dougmangin Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 i have a question or suggestion - i am all for making this game as flexible as possible. there is a lot of discussion of various perceived flaws, faults, changes, or ideas about certain aspect of this game. I personally feel that this is a game - a game whos basis is in history, but a game nonetheless. i know there is the party out there who would prefer a game modeled as historically accurate as possible, then there is the camp that wants to have infinite possibilities. My comment is this, cant we have both? The campain editor is a terrific tool that enables the user to tailor the game to his own preferences - but only to a degree. I would personally like to see more options given in both the editor as well as in the game setup and play itself. Options to automatic interception or not (PLEASE LETS HAVE THIS ONE). Option to or not to allow the building of units next to enemy units. options to allow unlimited builds. options to limit the number of operational redeployments per turn. one option i would love to see is user defined initial placement of units. giving the human player some degree of flexibility to place what units where he wants them, is in my mind very critical. i know there may be limitations on what can be placed where - for example no more than x units in egypt, a minimum number of naval units in the med, requiring a ground unit on the capital, etc... so some limits may be warranted - but I really think giving the player the choice as to how to set up his forces would open the game up and allow a great deal of freedom. for example allowing the user to choose his initial setup would end the madening debacle that is often italy. i know the strategy of pre-empting italian decleration of war to seize ports and industrial centers works against the computer and even human players. I know many players use it - i do myself. But this and other situations are not fun. i dont know what people mean by "gamey" i personally like this being a game. but this is played for enjoyment. there is simply no fairness, no fun in having a MAJOR nation succeptible to this kind of attack with absolutely NO way to defend against it. Giving the player the opportunity to place his own starting forces would go a long way to reducing this risk - while allowing a greater degree of freedom with other aspects of the game. germany declares war on spain - why should the units all start on the interior and not at the border - you dont get to make that decision and there is NO reason you should be able to. What if turkey is invaded from syria - why should ALL of the forces be in the north. yes historical accuracy may dictate certain strenghts and placements - but lets at least have the OPTION of this flexibility. I think having more options would quiet some of the critics, allow for a wider variety of games and strategies, and in general make for a more fun game. I know many others may comment on this and I encourage that. What I would most like to see is one of the creators or designers respond to this posting - if your out there hubert or anyone else can you please comment on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Being a critic and an enthusiast, I can truthfully say nothing will ever quiet them! At least with the scenario editor you can, if you're so inclined, try to make things absolutely accurate, or go to the other extreme and say things like -- "Suppose so and so had rockets and Jets L-5 in 1939 -- " etc., Agreed with your basic premise, it's primarily a game with an historical backdrop, play scenarios, make scenarios, post comments, but mostly just enjoy it. One thing is certain, none of us will get an invitation from The History Channel to discuss our strategies in virtual WW II, Europe. I'm beginning to enjoy the forums more than the game itself. Which sort of worries me. [ October 31, 2002, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 One thing is certain, none of us will get an invitation from The History Channel to discuss our strategies in virtual WW II, Europe. Never say never. Considering the endless dithering from the talking heads on Sunday morning shows discussing political strategies in virtual America (you know, the one people inside the beltway believe exists outside the beltway), there's bound to be a market somewhere for anything. Who knows, maybe a Battlefront.com pay-per-view cable channel devoted to virtual history? :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay_H Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: I'm beginning to enjoy the forums more than the game itself. Which sort of worries me. [ November 06, 2002, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts