[HJ]

There have been a lot of generalizations in this thread lately. Ok.

It's hard for me to understand people complaining about how you cannot model this system realistically, and how this would not add enough variety, and yet they swear by the system that depends on *random dice*.

"Hey John, before you hit me with that sword, let's throw a dice and see whether you'll cut my arm or my ear off". Right. Keep on complaining how this system would be unrealistic and not model things properly.

Furthermore, random dice effectively makes all your units very similar in performance. If you like systems like AoW2, where a halfling slinger can kill a dragon without a problem because of the huge random factor in combat resolution, then we fundametally disagree on what we want to see in games. I want to see difference and gradation between units, you want to see everybody performing pretty much the same. The expensive units are just a waste of resources, since this is not backed up by their elevated performance, and you're better off just massing units instead of doing some decision making in the process.

And yes, let the comp do all the work. All I want to do is click end turn, and the comp can do everything else. This is a game after all, so why bother?

An if you consider tactical and strategical decisions to be classified as "micromanagement", then what do you call browsing through menus and changing orders every turn? I shudder to think what would you say if there were rumours about implementation of tactical control over the battles.

As I said, since the "pro people" should think this or that, I guess I simply don't understand some things.

[ October 14, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: HJ ]