zakblood
Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline
|
if you want my opinion when i first saw it i thought it was a stupid idea and would never work, then again i'm not a fully brillant history buff so don't know the in's and outs of the campaign either, but half the battle for both side was won and lost for the commanders in fighting and poor choices made, this is where the game imo is different, as you get if you want to that is, make some of them choices better, or most of the time for me worse, as it goes both ways.
eg:
let the fins go over the boarder, good or bad call?
delay the start of the campaign to get more fuel? good or bad call?
delay while you support staff and troops alter rail lines and rest and they have been at it for far too long already?
each and everyone has good and bad points, some don't seem to do anything, until you run out of fuel and somebody tells you, you made the wrong choice 
each has a possative and negative effect on not only the commanders but also on the troops in real time, delay attack, other side prepared more, so more dug in etc etc
i've played mostly with them all off, but also put many hours in with them on,
micromanagement for a east front game is bare minimum for size and scope.
relationships have a greater impact that most think, but again in options you can turn on and off, so plays either way, same as decisions, all can be turned off, so you can just fight, again mostly how i play it, but not always as i like the newer stuff as well, so have the option of both ways in options now...
|
Printable Version
Please let us delegate one or more fronts/AGs to AI con... - 
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