Charles22 -> (2/15/2001 1:25:00 AM)
|
Larry Holt: I'm not confident that I could manage that. As a concept, the editing of something is sometimes a cop-out anyway. If one can just type over a default as in preferences and the campaigns maintain them throughout each battle, fair enough, but from what I've seen, particularly if we were talking about larger maps, such as I believe Warhorse uses for campaigns, he has to create the maps he uses, and then load each one seperately for each battle. That's way too much trouble for me (deploying 80-100 units takes long enough).
In any case, I would expect that it would be easy enough to expand the turns, but I've never seen such a concept with campaigns such as our current generated ones (which have a robust turn base anyway). I find it ironic that the maps that are generally the smallest, the generated ones, are the ones also with the most turns, while at least some of the opposite of that is true with user-designed campaigns to date.
I'm sure I'll purchase regardless, it's just that I wish that campaigns were designed more along the generated ones in duration. I don't mind the occassional 20 turn game, but every single battle?????? If 20 turns are sound for a meeting engagement, then how can an assault with mines, be also? I don't think commanders with any sense expect their troops to take the hill the enemy occupies, as quickly as they expect them to outrace the enemy who isn't there yet.
Some people, like me, suffer for those who love to play a battle so tough that it takes memorization to get it right, but I've never seen in RL where the same battle is fought twice. I definitely enjoy the occassional impossible mission, but don't enjoy having almost every assault mine-laden game turn out that way.
|
|
|
|