|
I wouldn't be surprised of RTW Ai had decided to almost irrationally bias towards deflecting torpedoes over making an actual effective fighting ship, in ways most humans wouldn't.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Bremen posted:I was Japan, and I was regularly hitting battleships and battlecruisers with 3-5 torpedoes and having them survive the battle, while mine would go down after one. Like, I'm normally one to scoff at unfounded "the AI cheats" allegations, but it was ridiculous levels of the enemy shrugging them off. That doesn't surprise me too much. The IJN was historically plagued by really bad damage control, and if you were facing the US, they're well noted for having great damage control. It's one of those games where there's a whole myriad of possibilities so it's hard to nail things down without more concrete stuff to go off other than vibes and historical datapoints that may or may not be reflected in that particular game's tech spread. TheDeadlyShoe posted:I wouldn't be surprised of RTW Ai had decided to almost irrationally bias towards deflecting torpedoes over making an actual effective fighting ship, in ways most humans wouldn't. This too. My hours in 2 are very limited compared to 1, but back there, I found that just going for big guns tended to do the trick - torps were great in the early game when gunnery was poo poo in the pre-dread days, but quickly got... not irrelevant, but became the less useful tool in the arsenal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I was Japan, and I was regularly hitting battleships and battlecruisers with 3-5 torpedoes and having them survive the battle, while mine would go down after one. Like, I'm normally one to scoff at unfounded "the AI cheats" allegations, but it was ridiculous levels of the enemy shrugging them off. Tbh it is hard to reverse engineer where this is coming from. Torpedoes get significantly more deadly with tech and size increases. Floatation is also a function of size, so large ships can take significantly more torpedo hits without sinking or sinking extremely slowly especially with good protection and damage control techs. But the AI definitely doesn't cheat. Torpedoes are swingy in their utility. Early game they're there to secure kills. Early mid they're primary weapons as gunnery just isn't very reliable. Mid they switch to largely defensive or night battle Mid late you can get a huge number of them on fast platforms so they become a bit more viable Late they fall off hard because radar directed guns are extremely deadly even at night. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Apr 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Never played the game myself, but the historical IJN sucked so bad at damage control that it could easily just be working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Probably Alpha Centauri, 9.5/10 SMAC is one of my all time favorites. I think that even if you don't like Planetfall, saying SMAC is a better made game than Planetfall in this day and age is bananas. SMAC was a great game when it came out, but by modern standards it's barely acceptable. They're very different games so if you like one there's no telling if you'll like the other, but if I compare just the strategy layer by game balance/overall polish and content then compared to SMAC, Planetfall has: An AI that can actually play the game both economically and engage in warfare without tripping and falling on its face. Actual balance mechanics to prevent ICS, and no crawler spam. More unique factions compared to SMAC, each with their own unique unit roster, special rules, and special buildings. Unit customization (modding) that actually does something other than just bigger numbers (yes, even if you just autoresolve - because autoresolve in Planetfall *always* plays out the entire battle using AI on the actual battlefield). Units that are actually different from each other and serve roles on the battlefield other than "has a higher attack/defense" number, such as buffing/debuffing/healing units, or being good at ranged or melee combat. Some units specialize in strategic roles, but might still get pulled into fights, such as scouts or stealth units. Actual choices of how to develop cities and specialization based on nearby sector types and how development fits into your overall plan, vs the SMAC strategy of just squeezing as many cities as possible into the space you have and building a more or less standard queue in each. Cities actually grow and have different shapes because of annexing different sectors when population grows, rather than all of them just being a weird cross shape from day 1. Actual choices to make in terms of placing and growing cities, what sectors to annex, what exploitations to build, and which sector specializations to put there. More in depth and varied combat with fights between 2-42 units total. Each of these things represents work the developers of Planetfall did that the developers of SMAC did not, like the large variety of units, or something they succeeded at where SMAC failed, like the AI and game balance. No matter which you like more, you shouldn't look at the decades old basic mess of SMAC and say it's a better made game than Planetfall. Better for the time, maybe. More to your taste, sure. Better made based on the same criteria, no, absolutely not. I'm not saying you have bad taste, and I'm not saying that you just need to learn to love my ~favorite~ game, I'm just saying you can dislike or be totally uninterested in Planetfall while still acknowledging that the developers did a good job making it and really knew how to make the game they wanted to make. --- Same deal for any other comparison you would make. I love SotS, I think it's a great game. But despite both being a 4Xs with a tactical game, SotS and PF are very different. So again just comparing overall quality/amount of content of the strategy layer of SotS with just the strategy layer of Planetfall, SotS has: Bullshit autoresolve results that don't make any sense. AI diplomacy that is just broken and sucks. A 4X layer so basic that I've solved it, and might as well not bother playing it at all, because I just follow the same optimal development strategy every single game. You seriously think this is compelling on it's own? OK, I guess. Unbalanced random events that just gently caress over new players while being totally uninteresting speed-bumps for experienced players (except when they also gently caress over experienced players). etc. Again, I love SotS, I think it's a great game, but it mostly seems by luck and accident. It boggles my mind that someone would actively enjoy the 4X part of SotS and think that it could stand alone without the tactical combat, but that's just my personal taste. What isn't my personal taste is, SotS just doesn't have nearly the level of polish and refinement PF does, there's barely anything even there to refine, and what is there shows spots where they just objectively hosed up, like the diplomacy. Lowen fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:Miriam was right tho Miriam was afraid. That is not the same thing as being right. The world that SMAX shoves in your face is terrifying, or at least that is how the worms are presented to you from the on-set. The choice the game gives you is, will you side with Planet, or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Miriam was afraid. That is not the same thing as being right. no, that is correct, given everything that transpires.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
If your interpretation of how good something is boils down to "did someone put time into creating it", then you seem like a literal caricature that enjoys receiving participation trophies. Sometimes someone spends a lot of time on something that just sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
Jabor posted:If your interpretation of how good something is boils down to "did someone put time into creating it", then you seem like a literal caricature that enjoys receiving participation trophies. I have no idea how much time any dev spent making anything, and I don't care. When I talk about the quality of Planetfall I'm talking about the extremely high level of skill and care that went into making the game, not the number of hours spent. e: if you enjoy basic rear end simple 4x games vs brain dead AI then I would say that it is you that wants participation trophies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 02:39
|
|
|
Lowen posted:Each of these things represents work the developers of Planetfall did that the developers of SMAC did not, like the large variety of units, This is participation-trophy poo poo imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
 this is roguelike threadlike postingSide note: Anyone try out the “Lord of Rigel” early access? LordSloth fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
I'm guessing that RTW doesn't stand for Rome total war but I'm baffled and google isn't helping poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
LordSloth posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
Jarvisi posted:I'm guessing that RTW doesn't stand for Rome total war but I'm baffled and google isn't helping poo poo Rule the Waves
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Jarvisi posted:I'm guessing that RTW doesn't stand for Rome total war but I'm baffled and google isn't helping poo poo Lol I know its rule the waves yet my mind could not stop inserting Rome Total War every drat time I read RTW
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
Jabor posted:This is participation-trophy poo poo imo. Hmm yes putting a large variety of high quality content in your games is just not technically impressive, it's better to do a poo poo job with a small amount of stuff. OK, sure, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
It doesn't actually matter from a "how good is the strategy layer" perspective. It's like Paradox selling you extra ship design packs. To be clear, I'm not going to say it's a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. It's a neutral thing. This is why I mentioned the participation trophy metaphor - you're judging it as good because they must have spent a lot of time and effort on it, rather than looking at how it actually affects this specific part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
Alpha Centauri is an extremely flavorful game, which is the only reason it holds up whatsoever in the modern era. It was remarkably ahead of it's time in many ways, but we've moved far enough in game development that it can no longer hide it's glaring flaws behind the stellar story/music/art/atmosphere. The UI is bad, the AI is exploitable even by 4x standards, and a lot of the game mechanics aren't balanced (terraforming!). I get where Lowen's coming from in that regard. Planetfall is a much more technically competent game if compared straight-up. It has significantly better UI, better AI, well-balanced mechanics, and more overall content/variety in gameplay. As for flavor, that's subjective so I'm not going to get into an argument over who wins there. Planetfall, in a vacuum and without any historical context or rose-colored glasses, is a better game... today. That said I think there's a big difference for Planetfall for where it stands relative to it's peers. Alpha Centauri was miles ahead of anything else that came out between Civ II and Civ IV (and, I'd argue, specifically Fall From Heaven II in BTS). All three of those games are regarded as among the best 4X games of all time (quite possibly 1/2/3 in some order). as well as among the best 20-ish strategy games of all time and even long-shot contenders for best 100 PC games of all time. Planetfall simply isn't in such elite company. It's competently made by skilled developers who clearly cared, but it's much harder today to make a game that's head and shoulders above the rest... or to make a game that can blaze a totally new trail. There's simply too many games out there to leave much unexplored, and there's too much money at stake for anyone outside of a true indie to risk going too far outside the lines. I guess that's a long-winded way of saying that I get the argument of Planetfall being a better game than Alpha Centauri, as well as the immediate recoil to that idea because of just how good SMAC was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
Jabor posted:It doesn't actually matter from a "how good is the strategy layer" perspective. It's like Paradox selling you extra ship design packs. No, I'm saying they actually know what they were doing and put the effort in because they could see that it would actually make the game better, and then I compared the skill in doing that favorably to a game that was designed like "lol just reskin Civ2 and graft some additional stuff to it, lmao". Oh also if you think the units in Planetfall are anything like ship DLC packs for Stellaris you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
A lot of that variety is irrelevant from the strategy layer perspective, though. A unit costs X resources and improves your army by Y (increasing the range of opposition that you can get a favourable battle against). A unit upgrade costs Z and improves your army by W. An economic improvement costs Q and doesn't improve your army at all in the short term. That's the essence of the strategy layer - you spend resources to improve your armies, and how much you do that (in order to snowball via military means) vs. investing in economic buildings to snowball via economy is the meat of the game. That variety is absolutely relevant on the tactical layer, for sure. I'm not going to contest that. That's probably one of the reasons the original discussion gave Planetfall's tactical layer a significantly higher score than the strategic layer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
Jabor posted:A lot of that variety is irrelevant from the strategy layer perspective, though. A unit costs X resources and improves your army by Y (increasing the range of opposition that you can get a favourable battle against). A unit upgrade costs Z and improves your army by W. An economic improvement costs Q and doesn't improve your army at all in the short term. That's the essence of the strategy layer - you spend resources to improve your armies, and how much you do that (in order to snowball via military means) vs. investing in economic buildings to snowball via economy is the meat of the game. It's not irrelevant from the strategy layer perspective, because the tactical battles *still happen* even if you autoresolve, so all those differences will always have an effect on the battle results. You literally can't stop the tactical battles from happening, you can only ever delegate them to an AI vs AI fight that is resolved nearly instantly but otherwise plays out exactly like it would if you took control yourself. Watch a replay sometime if you don't believe me and compare it to the summary you get, they're the same. There is no such simple cost/benefit calculation for a given unit because unlike other 4X games units in Planetfall have a wide range of abilities beyond just damaging attacks, and even the attack abilities are qualitatively rather than just quantitatively varied. So having a good mix of support units, or attack units that complement each other, will always boost your effectiveness in a more interesting way than just giving your stack a buff or something similar other 4X games do. You just can't ignore the variety of units in PF and claim that you're just concentrating on the strategy part, because army composition is done on the strategy layer. As for economic vs military choices, Planetfall has a reputation as a wargame in 4X clothing, where the correct move is to always forsake butter for guns, but in my experience it's actually one of the better 4X games in terms of balancing economic vs military development. Even just looking at the economic development game in Planetfall, I really enjoy how the different sectors fit together, and planning out my cities so they can grow without blocking each other. It's kind of like the district placement game in Civ6 but without all the forced choices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
