Cheese Panzer Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 One city causing a surrender does seem a bit extreme . . . but how about two cities? This is pretty much what happened historically - in game terms the Allies had taken Messina and Tatranto when Italy surrendered. Similarily, what if the number of cities taken was a non-linear number, like the number of cities squared? So taking one city is a 1% chance, two would be a 4% chance, three 9%, and four would be 16%. I'm not sure if this can be done with scripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy: Imagine the gamey tactic of only concentrating on getting ONE Italian city ASAP as allies and hoping this triggers the 10%.What's gamey about it? It's what happened. If they collapse then the Germans get to march into all the Empty Italian cities and use their resources to produce German units.....gosh...isn't that what happened? Or perhaps the allies can be better prepared and do a coup de main themselves - which they didnt' do historically. Elsewhere people are saying that it's OK that the game is "biased" towards the Axis because players can avoid making hte same mistakes as Hitler did, and that's fine - so I don't see what's "gamey" about this at all! I like the current setup, get Rome, the dreams of rebuilding the Roman empire dies quick and so does the rest of Italy. It's fine - apart from teh bit that it didn't happen like that in real life! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts