KG Erwin -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (9/28/2005 1:31:01 AM)
|
Do you want historical results, or a balanced game? To keep in mind the original intent of SPWaW, it was to present a realistic and historical view of how tactical combat in WWII was conducted, NOT to guarantee a "fun" game with everything being more or less equal. I have heard many guys sing the praises of H2H, but this very title "Head-to-Head" is exactly what it's designed for. The design of the OOBs/ratings for SPWaW was/is geared towards the solo player, as this is the mode in which the majority of players use. I posted a poll on this very subject a few years ago, and solo play was by far the most popular method of play. With this in mind, and given the limitations of the AI, a challenge must be presented. In this, I think that 8.4 succeeds. Do you guys want "easy", or do you want "tough"? You gotta rally your troops? Yes-- this is why we encourage the purchase of companies, with the company commanders offering their extra rallying points. Sorry, guys -- I believe that SPWaW should be held to the same criteria for historical accuracy as any other WWII game, as can best be achieved in an ancient game engine. I refer back to Michael-- he wrote the original code for the Windows version of SPWaW, but later alterations were done by Tom Proudfoot. Michael saw that some flaws were left unaddressed, so he has graciously taken it upon himself (with Matrix' blessing), to address these remaining issues. At this point, I will say that we have a game that pays attention to history and offers a challenging game experience. Perhaps some of you have gotten used to the easy way out for this game. This is not what it was meant to be. I include myself in this category-- as it now stands, the AI can kick my butt sometimes. You really need to study your troops' capabilities, and make the right decisions. This is a wake-up call. It wasn't MEANT to be easy.
|
|
|
|