jzardos
Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield
quote:
ORIGINAL: jzardos
I hope my negative comments in other posts on some aspects of this game are not taken as a personal attack or the wrong way. I'm trying for constructive criticism to help the game make some improvements in play and play balance over patch. My sincere hopes that Hubert has a speedy recovery . In no way are my criticisms meant to diminish the achievements here with such a tiny development team and aggressive release date. Let's hope the multiplayer patch will be out soon and it will also include some sort of battle report feature. Then work can be done to fix some of the glaring pro allied play balance issues.
Well, if not even constructive criticism was confused with improper rowdiness.
I personally think that this game is set in many areas very much in favor of the axis. The winter effect could be extended over the course of several rounds to allow the Russians - at least as a starting point - the possibility of a winter offensive. The Italian attack on Greece could - historically proven - be a self-imposed but equally firm strategic will and not a "then not" decision. Norway is given as a gift and the Afrikakorps landed in excess right on the waveringthe front, where the Allies seem to be overwhelmed by the Italians alone. There would be much more to list.
Also for this opinion there were some advocates in this forum. And yet it has one thing in common with your findings: it is an absolute minority!
The game is designed for a wide majority. This crucial group of players (which in any case confirm the posts in a forum so far written in a moderate tone) is also very well served. For the rest there are adjustable difficulty levels, different bonuses and in the form of the editor also a powerful developer tool. I do not believe the developers or the distributors have forbidden any of us to use them extensively, right?
Yes, the multiplayer is still missing. Give yourself some patience and wait for the updates...
You're are entitled to your opinion. But, I have to respectively disagree with your thoughts on play balance. It's easy to explain why there's not been a majority of people complaining about the balance. For starters the hard core allied players are less likely to say anything as they would prefer this status either subconsciously or deliberate. Many other players have not yet had the time to play enough to have a firm idea of the imbalances. I'm willing to bet I've played these these types of games longer that most on this forum, including you. My experience in play and testing goes back to the SSI games in the 80's. Most recently, well several years now, I went through this same song and dance with WitE on it's release. Which it was my opinion, with provided documentation, that the Soviets had too many clear and unhistorical advantages. There was much bickering and many pro-Soviets players adamantly refused the idea of an imbalance in the game. It took several months but the developers finally realized there were several issue with the balance and fixed most of them over time with patches. So it doesn't surprise me that many will resist the idea of the game has issues (perfect world peeps) and go along oblivious to it. I refuse to hold my tongue and understand it will take time to get fixed. The game is still very playable, but as axis player, unless playing against a complete noob, you will have a tougher road that the allies for victory.
< Message edited by jzardos -- 1/11/2017 3:28:46 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: IMPORTANT - 
RE: IMPORTANT - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread