RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


Aurelian -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (8/12/2013 2:37:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
I play the Sovs :) . Maybe 1.03, or whatever the setup version is would be better AI wise?


Maybe... I don't know.

It takes so long to get to the winter turns. And so many other games I want to spend time on like Strategic Command AoD and Civ 5.



Got SC WW1 and the Breakthrough expansion myself. Like it so far.




Mehring -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (8/22/2013 6:06:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

My view to the letter.




Aurelian -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (8/22/2013 6:46:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

My view to the letter.


Mine as well.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6567383