|
Khi -> (5/7/2003 12:58:00 AM)
|
Echoing a lot of what's already been said, but just to add my voice:
Bidding:
On a scale like the grand campaign, bidding is probably completely unnecessary. Players who are merely keeping track of VP's have ample time to adapt their strategy to take down the leader (France?) if they want. I find it best when the players commit to a power they want to play, rather than have a power they can win with, but don't enjoy playing.
Naval Intercept:
If naval is separated out from land combat, and Britain retains the "move when I want to" power, this isn't quite as important. I don't know if going to be the case, though, and if not, Britain needs some way of tracking down errant ships.
Naval/Units:
I'd have to see it in order to judge, but my first reaction is it might needlessly complicate. EiA is primarily a land war/diplomatic struggle, and I believe there can be such a thing as "too much realism."
Computer Controlled majors:
Most desirable, and likely hardest to implement. Any AI is going to be inferior to a player, so it's presence isn't going to be a panacea, but like others have said- it'd be a good patch for the inevitability of a player bailing out mid-game.
Kingdoms:
If this never enterred, it'd be missed, but probably wouldn't change the flow of the game much. I'd miss the routine of dissecting Poland, and then reconstituting it.
Freikorps/Cossacks:
Freikorps- largely pointless. Cossacks were a way for Russia to save money while threatening supply lines. Could be implemented artificially through other means.
Minor Diplomacy:
Fantastic to see EiH rules here! EiA was, IMO, too limited with regards to minors.
Dynamic Supply/ All forage:
Both sound uber-cool! Lemme see! Lemme see!!!
Eager to get my hands on it, whatever its limitations...
|
|
|
|
