![]() Hopefully it’s more than rather than a complete disaster. If it is then I can take the improvements as they come. My only hope/expectation is that it’s fun to play and an interesting strategy game at 1.0. But I’m pretty confident it will get refined and improved as time goes on. I don’t think you can create a simulation with so many systems interacting with each other and have it not be. ![]() That being said, I’m sure 1.0 is going to be messy. I’d be more concerned if this was a US-centric game or a US Civil War game in particular. Those systems might end up with silly outcomes in the ACW, but if it works well for 80% of the ROTW? Then I think you go with that, and you focus on particular regions and particular areas in expansion packs (while fine tuning the overall system as a whole). For 1.0 they need to have all these systems working and interacting in ways to lead to dynamic outcomes. I think that’s the way to do it, honestly. I suspect they will eventually have a DLC focused on the ACW and before that likely add more guard rails around how it works. The game probably doesn’t justify those outcomes internally, but for all we know maybe the USA player was dealing with some situation making New York very unhappy.Īnyway maybe paradox should have made this scripted because a lot of people probably think that it’s not a historical game if The Battle for Bull Run doesn’t happen. Like maybe the central government was very incompetent lately and a lot of places wanted the dissolution of the federal government, or maybe there was an entrenched Southern general with a Garrison in New York… I know those are insane explanations but stranger things have happened. Even crazy outcomes like New York can be justified somehow by the fact that civil wars are chaotic and unpredictable mess. USA we see is obviously quite different in terms of territory, populace, economy and external relations. ![]() In that game Russia annexed central parts of Japan and Egypt conquered territory in Balkan and China fragmented into Heavenly Kingdom and Tibet. It’s obviously bizzare outcome on the screens hots but I think people react to this especially strongly because it’s close to their heart. When land owners are angry enough they rebel and instead of generic land owners rebellion the game labels it ACW. In practice it means that if you build plantations in the North land owners become influential there too. In theory Northern Land Owners are supposed to belong to other interest groups. ![]() That group is entrenched in the states that have slavery enabled. AFAIK they simulate ACW by having a bunch of events that potentially piss off Land Owners interest group. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |