 |
|
GoPostal
|
|
I am playing a hotseat as Nazis, and I get a crash between December 1941
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N35t0r
|
 |
( o Y o )
Jan 2000
time: 02:32
|
|
Nope.
About the 1000g you lose when you attack the neutrals:
I've noticed that you lose it just once (so i now own Spain, Turkey and north Africa  ) so i take back my earlier comment.
One more thing: I find the Komet close to useless, as 4 move and one turn in the air is too little to do almost anything... could you increase it to like 7? (i know, i know it war rocket powered, but i lost more to accidental fuel shortages than enemy fire...)
Perhaps you could instead replace it by the Fw 190? i'd gladly trade it in by a more decent fighter early on.
Oh, and why is the Me 109 an only 4-move? it is hard enough with the extra HP of the spitfires, and an extra move helps greatly when operating over to North Africa, and mostly everywhere which isn't as crowded as western/central europe.
and one last thing. on the map there are tons of wasted space, including an exaggeratedly huge arctic. If you ever work on a D4, i sugest you cut the map on the north and south (in the south, you don't even have to go to the tip of south america, as including up to southern australia is enough for this scenario). Also, i have a feeling that the pacific is way too big.
reducing these dimentions will allow for a larger and less ICS'ed europe, which is never a bad thing.
Oh, and one bug. where in the original game it says 'wonders of the modern world', in the F7 screen, it reads @AMBASSADORS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GoPostal
|
|
Yes, it is a consistent Error, I have a save file of Nov 1942, and every time I go to the next turn, it crashes, giving the XP message, Civ2 Encountered a problem and had to close.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
 |
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by N35t0r
Nope.
About the 1000g you lose when you attack the neutrals:
I've noticed that you lose it just once (so i now own Spain, Turkey and north Africa ) so i take back my earlier comment.
One more thing: I find the Komet close to useless, as 4 move and one turn in the air is too little to do almost anything... could you increase it to like 7? (i know, i know it war rocket powered, but i lost more to accidental fuel shortages than enemy fire...)
Perhaps you could instead replace it by the Fw 190? i'd gladly trade it in by a more decent fighter early on.
Oh, and why is the Me 109 an only 4-move? it is hard enough with the extra HP of the spitfires, and an extra move helps greatly when operating over to North Africa, and mostly everywhere which isn't as crowded as western/central europe.
and one last thing. on the map there are tons of wasted space, including an exaggeratedly huge arctic. If you ever work on a D4, i sugest you cut the map on the north and south (in the south, you don't even have to go to the tip of south america, as including up to southern australia is enough for this scenario). Also, i have a feeling that the pacific is way too big.
reducing these dimentions will allow for a larger and less ICS'ed europe, which is never a bad thing.
|
Sorry to disagree Nestor, but...
1) The german figther were short-fueled. The thing is that they were unable to attack anything but the south (and East from Norway) of England. I like them that way, because if not, it'll be very unrealistic. One of the biggest problems of the nazi was their figther's short range of fuel.
2) About the komet, I also diasgree. In fact, more Komet were lost by problems in landing/unlanding that in the air. IMHO the statistics of the units are good as they are.
3) I like the map. The Pacific is big and that make sense for forcing a sea war between Japan and USA that maybe a lesser Pacific will not force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
My congratulations on your latest version of DICTATOR. IMHO, DICTATOR 3 is a very good scenario, by far the best world map WW II scenario I have played. The use of the huge map really brings to life the logistical problems of warfare across wide oceans and trackless land masses.
Visually, you have improved the scenario with much better city and unit icons. The landscape really does look very good. My sore eyes appreciate the lighter blue, non-wavy ocean.
My Deity level game as Germany was a fair challenge with no easy victories. This is not a fast developing scenario because the absence of freights ensures that funds for rush building are limited and there are no shortcuts to technology. With very limited money for rush building, acquisition of new units is very slow so that all operations must be planned to incur minimum casualties. I liked that.
The scenario is nicely balanced. Germany really had problems after the Brits got their Lancaster bombers. Fortunately, the US was overrun before they got the tech for B-17's.
As the war progressed there was an interesting shift in key military units. Artillery, Stukas and Bombers conquered areas with high city density (British Isles, continental Europe, western Russia, eastern North America, north Africa and the Near East. Heavy Bombers (Me-264), Panzergrenadiers, Fallschirmjaegers, Carriers and Freighters had to be used everywhere else because cities are too far apart to make effective use of slow-moving Artillery. The Me-264 became the key unit for attacking cities and enemy units, protecting convoys and blocking enemy movement.
I like the 250 GP penalty for getting convoys sunk. Similarly, the Atomic Bomber concept is a quantum improvement over the blimp-like Atomic Bombs that I have seen in other scenarios. I always thought it funny to see a Bomb heading across the ocean, supported by levitation and powered by a force field. As I said, this is a very interesting scenario with fresh ideas.
Keeping in mind that I enjoyed and appreciated the scenario, please don't take the following comments as destructive criticism. Okay?
NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS
I'm sorry to say that non-descriptive names and extremely imprecise descriptions of city improvements proved to be a problem for me. Some of the reworked names are better than in the previous version of DICTATOR but I still had so much trouble with them that after 2 turns I replaced all city improvement names and their descriptions with the CIV II originals, changed the "ORDER" button back to "BUY" and changed the "You have already franchised an improvement this turn!" to "You have already sold an improvement this turn" because I have no clue what is meant by "franchised" in this context. I wondered why the Superhighway description is changed from "All squares in the city's radius with roads (or railroads) produce 50% more trade." to "More trade is generated in the city." or why a Brewery (Colosseum) is described as "Unhappy citizens are made content and drunk!" rather than "Three unhappy citizens are made content (four w/ Electronics).". From what I can see, in many instances all quantitative information in the original version has been replaced by qualitative non-information. The numbers are not really state secrets and their absence does not make game play easier.
"Clydebank as a town did not truly exist until 1886, when the Thomson brothers moved their shipbuilding yard from Govan to a spare bit of green pasture and setup the Clyde Bank Shipbuilding Yard. The large shipyards of the Clyde are the UK's most important naval construction areas. A prime target for the enemy..." is the description for the Clydebank Shipyards Wonder. On the basis of this description and without looking at the RULES and PEDIA files, I challenge anyone to deduce that Clydebank Shipyards has precisely the same effect as the Hoover Dam. My own best guess would be that the Wonder gives British ships extra movement points or all British ships are either built as veterans or become vets if they win a battle. Consequently, it took me 45 minutes to sort out why a Steel Mill that Germany built in Cairo, a year after Germany had conquered the British Isles, had no effect on shield production. Or, for that matter, why selling a Steel Mill in Berlin did not affect that city's shield production. Once I figured it out by using the RULES and PEDIA files, I was more than slightly annoyed that for a year Germany's monthly income was reduced by nearly 10% by the upkeep cost of unneeded Steel Mills. I don't see how a player can be expected to figure out what a new Wonder actually does from an uninformative description. Also, the logic of the Clydebank Shipyards somehow supplying power to all the owner's cities escapes me. If you don't like the Hoover Dam, then the Dnepetropovsk Dam in Kiev, the Geothermal Power Complex in Reikjavik or the Wind Power Megafarm at Ulan Bator sound like much more likely candidates than the Clydebank Shipyards.
IMHO, the Clydebank Shipyard and some other Wonder descriptions contain no useful game information and a few could even be construed to be misleading. For example, the "Houses of Parliament" (Shakespeare's Theater) in London do not "ensure that all UK citizens are loyal", they actually "ensure that all LONDON citizens are happy (loyal)". Similarly, when the Germans captured Moscow they gained control of the Kremlin. However, I was surprised that they did not get the promised free embassies with all other nations. Instead, I got constant cease fire offers. The description of the Kremlin (Great Wall) is given as "The Kremlin in Moscow is the Home of the Soviet Government and the symbol of the Soviet power. Free embassy with every other nation." when it should read "Enemy civilizations must offer cease-fire/peace in negotiations. (Combat strength doubled against barbarians.)". I didn't bother to check the rest of the wonder descriptions for similar errors. In utter frustration I replaced all the DICTATOR 3 Wonder descriptions and names with the CIV II originals.
