isn't this supposed to be a siege tutorial? The average "let's play" guys would totally get rekt on that level, but of course many of these "beta" testers probably don't even get that far. Then you design chokepoints map like "The Gap" while only giving enough resources for the player to make one siege troll. And all of them rout after seeing one of their friends getting pummeled by siege trolls. This is a big problem when all of your missions are basically "attack enemy position and kill them all, if you take too long then you don't get anything." Meanwhile the "assault" units are all worthless (even if the berserkers are good, the cost to replace dead glass cannons would bankrupt you) compared to the defensive units, holding the line is much easier than attacking it. the cavalries would have decisive victory, charging and routing the enemy lines. Consider this scenario, map is 10x10, a team of 30 shock cavalries would absolutely get destroyed by a team of 10 skirmishers, 10 archers, and 10 siege trolls. If you make a mistake like training berserkers, spears and turning trolls into melees, skirmishers into shock cavs (melee focused team), then you're screwed because melees get obliterated and take too much damage. It's a puzzle because there is only one solution. All ranged unit damages need to be reduced, and skirmishers should not be able to retreat several hexes, maybe just 1 or 2 hexes max. Only purpose of melee is to cover your ranged units, and glass cannon melees are utterly worthless because they can't even attack enemy melees who got covering fire without taking significant losses and would be wiped out on the enemy turn. Game is not balanced, ranged units, siege units, and skirmishers are way more useful than melees. We will take a look at balance tomorrow with the feed back from the first round of players. I think that it is one problem with various solutions, but that to me appears to be the case in PG series games as well. I disagree with the puzzle assumptions, but it is true that obviously the strategy you have will be different once you know what you are facing. Originally posted by primetide_dev:I agree with the reward and I will be happy to admit balance can always be improved. Please focus more attention on the design. But, game design is a separate talent and skill from coding a game. ![]() And, many of the features of this game show your skill (the AI in this game is especially well done – nice job). ![]() I don’t need advice, I just need better game design.Ĭlearing you’re all competent coders, and have done a nice job putting out a polished Unity project. I’ve played Panzer General, Panzer General II, Allied General, Panzer General III, Panzer General 3D, Star General, the original Fantasy General, Panzer Corp, and the entire extended grand campaign for Panzer Corp… and don’t have trouble handling any of those at even higher difficulties. The unit tree’s show weird inconsistencies with some branches resulting in significant upgrades, while other are hardly any upgrade at all.Īnd please, don’t respond with a bunch of advice on how the play the game better. Glass cannon units shouldn’t be as expensive as well-rounded troops. There should always be a nominal reward (ala the entire Panzer General series, and Panzer Corp).Īlso, FG2 is rife with unit balance issues. If you give the player zero reward, then you’re putting them into a downward spiral where they are less and less likely to get rewards in the future. I do like the timer-mechanism for showing decreased reward as the battles go on… but it should never drop to zero. ![]() It should never be the case that the player wins a battle, and gets zero reward. Before you know the solution to the puzzle, the battles are too hard… after you’ve figured out the solution, the battles are no longer challenging. ![]() For a wargame (and FG2 is still essentially a wargame) puzzle battles are notorious as representing bad game design. Too many of the battles in FG2 are “puzzle” battles. I’m talking about balance, game structure, risk-reward mechanisms, etc… game design. By “bad game design” I’m not talking about coding.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |