Harbinger -> RE: Curious (1/24/2010 6:33:11 PM)
|
One could start by being more specific. Naval: What is "problematic"? Units that participate are not "random". Only Sea Zones that have enemy units will have a chance at naval combat. There is nothing "random" about this. Which of these units may or may not participate is not "random" either. The chance for each unit is equal to the type of fleet (Regular/Raider) and the type of unit (CV,BB,CA,SS) based on each types percentage of detection. I agree that the Naval system needs improvement, basically more interface, interaction and displayed information. Events: I agree that the Events are woefully inadequate when it comes to an explanation of options. A general accounting of Events and their descriptions would prove helpful to nearly all players. Relying on a players knowledge of WWII events in Europe, and forcing players to actually play the game in order to discover for themselves these events and possible triggers, while interesting, is not conducive to the genre of "Grand Strategy". Neither is the requirement of knowing or learning a programming code to be able to read the dozens of event files with thousands of lines of code for such knowledge reasonable to expect. Weather: Could you be any more vague as to what "anomalies" you are referring to here? Air Strike CRT: Without the link, I do not know which post you are referring to. If anything, the game falls short in the presentation or lack of information one would reasonably expect to have on which to formulate a coherent strategy. Actual mechanics, while could be tweaked here and there for ease of play, are not what most have issues with. My thanks are to those who have done the .csv and Event research and provided their findings in this forum for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|