|
Jim D Burns -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 7 - Amphibious Ops (11/20/2014 6:53:32 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dangun
When I first played WiTE against the AI, I thought it was fantastic.
I could focus on core combat and movement, refighting historical events on a massive scale.
But when I started playing human opponents, victory seemed less determined by combat and movement, and instead victory seemed more determined by the min-maxing of "too many, overly complex, ahistorical, and frankly boring mechanisms." Victory was determined by whether I had spent hours allocating the right support units to max fortification growth, or had I mastered the magical aerial resupply of tanks with fuel... HQ build-ups, general reassignments, truck management, air op settings etc. etc.
IMHO, this is the type of detail that a PC game should simplify and expedite and not inflate it into a victory condition. The beauty of the PC is that it facilitates games of this scale, whereas using the PC to add compelxity is often a very mixed blessing.
That may be a longer answer than your question was soliciting. I was hoping that WiTW would learn more from what was (apparently from the forums) causing problems/turning people off of WiTE, whereas I see more non-core mechanisms and more complexity.
It’s obvious this game is not for you, but getting angry and berating a game that I and many others enjoy immensely is not going to do anything except raise your blood pressure. There is a large audience for Gary Grigsby games and his designs are usually very complex in nature and appeal to a certain kind of gamer. I would suggest you look at games like WW2 Road to Victory or any of the offerings by SSG, they would probably be more in line with the kind of game you would enjoy.
Jim
|
|
|
|
