安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
WTF?
I played most stupid way and was expecting to lose but i win thats why it is broken.
Dont you thing that game shoud punish me for such aproach insted of handing me victory on hardest difficulty?
But on your question, the devs have said you can play it how you want...
Also, "I played the game in a way that almost *nobody* would actually play (skipping every tactical battle)" is not a solid basis for dismissing an entire game mode - especially when your post is lacking in details, and could be a one-time fluke.
it was third campain where you trying to save 4. army
I cannot play it way I want, because I wanted to be chalenge by this campain I wanted to my strategic and tactical skils to be put to test like in W:AB campain.
But how can I do that when most effective way to play is most boring one (you just move all units directly into objective). Playing way you want is great but there is big difference betwean finding you playstyle (lets say like in Deus ex) and just messing around like in Dishonored. Because dishonored can be experienced in lot of ways but it cannot be played because you dont get punishted for anything you do, your aproach literary dosent matter because ewerithing is ilusion.
OK first this mode is good if you after eye-candy or historical experience surre I was just looking for the game.
You need to understand that if you looking for a chalenge in game there is this fenomenom called
"Optimize fun out of game" when if fun of the game is to make decisions to win somethimes best decision makes game more boring in long terme. In my case best way to save 4 army was to just fast move it through enemy teritory in straight line because rusians were unable to catch up.
And yeas I probably could play different way but then I wouldnt play the game I would play pretend (which somethims I do) But if you play pretend ewery videogam can be 10/10 masterpiece I dont thing thats serios argument agganst my critisism.
It is your job as the defender just to hold out the few turns, neverheless doing autoresolve or not. There is no game option to play this operation on an larger timescale to everybodys surprise. Lets wait the next patch and/or the workshop to adjust the turns/times and make it mor popular and fun.
Atm, its just too easy to hold out the few turns... Should be possible to implement a final stance or a continue button to deal out the campaign in some real fights for the devs ofc, but they prefer their vision from historical accuracy over our demands and fun (and the real scenario back then xD)
I completely agree with your point on map sizes, though--some of the massive maps that get picked for Army General are completely un-manageable. Even setting battalions to AI-control doesn't help much, since they only take one 'lane.'
It's also really tedious setting up defenses over and over again on the same map. I wish they were persistent, or that there was an auto-setup button that covers the map and allows the user to tweak before beginning the battle.
I think Army General could be great, but there are a few nagging issues--like the way air support is handled, and the ease of winning defensive campaigns by constantly bombarding the best enemy battalions--that I'm hoping Eugen will address. There's so much potential here, if the system is opened-up to modders the possibilities are endless.
I think what really throws the balance off in army general is defenses. If you dig in any infantry battalion, no matter how depleted/garbage it is, it can hold off waves of attackers. The AI isn't terrible at suppressing defenses, but they also have a bad habit of fast-moving transports into the sights of your dug-in AT guns--of which you can half several. You can decimate entire divisions just by putting your AT bunkers in the right locations and walking off, even on the harder difficulties.
I'd like to see a head to head army general, but even so defenses are just too powerful--and they can replenish. Unlike in history, when bunkers and frontline defenses could be pounded to hell or disorganized before the attack, a battalion can replenish all its bunkers and trenches in just 12 in-game hours.
Armies know how long it takes to get to a certain level of defensive works, dependant upon soil type, season and weather, AND availability of resources. I personally think the Army General digging in times are seriously fast, particularly for 'bunkers', which in-game are basically fighting pits with overhead protection (of a sort), and wiring. Then there is the issue of camouflage...fixed works without decent camouflage are like neon signs or stick out like dog's b**ls, and that takes time.
What that means is that you can't put in probes or spoiler attacks to tie down enemy units and reserves, because your units are crippled or destroyed in total afterwards. I would think that if you got a 'total victory' on the tactical battle map, then you would destroy as per the mechanic, and vice versa; anything less than that (or major victory) then I think only actual casualties from the battle should be taken, rather than adjusted as we have now.