BriantheWise Posted September 12, 2002 Share Posted September 12, 2002 Well, it's fun and great, but it's not quite like "Hitlers War", where in you had diminishing returns for each addition chit that you spent on pushing the research further than it could possibly go. But then again, I think it works great. And oh no, oh no....NOw I have another suggestion....Sorry. (When the major neutrals are still neutril, let them spend on what they want: Good navy, high tech, lots of corps, an HQ?) er, never mind, too complicated for the gamebrain. It works as it is. I have listened (read, actually) all these suggestions about the tech advances. They are all good, and sane, but it seems to dumb down the game into a linear perspective of moves, making it almost chess like (i hate chess). The randomness of tech, in this game, does indeed echo, in my opinion, the randomness of the tech that really did happen: Code breaking, jets, landing craft, TV32, Rockets, Russian rockets, the sudden creation of divisions of Russian peasants and their loyalty, generals, and I could go on. And on and on (i am, going on and on and on.) The point is: Tech randomness, creates additional replay, additional strategies, additional opportunities. I hear people say, oh, my the Germans get all the techs before i even get to fight. I don't like the jet sounds. Shut up! When I play, the Brits are maxed out on research(they are buying while france is falling), take the Scandivians for the money, get strong with good jets, hammer into France, with the US being a soft friend, while the Russian pound. Sometimes it doesn't happen. (and I am sad) Sometimes it does (and I am glad). So, in conclusion, let the tech be. There is no unfair advantage. Brian the Wise (care to lose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts