sIg3b wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:56 pm
Dual_CoRed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:07 pm
Can't understand why people don't prefer a four turn per year grand strategy game. Logistically, the movement of armies makes the most sense with four turns. Combine that with good seasons mechanics and it's far more interesting than one or two turns per year.
Grand Strategy Game, yes. I agree, if you want to simulate WWII or the Napoleonic Wars or any 5-10 year period, 4turns/year is fine.
But for a historical pseudo-simulation that spans centuries, a decade/turn would be best.
Well it depends of the taste of people. Some people don’t mind playing a very long campaign, and actually enjoy it, even if it takes 100 hours to end it. And even if the game is a « Grand Strategy » type of game, it doesn’t mean that some players won’t like a complex, but historically accurate kind of campaign, with a multi-layer system (grand strategy, operational, tactical...) with lots of content, even if it means that they’ll have to deal with a very long playthrough.
I think that most players in this genre are looking for a detailed, meaningful experience. Making it less detailed just so that it can be ended in a few hours is a bad move. That’s just my opinion though.
But look at the Total War franchise : game after game, the systems are less detailed, simplified, there’s a constant « casualisation » trend, and you go from Médiéval 2, which was a nice title, to Thrones of Britania, which is complete casual garbage (Again, just my opinion)
I know that the Total War franchise is not the best example, but it shows us that « Simple and fast » isn’t always better than « long and complex »
I might be asking for too much, but for me, the more complex, detailed, long, and challenging a game is, the better. Especially for a historical strategy game