Adam Parker -> RE: What new feature would you like (11/4/2004 7:36:53 AM)
|
#2 of the choices given. I feel the campaign is the heart of the game. However, personally, the between-battle R&R segment seems slightly out of place as is. I don't know how these things work in the table top arena and of course, we've likely all experienced this routine in games such as Panzer General. It's just that in PG rest and refitting, the purchasing of new units etc seemed to make more sense. Maybe because in TSA the concept of money suddenly rears its head out of the blue and it's something the player really has no essential control over. In PG I believe the currency is "command points" as such (it's been a long time!). Between battles 2 and 3 in the TSA campaign for example I somehow had enough money to just buy and replenish everything... Hence, I felt why not just give everything to me and not have me worry about it [;)] Players can currently change generals but with the small number of battles comprising the campaign and the fact that random leadership qualities are provided in response, I'm unsure if its really worth the effort as well? So given option 2, maybe that's one way around what I'm feeling. Give the player some historically based choice of units with ratings and even names for flavor. Also in the battle set up screen, it's hard to determine whether a unit is an archer or slinger. Some different graphic there could assist. Maybe limit the selection of forces and cards available not to money but to historical command and control limitations - ie: What if Alexander's performance allowed him to proceed to the next battle quicker or slower?What would this mean in terms of forces, leaders and cards available? What would it mean for the enemy's TO&E too? Just some thoughts. Adam.
|
|
|
|