail the spice king!). The latest, and perhaps least expected move from CA in the lead up to next year's big release was the release of the Age of Charlemagne expansion a few days ago. The expansion was spotted in the code a little while back, and there had been speculation over what it would cover. While community responses have been mixed, I'm happy to say that I've really enjoyed the campaign and period so far, and it has given me a healthy dose of nostalgia for Medieval 2, which was a candidate for the greatest Total War game of all time to me, and many in the community.

Age of Charlemagne covers the reign of the legendary Frankish king, and acts as a great background to the Middle Ages. The period between the games focusing on Rome and the Middle Ages is often a bit of a grey area for most people, as the so called "Dark Ages" seem to have less glamour. What I liked so much about Attila is that it covered the fall of Rome with as much lavish detail as Rome 2 covered the rise. The dark and apocalyptic Attila still left a gap between itself and the easily recognizable era of the Medieval games. Considering the speculation that Medieval 3 may be the next game in Total War's historical game franchise, a campaign for Attila that helps tie those periods together is a welcome piece of content.

I'll get it out of the way by saying that the campaign is pretty small in scope, with its campaign map excluding North Africa, the Eastern Steppe, Greece, and upper Scandinavia. Instead, AoC focuses on the Carolingian Empire, the often forgotten empire that succeeded Rome as the great power in Europe. It also includes the Iberian Peninsula, and allows the players to try their luck at the Reconquista. I played as the Kingdom of Asturias because I remember one of my longest and most enjoyable campaigns in Medieval TW 2 was as the Spanish Kingdom, and this AoC campaign was such a wonderfully nostalgic throwback for me. It felt great, tying the end of Attila's main campaign to the beginning of Medieval's. Before I knew it, I was riding Jinetes in circles around my Cordoban rivals, engaging in full javelin warfare, only to eventually unlock and establish the knightly cohorts that would come to rule Spain for almost a thousand years. I did notice very quickly how limited the unit rosters were in comparison with Attila, though, it never really seemed to be that big of an issue. Each playable faction had its own idiosyncrasies, with the Franks dominating with their knights, the Avars being literally the only faction with horse archers, and the Danes fighting exclusively on foot. Pike and crossbow wielding units had disappeared, and virtually no professional romanesque armies or barbarian warbands remained, with the peasant levies taking over the main role, and elite knights monopolizing the role of warriors.

There seems to have been a lot of effort put into capturing the feeling of the early Middle Ages. The maps and unit icons all are done in an illuminated art style, contrasting with Attila's more literal unit cards. This raised an early spectre of Rome 2's ridiculous pottery artwork, but while that design was practically indecipherable (trying to select a unit from the lineup was like selecting from a row of stick men), the unit cards here are obvious and easy to recognize at a glance. It feels closer to Shogun 2, which also had a highly stylized art design, but was at least simple to interpret. The limited unit rosters also feel closer to Shogun, which makes the game simpler, though it won't have a great deal of replayability.

My biggest complaint about the DLC pack is that there are a number of really cool factions in the game that are completely unplayable. The Irish, Welsh, Slavs, and Sicilian Duchy all have really cool units. The Irish in particular have a really fleshed out army, with unique units such as Kerns and crossbowmen (the only army to retain crossbows), and yet, they are unplayable. I don't just mean they can't be played as a faction, they are not even playable as a custom battle faction. This is really weird, and feels limiting to the game's replayability factor. Modders have been swift to unlock these factions, but it feels like such a mistake on CA's part to not just unlock them for custom battles from the outset. For those pessimists out there, CA has confirmed that they will not be adding them as a further DLC, but will simply leave them locked... umm, yay?

The biggest question for my readers is, of course, is it worth it? Yes. In the tradition of TW DLC, Charlemagne's story is well crafted, and reasonably priced for what you get. It seems to be aimed at delivering three distinct stories, firstly the tale of the Franks, secondly the struggle for Iberia, and thirdly it includes Britain and the Danes. The story in the East is a little less fleshed out, with only the Avars and Eastern German duchies duking it out (see what I did there?). It tickles the right amount of nostalgia, and brings true knights in shining armour back to the TW franchise for the first time in a decade. For the $15 (AUD), the content is pretty solid, and gives us all a temporary fix of medieval madness while we wait on the next historical game to be announced. I enjoyed it, but it has almost slipped under the radar in all the excitement and controversy building up for the waaaaahhgg next year.