|
Khornish -> RE: Why I bought (12/27/2005 1:10:52 PM)
|
Although this thread has been dead for a few weeks, I did want to post my own thoughts. After playing for 3 days almost solid (well, my wife usurped my time so she could play several hours of CoH each day) I must say I am very pleased with my purchase of CoG.
Yes, the learning curve is steep, and there are things within the economic and diplomatic models that frustrate me, as well as some of the combat issues (60% chance to form line at the beginning of the battle.. come on!... give me a bonus to the first formation change of the battle at least.). However, as a student of history and as a fan of strategic/operational/tactical games, CoG is in a class on it's own. Imperial Glory is <bleep> on a stick and unworthy of taking up any space on my HDD. Yes, some people may like it due to the RTS combat element, but the strategic element is lousy.
My ideal version of CoG would be that instead of province to provice movement, we'd have free movement. Armies would follow roads, or travel cross country, from point to point. This would make crossroads, mountain passes, fortresses overlooking a river crossing all the more important to conducting an operational campaign.
quote:
Speaking of which, when might we get a clue about the subject for your next magnum opus? Please let it be either Frederick the Great, Wars of German Unification, or Rise of the Roman Republic.
I could see an Ancients version of CoG, but I think any other time between 1600-1791 would be too close to CoG to have a unique appeal. Other than the ancient period, a medieval period could be well received. However, my own preference would be for the ACW. Yes, the diplomatic portion would suffer greatly, but the operational and strategic game would be excellent, not to mention the detailed tactical battles.
At any rate, I'm gonna have to start my begging early so I could be a beta tester.
|
|
|
|
