Manalishi
Posts: 29
Joined: 5/1/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tomokatu
I suspect it would lead to "gamey" play where people play TO the rules, rather than make their own decisions.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are we not already doing this in several of the AARs where the Soviets declare war in late 1940 or early 1941 in order to mitigate the effects of the Shock events? Are there other consequences to this Soviet action?
Gameyness aside, my main thought is that I cannot make informed decisions because I do not know what all the events are, or how they are triggered. This is because the information is not provided in any usable form. Since I do not know, it makes it difficult to formulate a long term strategy. I am essentially playing a guessing game. Based on what I know from historical events, if I do X, then A, B or C should happen, but I do not know any such thing actually will happen. When it does, I ask myself, "did I do that, and if so, how?" When it does not, I ask myself, "how can I help this along?"
Of course, such knowledge can sometimes be gained through repetitive gameplay.
Playing to such known triggers and consequences doesnt seem to be such a bad thing, but I cannot really say for sure. It seems logical to me that the political and command and control entities of the time would have a pretty good idea what the possible consequences of their actions would be, and were therefore able to take calculated risks. The player, however, is not provided with this same data.
To be honest, I tend to think in terms of multiplay, and so I might have come across as if the AI were capable of cognitive response to complex player evaluations and actions. In terms of solo play, you are probably right, or closer to right than me in this regard.
~
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tomokatu
I would be in favour of an in-game warning system of some sorts which warns, "if you do THIS, then THIS has an increased probablity of happening."
I fail to see how this is better or worse than the above. The only additional requirement this version demands is that the player actually play through at least once to discover the triggers and their outcomes. After that, they theoretically have full knowledge. Perhaps there is value in this.
I am from the camp that believes the more information in the hands of the player, the better. We are not playing a strictly hypothetical game where the frontier beckons. The setting is solidly entrenched within historical parameters. We know what the potentials of the situation were, and the game is devised to provide us with many of the same challenges our historical counterparts faced. Therefore, we should be provided with the same historical data they had so that we can make our own decision about how to proceed.
That is all I am wishing for.
<M>
< Message edited by Manalishi -- 11/27/2009 6:55:44 AM >
_____________________________
Obstacles are what you see when you take your eye off the goal.
|
Printable Version
First Impressions - 
or a Texican't
, but since you mentioned ATR and didn't mention SC then I have to mention it as the best AI for this GS scale. Going solo against the AI on expert +2 experience will initially give you everything you can handle, but I would suggest you try the "normal" setting first. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread