Rasputitsa
Posts: 1463
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.
I have many games on the shelf which I should really like, but don't, as whatever the developers were working at, doesn't work for me. There are few enough companies working in this field as it is, so any support given is not wasted, if it helps keep this corner of the industry going.
There are more accurate games and there are fun games, ToF is in between, I think accuracy is often won at the cost of flexibility. To get a responsive AI, the games have to work within fairly narrow limits, restricting the player to the same limits. There are times when that cost is worth paying to get a more accurate game, but also it's just as rewarding to have more uncertainty and flexibility in the game, each game fills a different need.
It's all fantasy in the end, no real commander knows the position of all his forces all the time, exactly how far each of them can move, exact condition of each unit, weather effects everywhere - for each turn period, exact odds for combat, either before, or after the event, etc., none of it is really accurate to the real events. The only certainty in war is uncertainly and I find that in ToF.
I like not being trapped in a rigid framework and if I don't like some aspect of this game, it often can be changed with in-game preferences. If I don't agree with some design decisions, I can change them (mostly by small file changes - computing degree not required), which is refreshing, but you have to be able to use the flexibilty and work the changes, no pain no gain. I don't look on it as 'fixing' the game, more as an opportuny to possess a game that can be tuned to my taste. Equally I recognise that some players will not expect to have to do this, but I have also enjoyed the game from ver. 1.00 and the mods and adjustments are enhancing the experience. Even the 'best' games are considered as broken, from time to time, on their respective forums, gone are the days when games were just published, it is now always an evolving process of update and mods.
Most of my interest has been in making the game more realistic, more competent modders are achieving even more. I am not concerned so much by the often random results, as to my mind, many stranger events have happened in reality. You mentioned the Red Sea convoy and lack of response from the Allies. In reality there were wide variations in performance, the British, from Malta, were very active in interdicting Axis convoys in the Mediterranian, but then quite ineffective in attacking the 'Channel Dash', when operating from home base, with all the advantages that should bring. History is full similar incidents, the USN did not spot an enormous 6 carrier fleet approaching Hawaii, with obvious ill intent, the Germans did not see the 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk, during its 200 mile approach march and many more. The moral being that in war, s**t happens, and I see that as a contribution to realism, even if it is by omission, rather than design. Real war is chaotic, it doesn't roll along with neat odds calculations.
I don't think it's so much that the devs choose not to address these issues, more an uncertainty as to how some changes will affect the overall performance of the game, some things they have changed quickly, others not, I am not competent to judge. They have shown an eagerness to respond to forum comments, but are understandably not prepared to immediately make changes that might cause problems in other areas.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and all of this discussion should not be about fixing the game one way, or other, but in finding the preferences and options where we can all win and this game has more preferences and options than most. I would argue the merits of any case, but never object to an alternative option for anything, there is often room in this game for more than one solution.
Live long and prosper.
< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/24/2012 9:24:40 PM >
_____________________________
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me
|
Printable Version
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 
. For the entire German Navy to actually be sailing around the Channel and not lose a signle ship is not something I would say is 'testing the game to its limits'. Neither is creating enough LC in a week to land two corp the following week. Plus have this massive LC fleet slowly, oh so slowly also sail across the same channel without a single ship being sunk. This also occured in all thee games. 
. The bottom line is that if the game allows a player to do something, then the game should be able to handle it. If not then, imho, that part is broken and needs to be fixed if the devs want the game to work correctly.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread