Quote:
Archonsod said:
I'm not sure I would want the game to be balanced.
To quote Kristoffer
"When we first came across PbEM games we were annoyed that sooner or later every nation/faction was able to recruit or acquire the units of other nations/factions."
Quite frankly I know exactly where he's coming from. Too many times so called "strategy" games are neutered to the point of the ridiculous in the name of balance. The inevitable result is that instead of having distinct, different sides with their own strengths and weaknesses, you end up with what is essentially "pick the colour of your troops". Rather than an actual strategy game, you end up with something akin to chess with all the fun taken out.
I'd rather have something with distinct sides than another game like that. If the price of that is a distinct strength which can be overpowering (though I wouldn't claim it was uber, besides which all nations also have their disadvantages) I'll happily pay it.
To be honest, I don't see a problem with it in multiplayer. If you think a nation is overpowered, then ban it from the game. Why rely on the developers to solve your problems for you?
|
I agree with this 100%.
I want a certain amount of imbalance in the game. All nations being balance would be boring.
Also any nation viewed as too powerful in MP will often get stomped on early by a 2-3 player alliance. Ermor, Ashen Empire, Helheim and Vanheim have all been stomped for daring to be too powerful in the MP's I play. Diplomacy is a great equaliser. Also in SP you can modify there AI setting to give yourself a challenge but not be too powerful. Put weak nations on a high setting, strong nations on a low AI setting.