you can, people are known to kill large spiders with guns. Youtube it.
We already know vanguards have gunships, so we know units agile enough to "dodge bullet" exist.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
you can, people are known to kill large spiders with guns. Youtube it.
We already know vanguards have gunships, so we know units agile enough to "dodge bullet" exist.
I also kind of like the simple Hit-Graze-Miss system because it's intuitive and mathematically simple. Something that always appealed to me about the AoW games was that every individual element was dirt simple. Compared to other strategy games, there's really very little math beyond the most basic level in AoW. On the user side I mean. I have no doubt things are super complicated under the hood within the code, especially with RMG and AI.
It's because of the incredible simplicity of each of the core elements that the chassis comes together and allows for so many strategic options and different playstyles all viable(though not equal in strength) at the same time.
Perhaps some people enjoy the math and complexity of some systems. As for me, I sort of believe in a "minimum necessary complexity" for game design. Which is to say, never under ANY circumstances simplify to make things easier unless you can do so without losing options. AoW does this so incredibly well.
Seriously. You could teach the basic rules of the game to a 7 year old and they'd be able to play. And yet at a more competitive level there's a ton of different strategies and approaches. While certain mainline ones tended to be more common, it wasn't unusual to see unorthodox approaches emerge. Sometimes it was a preplanned strategy, other times it was born a necessity in a particular context.
Simple mechanics layered in a complex and interconnected fashion allows for improvisation, on the fly thinking, and strategies to be highly contextual to that situation, rather than more preplanned build orders or mandatory tactics.
It's because of the incredible simplicity of each of the core elements that the chassis comes together and allows for so many strategic options and different playstyles all viable(though not equal in strength) at the same time.
Perhaps some people enjoy the math and complexity of some systems. As for me, I sort of believe in a "minimum necessary complexity" for game design. Which is to say, never under ANY circumstances simplify to make things easier unless you can do so without losing options. AoW does this so incredibly well.
Seriously. You could teach the basic rules of the game to a 7 year old and they'd be able to play. And yet at a more competitive level there's a ton of different strategies and approaches. While certain mainline ones tended to be more common, it wasn't unusual to see unorthodox approaches emerge. Sometimes it was a preplanned strategy, other times it was born a necessity in a particular context.
Simple mechanics layered in a complex and interconnected fashion allows for improvisation, on the fly thinking, and strategies to be highly contextual to that situation, rather than more preplanned build orders or mandatory tactics.
Yup, AoW got the right type of complexity - the complexity that arised from a lot of very simple concepts interacting, in a predictable manner.
Thanks!
On that subject - and to stay on topic - I always find this article useful to explain why we try to avoid intricate math in our core systems.