[PvK]

Imperator Fyron said:
...

All I am saying is that the extremes need smoothing out... too often my troops would begin to flee and run to different territories after having routed the enemy... When you have won or are about to win, half of your troops should never begin to flee.

You may stick to that opinion, and I would agree it could be a good heuristic to include in a morale system. I wouldn't object to such a change, but personally, I don't find myself wishing for such a change. It seems to me that the player gets a much more omniscient view than soldiers on a battlefield would have. There are plenty of actual examples of real battles where some elements have retreated at the wrong moment. Part of what I appreciate in a morale system is the contribution of unpredictable and sometimes illogical effects. Even if unpredictable and with many causes, I find the system works quite well for my tastes in most situations.

I was refering to the lack of ability to choose what your troops have... Who is to say that I can't train troops with slightly less than optimal equipment to save time and money? Why does every soldier have to have the exactly specified equipment? Why can't I give a particular soldier better equipment if I can afford it? Sure, I can train overall inferior or superior troops, but the grades come in big chunks (in terms of abilities), without any option to go into the middle ground...

Well, the designers decided to say that, and I at least don't mind playing within some limits to my choices, especially since the provided choices were carefully chosen and tend to leave many choices, and interesting limitations. If everyone could tweak their weapons without limits, some of the interesting differences between nations would be lost. Which is not to say I wouldn't enjoy a little more freedom to tweak things. I would, and I do enjoy using the many choices there are. Some nations have more than others - I like playing with all of Ulm's various equipment combos, for instance, which are rather subtle.

However, to answer the question "who's to say..." well, the designers did decide to limit the choices, and I think the limits are interesting, and reasonable, and I think they add flavor. If you are a wizard (or whatever) studying the greatest magic secrets, and making a gambit for godhood, you may not have the time, interest, inclination, nor the folly (...), to spend your time trying to insist that the warrior culture you have selected suddenly change its doctrine to suit your petty fancies about the ultimate equipment to use. It's not likely to be efficient to try to rule the world from Shogunate Japan, by starting out trying to convince the samurai they should forget swords and use hatchets, or even bokken, even if Miyamoto Musashi would approve! Or if you are that kind of god, then you choose the nation to rule to match your tastes, perhaps one that has a mix of the various equipment types you like. There are tons to choose from, and after over a year of play, I haven't even tried all of them yet.

However, if you really want to tweak your equipment, and aren't satisfied with any of the dozens of nations and themes available, you can make or modify one using the mod commands. In single player or with a GM, you could even do it during play. You could add equipment variations to your heart's content.

... Slick asked for the opinions of others on the game, I posted mine. Due to the nature of this medium of communication, it should be assumed that pretty much anything posted is an opinion. Thus, it is pointless and a waste of time to type "in my opinion" in every sentence... There is no "egocentric truth" present. There is no assumption that because something is true for me, it is true for others... There is merely the expression of my opinion of the game. Are you saying that a positive assessment is not an "egocentric truth," but a negative one is?

No, I just felt you were overstating, and making assertions that could just as easily be expressed as opinions, to a degree that it seemed to me probably exceeded your actual knowledge of the other players' thorough enjoyment of the game.

... "It is not a good game" is the same statement as "I do not like it."

What? Not at all, and that's exactly the distinction I was making. You need to add "for my tastes" or "to/for me" to the end of the first one, or else you are suggesting that it's not a good game for others in general.

I don't understand how you could seriously suggest that.

Why else would you not like a game than you believe it is not a good game?

There are NO games that everyone likes, but that doesn't mean there are no good games. However there are some games that are so broadly disliked, that it may make sense to call them bad games in general.

For instance, you don't see me objecting when you say MOO3 is a bad game. However, even though I don't like GalCiv or Civ3 myself, because they aren't my kinds of games, I do think there are many players who have enjoyed them a lot, so I wouldn't call them bad games outright (or at least, I'd want to know more about them before I said so, except I don't 'cause I know enough to know I wouldn't like them).

However, taking a game that many players like very strongly and just calling it a bad game, and making statements like ""It is not a good game" is the same statement as "I do not like it"" seems to me like just causing needless confusion and annoyance and mostly wasting people's time. Writing your opinion more clearly could avoid that. Either you can really use this information, or you're just being difficult.

Other people enjoy the game and would say that it is a good game. This does not mean I have to lie and say it is a good game when I certainly do not think that it is. It would be entirely pointless to have a discussion forum if nobody ever posted a contrary opinion... Posting a negative assessment is not trolling by any measure of the word.

Egad. I never said you should lie or that you had to call it a good game. Just seems to me that the way you overstated your opinion was overstated in a way which would tend to mislead people who weren't familiar with what seems to be your style. You seem to think everyone should know that when you write "It is not a good game" you mean what others mean when they say "I do not like it." I guess I should make something like that a macro, instead of writing "Fryon's typical trademarked "egocentric truth" mode of expression"?

PvK