I really am not against changing original CIV II terms and descriptions. I have had no problems playing RED FRONT because the few changes in city improvement names are generally descriptive and there are accurate and complete descriptions for both city improvements and wonders. I see no reason for the vague and imprecise descriptions in DICTATOR 3.
ENGINQUEERS AND FREIGHTERS
I think that the non-combatant units, "Enginqueers" and Freighters, are greatly overpriced. The "Enginqueers" only have the abilities of Settlers rather than true Engineers and cost more than a battleship! The huge price tag means that virtually no "Enginqueers" will be built in view of the little they can accomplish. I did not build a single "Enginqueer" whereas I would normally have built at least 50 genuine Engineer units that each cost 40 or 50 shields. I gave serious thought to building a network of Airfields on top of existing roads and elsewhere to get a zero move cost RR system. That was the only way I could think of possibly justifying the expense of building "Enginqueers". I wouldn't quibble if "Enginqueers" could not build RR's as long as they are reasonably priced, can build roads and build and move at the same rate as Engineers.
Also, how can a simple Freighter cost as much as a Cruiser and more than a Destroyer? I'm guessing that you may be trying to minimize the number of "Enginqueers" and Freighters in the scenario in order to prevent some type of imbalance.
KREMLIN
The Kremlin (Great Wall) Wonder should probably be eliminated from the game. A human player can use it to huge advantage. For example, Germany invaded the continental US in March 1942, captured 5 American and 3 Canadian (British) cities and, once all available German forces had used up their movement for the turn, accepted a cease-fire offer from the US so that German forces could reorganize and recuperate in peace and quiet. The following month, German forces took the fourth eastern Canadian city and launched a major invasion of India from Karachi in the west and Baiyu in the east. After capturing 6 British cities, the German forces were spent and badly banged up. Germany happily accepted a cease-fire offer from the British at the cost of giving the Brits Nazi Surface Raiders and Nazi Surface Assault technologies. Neither tech can be used by the Brits. The result was that German forces could reorganize, recuperate and reinforce without interference from both main enemies while Germany continued the war against the remaining two Russian and one Eastern Alliance cities. Of course, once the Germans were ready a few turns later they resumed the war, first against the Amis and then the Brits. The Kremlin allows a human player to overextend his forces, secure in the knowledge that he won't have to pay for his poor generalship. I would have been considerably more conservative if I did not have the cease-fire option to bail me out.
MISCELLANEOUS MUSINGS
I think that the absence of a Spy unit is a good thing. Spies tend to introduce some very unrealistic features into the game. However, the scenario could most definitely use a recce unit that could see inside cities, more or less like the armored car Nemo has in NORMANDY, which can only recce cities but has no other spy-like capabilities. It would avoid the situation of having to attack cities "blind" without introducing any of the funny stuff that a Spy can do.
As I was playing, I was struck by the fact that while the Germans have a wide assortment of Panzer units they can build as their technology develops, I had only built a single tank. I realized that in CIV II, tanks are hybrid units, neither particularly good for attacking cities (actually, they're bloody useless against walled cities) nor do they normally have the defensive numbers to justify their expense. In this scenario, less expensive Artillery/Heavy Artillery for offense and Panzergrenadiers for defense (and limited offense) are more cost-effective. I wonder if the A/D numbers generally assigned to tanks in scenarios are too low to make them cost-effective units? From what I can see, both the attacking and defensive strengths could be increased without creating a new imbalance. Or maybe the x3 defensive strength multiplier of Anti-Tank Defenses is too high to be realistic? Maybe one of the German tank slots could be used for a generic recce unit?
My problems with the Clydebank Shipyards started me wondering why in a scenario from the 1940's, where pollution is not a factor, there is need for Power, Hydro, Nuclear and Solar Plants or their equivalents. Because of cost, the only ones that will be built will be the garden variety Power Plants, not the other more expensive types. Getting rid of the 3 others would free up 3 slots in the City Improvement list. I don't know enough about scenario creation to know whether the 3 slots could be put to other, possibly better, use or simply done away with as redundant.
This was probably an unbelievable set of rolls but in a single turn one of my non-vet E-boats first took out a stack of 2 US Submarines (becoming a vet in the process) and then a stack of 2 Cruisers and 1 Battleship before it very slowly limped back to port. I thought that the outcome was highly unrealistic and that this unit may be too powerful. Also, an E-boat is really too small a ship to be carrying V-2 rockets. If my recall of history is correct, the V-2 was actually not much smaller than an E-boat. Putting the V-2's on Carriers or possibly Battleships would seem more realistic.
I'm pleased to report that the first turn money bug found in most scenarios is alive and thriving. Germany on its first turn captured Kiev with little difficulty. Due to usual scenario problem it got all of Russia's money (4080 GP), not to mention the Wheat Fields Wonder. Subsequently, Kiev was not hard to defend. Japan really benefits from the bug. During its first turn it can easily capture Vladivostok (4080 GP), Hong Kong (5096 GP) and Xi'an (163 GP). Japan gains 9339 GP and starts the game with 14069 GP rather than 4730 GP. Not a bad first turn. If they could only get at Manila!!!! You can prevent the fall of Hong Kong by immobilizing the Zero fighters in Fuzhou and Formosa.
I don't know if the Japanese embassy should be closed if Germany and Japan are allies. How else can you ask them to withdraw troops or backstab them. I know that, having conquered the rest of the world, this Hitler would have been only too happy to add eastern Asia and the Japanese islands to his domain. Or would there be a problem with Germany and Japan exchanging techs. Also, I assume that the message "We are not ready to wage a war with the Japanese Empire! If you wish to attack this nation, certain preparations must be carried out first..." is a red herring and there is no way to start or provoke a war with Japan. Right?
I tried every trick I know to start a war. Tried every form of government, destroyed any number of Japanese planes by fencing them in with my Heavy Bombers, surrounded their cities with my units and so on, all to no avail. I couldn't bribe the US to attack Japan because after 2 years of fighting between them, the US still had "no contact with Japan". Dagnab it!
Finally, Krasnovodsk should be a port city but isn't.
IMHO, DICTATOR 3 is a very fine scenario that might benefit from minor tweaking.
Last edited by AGRICOLA on 10-12-2003 at 22:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
The Kremlin, apart from the obligation of cease fire offering, also provides free AT defenses in all your cities. |
N35t0r, thanks for reminding me that the Great Wall/Kremlin actually provides city walls for all cities and that City Walls and AT Defenses are the same thing. I have played only scenarios for over a year and obviously have forgotten some CIV II basics.
Also. it's not that I dislike E-boats carrying V-2's. Rather it's that I have great difficulty in visualizing the actual launch of a big missile from the pitching deck of a boat that was not much bigger than a PT boat. I suspect that the rudimentary, non-computerized V-2 guidance system of 60 years ago would have made it an interesting game of Russian roulette. 
Last edited by AGRICOLA on 12-12-2003 at 13:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N35t0r
|
|
( o Y o )
Jan 2000
time: 02:32
|
|
It's just that poor curt over here never intended it to be this way, but he had to compromise. Either to have those e-boats capable of shore bombardment (which definitely is a no-no) or having them able to carry missiles. He had to chose the lesser evil, as IMHO having them bombard is much more game disruptive.
And as for your point about the Clydebank Shipyards, let me remind you that power plants as an improvement do not exist in this game  . The different plants have been renamed to several different military production related improvements (steel mill, ammunition plant, etc.)
As for the fact that there are 4 different plants, which makes it redundant due to lack of pollution, let me remind you that the Nuclear Plant (ammunition plant) can meltdown if the city falls into anarchy. Apart from this, all the different plants could have (and i think they do, i didn't pay much attention to this..) different building and maintenance costs.
What i'd do is have whatever everyone can build be relatively cheap but with a high maintenance cost (like 4 or so), then the other two 'clean' plants (solar and hydro) one more expensive to build but less expensive to maintain (3 or so); and the third, which you research last, relatively expensive but less costly to maintain (like 2).
Apart, add in the ammo plant somewhere to be in between both in cost, and also require 2 maintenance...
