berto
Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002 From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner quote:
ORIGINAL: berto Optional rules only. Again, if you don't like them, then don't choose them. Sorry to disagree. I think there are enough optional rules that already ruin the game. Why add more? "Ruin the game"? These are suggested optional rules. Don't you think your remark is a little overboard? quote:
If you like the way Squad Battles plays, then play Squad Battles? Why ruin a game that is not Squad Battles? I like and play both. What's wrong with a little cross fertilization? Both Squad Battles and the Campaign Series are John Tiller games, BTW. quote:
If you've finished the scenario, abiding by it's rules and victory conditions, why play beyond it? Because at the formal "end" of the scenario, by then I've invested hours playing it. Maybe I find the situation interesting, and am unhappy to be forced to leave it? Because maybe I recognize that victory conditions (and scenario time limits) are arbitrary, that I decide for myself whether I've won or lost, indeed that I really don't care about the concept of "winning" anyway? For me, the journey's the thing, not so much the destination. quote:
If you cannot complete the task in the allotted time then it may be a "how you play the game" issue rather than a "how the game plays" issue. We each "play" these "games" for our own individual reasons. My reasons are obviously different from yours. One size does not fit all. The Campaign Series of games already offer several optional rules. What's wrong with adding a few more? quote:
There is so much that the Campaign Series needs that will make it much more visually appealing, as well as improving playability, that I think it would be a waste of time and effort to fundamentally change it, by adding chrome, so that it could be more like "other games". What's "fundamental" about offering the option to play beyond a fixed, or optionally varying, scenario time limit? quote:
Better graphics and more units would go a long way to improve the game. A better thinking AI would improve the game. A more effective game engine would improve the game. More scenarios and campaigns would improve the game. I agree with all of those things. Wonderful, worthy improvements all. And all undoubtedly requiring much more coding and developer time than what I suggest. (I am a coder, and I can't imagine that the suggested optional changes would require all that much added coder time and effort.) quote:
Changes to the game are not always improvements. Making something an option is no excuse for doing something to the game that does not improve the game. The last "optional" change to the game fractured the player "community". I'd rather not see something like that again. Upgrades, improvements, and additions are not always bad. Change that doesn't upgrade, improve, or add to the game are often bad. Staying within game scale would also help the game. This is a "WISHLIST" thread. Are you this scornful of all the dozens of other wishes in this, by now, 270+ long message thread? Your Mileage obviously varies. We agree to disagree.
_____________________________
|