 |
|  |
 |
mrtemba
|
Bloomington, IN, USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:13
|
|
yep. you had a "no" where there should have been a "nil" in the future technology thing. but other than that it was a really good scenario.
If I was the judge
1st - BARRON
2nd - FOSTER
3rd - BAUM
but thats just imho. Foster had the problem tha the negotiation screens were unreadable but once i fixed that it was a really good scenario! Barron could have been balanced a little less in favor of the seekers but thats about it, and baum just kinda seemed unfinished to me...i don't know why. oh well congrats everyone!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
blackclove
|
Soon... sorry, I am in Ph.D hell right now. It will take a few days to say much.
Short version regarding the winners:
Archer - loved the artwork and the total redesign of the tech tree, even if the units were a little unbalanced (the "catapult" equivalent was too good). I thought the idea of having all the nations be not in blocks, but rather scattered all over the globe with rail lines between them, made for very interesting conflicts -- there was no "front" like in most Civ2 scenarios.
Barron - the play balance was fascinating and I really liked playing from different perspectives. The "Horde" plays like a mongols scenario, while the others play very differently. It was several scenarios in one package, really. I also liked the art and events here.
Baum - It felt a little half-finished because events were so scarce. The use of the forager as a unit that can attack air (to search "ruins") was brilliant, but there were no events surrounding this, which was odd. The hawkmen were also really neat - swoop in and attack! I also liked the general idea of the rogue computer, but thought it needed some kind of help to play better and some more diverse units and longer tech tree.
I'll try to say more about the others as I get the time. I will say that I liked pretty much all of them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| |
|
|
|
|