Last edited by N35t0r on 12-12-2003 at 08:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by N35tOr
It's just that poor curt over here never intended it to be this way, but he had to compromise. Either to have those e-boats capable of shore bombardment (which definitely is a no-no) or having them able to carry missiles. He had to chose the lesser evil, as IMHO having them bombard is much more game disruptive. |
I appreciate your point. It's just that I when I try to picture it, I find the idea of trying a V-2 launch from an extremely top-heavy and pitching E-boat absolutely hilarious. Actually, IMHO, V-2's are highly cost-INeffective so there is little likelihood of me putting them on an E-boat.
quote:
And as for your point about the Clydebank Shipyards, let me remind you that power plants as an improvement do not exist in this game . The different plants have been renamed to several different military production related improvements (steel mill, ammunition plant, etc.) |
Agreed that there is no city improvement that is called any kind of power plant in this scenario. However, if I had used the terms Steel Mill, Oil Field, Ammunition Plant and Munitions Plant in my post, readers not familiar with this scenario would not have had the least idea that I was referring to Power, Hydroelectric, Solar and Nuclear Plants, respectively. Also, let me remind you that calling a canary a whale doesn't change what a canary actually does and can do. Regardless of what they're called and what their descriptions say, Steel Mill, Oil Field, Ammunition Plant and Munitions Plant function exactly like CIV II power plants. Why not call them that? As a player, it keeps my life real simple if city improvement names are descriptive and that their descriptions accurately and quantitatively describe the function of the city improvement. I really would prefer not to have to learn an almost complete set of new names for city improvements to play one modern scenario.
quote:
As for the fact that there are 4 different plants, which makes it redundant due to lack of pollution, let me remind you that the Nuclear Plant (ammunition plant) can meltdown if the city falls into anarchy. Apart from this, all the different plants could have (and i think they do, i didn't pay much attention to this..) different building and maintenance costs. |
Reality is a bit more complex than what you have suggested because in this scenario there is no reason why ANY player would ever want to or need to build a Nuclear or Solar Plant.
Here are the actual costs for the various types of plants:
Type/ Cost to build / Upkeep
Power/ 100 / 2
Nuclear/ 200 / 2
Hydro/ 200 / 3
Solar/ 200 / 3
Except for the 50% lower cost of the garden variety Power Plant, there isn't much difference between the rest. An extra gold piece/month really doesn't matter. However, let's also look at the technical ability of all playable combatants to build the various types of plants. The situation at the start of the scenario is as follows:
US has the techs for both Power and Nuclear Plants
Russia has Nuclear and Hydro but cannot ever get the tech for Power
Britain, Germany and Japan do not have the techs for any type of plant. They respectively need 1, 1 and 2 tech advances for Power, fewer than for any other type of plant.
Consequently, I cannot see any logical reason why anyone playing the US, UK or Japan would want to build anything but Power Plants both for their lower cost and the need for fewer tech advances. Can you? Similarly, anyone playing the Russians would surely not build a potentially hazardous Nuclear Plant when he could get a Hydro Plant for the same price. OK? Therefore, aren't Nuclear and Solar clearly redundant? Hydro could also be done away with if the Russians were given Power and Nuclear at the start rather than Hydro and Nuclear, but such a decision is obviously Curt's prerogative.
On the basis of the above analysis, my comment that 4 types of power plants are not needed in this scenario is absolutely correct.
Last edited by AGRICOLA on 12-12-2003 at 22:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
N35t0r
|
|
( o Y o )
Jan 2000
time: 02:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AGRICOLA
Agreed that there is no city improvement that is called any kind of power plant in this scenario. However, if I had used the terms Steel Mill, Oil Field, Ammunition Plant and Munitions Plant in my post, readers not familiar with this scenario would not have had the least idea that I was referring to Power, Hydroelectric, Solar and Nuclear Plants, respectively. Also, let me remind you that calling a canary a whale doesn't change what a canary actually does and can do. |
Which is increase production on a city with a factory
quote:
Regardless of what they're called and what their descriptions say, Steel Mill, Oil Field, Ammunition Plant and Munitions Plant function exactly like CIV II power plants. Why not call them that? As a player, it keeps my life real simple if city improvement names are descriptive and that their descriptions accurately and quantitatively describe the function of the city improvement. I really would prefer not to have to learn an almost complete set of new names for city improvements to play one modern scenario. |
Hmmm, this is a new approach (for me at least ). I had never heard of someone who prefers to have the original names for improvements. I tend to like the atmosphere created by the new wonders and city improvement names, and prefer when they are renamed.... Though i agree that Curt has been a bit too vague on some of his descriptions lately (and the lack of an extensive readme doesn't help either ) But of course, everybody is free to prefer what they want, that's what makes us all different .
quote:
Reality is a bit more complex than what you have suggested because in this scenario there is no reason why ANY player would ever want to or need to build a Nuclear or Solar Plant.
Here are the actual costs for the various types of plants:
Type/ Cost to build / Upkeep
Power/ 100 / 2
Nuclear/ 200 / 2
Hydro/ 200 / 3
Solar/ 200 / 3
Except for the 50% lower cost of the garden variety Power Plant, there isn't much difference between the rest. An extra gold piece/month really doesn't matter. However, let's also look at the technical ability of all playable combatants to build the various types of plants. The situation at the start of the scenario is as follows:
US has the techs for both Power and Nuclear Plants
Russia has Nuclear and Hydro but cannot ever get the tech for Power
Britain, Germany and Japan do not have the techs for any type of plant. They respectively need 1, 1 and 2 tech advances for Power, fewer than for any other type of plant.
Consequently, I cannot see any logical reason why anyone playing the US, UK or Japan would want to build anything but Power Plants both for their lower cost and the need for fewer tech advances. Can you? Similarly, anyone playing the Russians would surely not build a potentially hazardous Nuclear Plant when he could get a Hydro Plant for the same price. OK? Therefore, aren't Nuclear and Solar clearly redundant? Hydro could also be done away with if the Russians were given Power and Nuclear at the start rather than Hydro and Nuclear, but such a decision is obviously Curt's prerogative.
On the basis of the above analysis, my comment that 4 types of power plants are not needed in this scenario is absolutely correct. |
Of course i see your point that with values as it is all the different plants are useless. I didn't have the values at hand when i wrote the above, but i was suggesting that with a bit of tweaking, it can be made that the player could seriously consider between the different plants.
IMHO, a difference of one or two GP/month can make quite a difference, especially when you have 20+ cities with the respective improvement.
With careful tweaking, i can see that building the different plants could become a matter of 'shall i build x which is cheaper but more costly to maintain?' or even, 'shall I research y, which although doesn't lead to any weapons, allows me to build z plant which is really worth the lost research?'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Panda
|
|
Europe
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
AGRICOLA:
Perhaps I should have said "welcome to Apolyton" instead? Unless you've been lurking in the background all this time?
I was going to e-mail you, but you seem to have disabled the feature of disclosing your e-mail to the public...
The Scenario League was founded as a seperate site focusing on modifying civ2, and scenarios with peer review; basically as repository of knowledge. Then it became a hosted site with its own forum, and was finally, recently merged with the pre-existing Civ2-Creation forum, at the same time the Civ2-Help forum was abandoned, and the Civ2-PBEM (play by e-mail) forum was created because the League forum was inundated with PBEM threads over creation threads (and a good thing too...)
So we're no longer just the League; we are definately a "community", but not a "clan" (which was a perception at one point), and nobody needs (or has ever needed) an invitation to post here. But your sensibility is touching
As to the review process, the League does offer guidelines at the bottom of the front page(http://sleague.apolyton.net/), but at the end of the day it's down to the reviewer themselves, and the nature of reviewing has stirred up more than a couple of debates. One person commented that it should be like your local newspaper offering a book review, but I liken it more to the peer-review process of academic journals (once described to me as settling old grudges or making new ones...). The League reviews do "rate" scenarios in seperate categories, but the objectivity of the reviews and the enthusiatic ratings were sometimes questionable. Much as I hate ratings (see http://apolyton.net/misc/column/36_ratings.shtml for the full article) I have come to accept them as a necessary evil and have two scenario reviews to my name. The problem I had was reviewing them as a designer I could spot technical mistakes and missed potential, which is good because I included those insights, but tended to see them for what they were not and comparatively with similar works.
Which is why I think you'd be so good; and no mistake the League is desperately short of reviews. Designers have all too often been concerned with their own work, and though they offered them for review they seldom contributed a review themselves. And while many players have made invaluable contributions playtesting, feedback on the forums is less crtical and therefore less instructive. I figure, fine: if the designers don't want to do it then look to players with a critical, objective mind and articulate prose.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003 22:48
|