|
golden delicious -> RE: Next version News (4.0) (11/12/2013 5:43:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I still like the way that TOAW plays. Games with similar mechanics have always seemed to play more like Chess where you try to analyze moves and countermoves X moves ahead while TOAW has always reminded me more of Go where it's more about positioning. I don't know if it's the addition of supply, or because of the larger unit counts in many scenarios or something else.
In TOAW, like the real world, there are so many variables that there's no way for even the most dedicated player to be able to work out odds in their head. What's more, the figures on the counter are only an approximation of what's going on under the hood.
In CRT-based games, you can sit there and scientifically work out how your attack is going to play out and make a straightforward evaluation of whether it has good or bad odds, even across multiple individual attacks. In TOAW, one has to get a feel for what one's units capabilities are, and how they will perform. In a well-designed scenario, you can say to yourself "well, I'm pretty sure this well-rested Panzer division should be able to cut through this screen and hook around to the enemy's rear before they can react" in the same way as a real commander could.
That's the value of the game for me: that I get the best results when I go with my gut, rather than when I try an analyse the game like a data system.
|
|
|
|
