[HJ]

I guess there is an essential difference in what people like about the games like this one. Some like tactics, some like to overview things. I myself consider the battles to be the "meat and potatoes" of this kind of game, and everything else is pretty much leading to them. That's why I was never really able to like the abstracted combat of wargames, where your hex is attacking my hex and you see some smoke and that's it, or Warlords series, for example. This is also a major complaint I had about the Europa Universalis, that the fate of the painstakinlgy built empire is decided by two guys doing "piff-paff" to each other, and me not being able to do anything about it. Also, I see the example of MoO games - MoO3 didn't allow you do to anything as the AI was actually playing the game - very bad from my perspective when compared to the previous titles. I like empire building games, but I also like to do the dirty work myself, and not leave it to the AI.

From this difference in what people like stem the different views about the game itself. Some people like it the way it is, while others see a great potential in it. I mean, I'd really like to play a game where I have as many different options at my disposal as in Dominions, but one that is also expanded in other terms as well (incidentally, I also like the diplomacy, weapon-armour system, and tactical control ideas). I like plethora of options and variablilty, afflictions, individual treatment of units, etc. but I like other things beside that which are not in as it is now, and some solutions that are in I actually find frustrating. Hence my advocation of these aspects as well as keeping the ones I like at the same time.

As for some of the arguments used yet again, well, I said enough about them already.

[ October 26, 2003, 18:57: Message edited by: HJ ]