Page 2 of 2
RE: 1:1->2:1 rule
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:17 pm
by Pawlock
ORIGINAL: Krec
i think we can all agree that something needs to be done so the russians just dont run away as soon as the game starts. The city/morale thingy sounds interesting. At this point i am game for just about anything, because the way it is now is no good. As for the 2v1 rule........all in favor of getting rid of it say "I" ............"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"............ok the I's have it lets move to the next topic.[:D]
Please dont lump me in your general statement that everybody should think the Russians should stand and fight. I would like the option to do as I please,I am not Stalin and as such I make my own decisions.
Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?
2:1 rule as much as I hate Peltons continual whining on the subject Im all for a phased withdrawal starting mid 42.
Mind saying that I think we should all see how the 1.05 plays out before making more changes
RE: 1:1->2:1 rule
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:22 pm
by Tarhunnas
ORIGINAL: Pawlock
Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?
IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.
RE: 1:1->2:1 rule
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:24 pm
by glvaca
re the stand and fight and run options, it's always going to be a mix of knowing when to run, and knowing when to fight.
RE: 1:1->2:1 rule
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:26 pm
by Pawlock
ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
ORIGINAL: Pawlock
Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?
IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.
I've always been in favour of something like that for the GC games,I think the trouble with that is the time constraints for the testers to roadtest a point balance.
RE: 1:1->2:1 rule
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:42 am
by Krec
NP, lets play with 1.05 and see how it goes. i am ok with that. just looking for a better game thats all. as it sits now the 2v1 is a game breaker IMO.
RE: 1:1->2:1 rule
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:53 am
by BletchleyGeek
ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.
Well, there are some "incentives" in place which affect VP count in an indirect way (not enough ARM points make bears sad). If anything, there need to be more incentives like that (perhaps reducing supply production for each HI point)? Nonetheless, it's better that changes like the former or this one are introduced one by one. Makes easier for the devs & testers to figure out what are their effects.
I don't want the kind of patching people has seen - or rather suffered - with Stardock's Elemental: War of Magic. I'm glad I didn't buy that one - though I used to be a rabid player of Master Of Magic. Things there got so out of hand that the studio and publisher owner himself has set getting it "right" a personal mission.
While the discussion here can get quickly and unexpectedly to quite irrational extremes, and some issues cause indeed frustration, it doesn't put anybody out of their job
And paucity and clear vision of the goals is a much better bet for economic success than meandering around the actual problems trying to appease the masses.