Kensai wrote:Understood, some things definitely not count up, but if you did not take the most important objectives you were not actually winning. Russia has a very difficult game after a while. You need to be constantly accruing victories to offset this rather unpopular war.
After v1.01 comes out, I want to be doing a good PBEM with some of the most disgruntled players. We are gonna have tons of fun and dismiss most of the AI disappointments!
Florent wrote:The AI is not so bad and actually build a front, stacked and concentrates on objectives like Lemberg and defended them to the end and other objectives. The AI defends the threatened objectives and so on. I'm not disappointed by the IA.
HerrDan wrote:Haha! Kensai you're great, I gotta love see you kicking some disgruntled players aarses
Kensai wrote:Heh, thanks, but there is no guarantee whatsoever I will win. There are many many more experienced players than myself. But I bet I can dig out more bugs, possibly some happening only when 3 human players press the game to its limits!
Kensai wrote:I don't play Central Powers only. I play all three of them. However, I indeed did most of my bug hunting and beta testing with CP. All three factions have interesting aspects that can provide for a very interesting and rewarding game though. The Russians are great to learn the game cause you (1) have one front, (2) little naval involvement, (3) have the initiative, at least in the beginning, to attack and take the war to the enemy while you learn about supply lines, etc, (4) need to learn how to improve your war machine, recruiting artillery, etc, (5) understand how important losses in national morale can make you crumble.
Kensai wrote:I was thinking, a brilliant PBEM could even have more than 3 players if those players playing the same side could agree on dividing some aspects (money, resources, responsibilities in certain theaters). Just as an example: I could play Austria-Hungary and HerrDan Germany. Just saying, obviously, most people are too jealous of their "game", but this approach could actually abstract even better the hardships of coordinating.
No worries, we are too many, I bet many potential 3 combinations will be found so no need to resort to the above!
Kensai wrote:I was thinking, a brilliant PBEM could even have more than 3 players if those players playing the same side could agree on dividing some aspects (money, resources, responsibilities in certain theaters). Just as an example: I could play Austria-Hungary and HerrDan Germany. Just saying, obviously, most people are too jealous of their "game", but this approach could actually abstract even better the hardships of coordinating.
No worries, we are too many, I bet many potential 3 combinations will be found so no need to resort to the above!
Kensai wrote:I was thinking, a brilliant PBEM could even have more than 3 players if those players playing the same side could agree on dividing some aspects (money, resources, responsibilities in certain theaters). Just as an example: I could play Austria-Hungary and HerrDan Germany. Just saying, obviously, most people are too jealous of their "game", but this approach could actually abstract even better the hardships of coordinating.
No worries, we are too many, I bet many potential 3 combinations will be found so no need to resort to the above!
Ace wrote:Why don't we setup 5 players multiplayer?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests