jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/11/2006 6:41:11 AM)
|
THE FOLLOWING IS JUST MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION - I'm not on the dev team so I have none of the history, but my perspective on it is... There are not "events" per se. Personally, I'm fine with that and I would lobby against adding them. With RANDOM events, either: (1) they are very powerful - in which case it feels less like a strategy game. Who wants the winner or loser to be determined to any significant extent by which players gets luckiest with events, or (2) they are not especially powerful and have very little impact in which case, why bother? Where events make a lot of sense is where there are historical happenings that are really required for game balance that are otherwise not modelled in the game, but those are generally fixed (or loosely fixed) events rather than purely random one. So, in a WWII game if you don't model the entire political and diplomatic system, then you need an event to trigger the US entry into the war at or near the proper historical time since that is such a major occurance for game balance. So, I'm not real big into random events. The Trent Affair is an example of events of type 1 above. If it randomly occured, it would be a major handicap. Personally, I wouldn't want to win or lose the game simply because you did or did not roll a 1 on a six sided die and therefore none of my gaming decisions matter. In FoF, it is possible for the European powers to enter the game. And there is a random element to it. But it is also heavily influenced by the strategic decisions made by the players with the pathway to intervention being long enough that it is highly unlikely that it could occur through random events without someone making a stretgic gaffe. Personally, I think that's the way it should be. But again, that is just my own opinion.
|
|
|
|