"more complex" does not mean "more interesting". Omega Chess (10x10 board, adds two new types of piece) is way less strategically interesting than regular chess, even though it's undeniably more complex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 06:13
|
|
|
As a general game design thing, something being more complex means that it's worse. Your goal as a game designer is to ensure that any complexity you're adding is justified, that it brings upsides to the game that you literally couldn't get without bringing in that complexity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:Alpha Centauri is an extremely flavorful game, which is the only reason it holds up whatsoever in the modern era. It was remarkably ahead of it's time in many ways, but we've moved far enough in game development that it can no longer hide it's glaring flaws behind the stellar story/music/art/atmosphere. The UI is bad, the AI is exploitable even by 4x standards, and a lot of the game mechanics aren't balanced (terraforming!). Out of curiosity, do you think Civ IV has been surpassed? I personally don’t really feel 4X game design has moved forward since then. The quality bar for the genre is really low— tons of developers, including even well-known series like Civ itself, release games that don’t function as serious, interesting games because their AI opponents can’t actually compete with the player. But then, these games are enough of a commitment that I can only play a small fraction of them, so I can easily imagine I could have missed bigger trends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
Jabor posted:"more complex" does not mean "more interesting". I literally did not use the word complex in any of my posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
IMO Planetfall strikes a pretty good balance of options. The number of possible threats you have to build against is small enough that you can build a reasonably good general purpose army, yet wide enough that specialist armies can attain a large advantage against specific opponents or builds.nrook posted:Out of curiosity, do you think Civ IV has been surpassed? I personally don’t really feel 4X game design has moved forward since then. The quality bar for the genre is really low— tons of developers, including even well-known series like Civ itself, release games that don’t function as serious, interesting games because their AI opponents can’t actually compete with the player. But then, these games are enough of a commitment that I can only play a small fraction of them, so I can easily imagine I could have missed bigger trends. 4x game design has definitely moved forward since Civ IV, but that's a separate question of whether better games have been made. AI is always a problem, and design can play into the ability of an AI to play a game... but noone likes SMAC for the AI, or calls it badly designed for its bad AI. Or if you look at it from the other direction: AI War is an example of a game specifically designed to have decent/entertaining AI opponents, but as an exercise in game design it's somewhat of an abomination and certainly a victim of massive overcomplexity. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 07:18
|
|
|
Jabor posted:As a general game design thing, something being more complex means that it's worse. Your goal as a game designer is to ensure that any complexity you're adding is justified, that it brings upsides to the game that you literally couldn't get without bringing in that complexity. yeah and this is 50% of why the person saying stellaris is garbage was right, paradox love to splurge their complexity budget on systems for barely any return in terms of interesting decisions
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 08:01
|
|
|
Bremen posted:Does RTW cheat in the AI's favor? Because I remember my last game I ended up just ragequitting after the fifth or so time I dropped several torpedoes into an enemy ship and had it sail away with moderate damage, whereas every time my ships got hit by a single one (even plane launched) they sank within minutes. And it's not like I was skimping on the torpedo protection, either. Were you skimping on researching torpedo techs? There are really major step changes in the destructiveness of torpedoes. IIRC each new torpedo protection tech is paired up with a torpedo warhead tech, and any torpedoes earlier than that are basically hard-countered by the new protection tech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 08:15
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:no, that is correct, given everything that transpires. The game gives you, general you, a choice. Either you go with Planet, which is messed up but it's fun to sick Locusts of Chiron at people. Or, you try to remain "human", which Planet does not like, and which the opening cinematic tells you was a Bad Idea to start with. Miriam is afraid of a trans-humanist future, but the game's writing and the game mechanics sort of make you want to view that as a desirable path. Ultimately, what Miriam offers is an eternal war against Planet itself, and the game does not present that as a good option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 08:34
|
|
|
Lowen posted:SMAC is one of my all time favorites. I think that even if you don't like Planetfall, saying SMAC is a better made game than Planetfall in this day and age is bananas. SMAC was a great game when it came out, but by modern standards it's barely acceptable. They're very different games so if you like one there's no telling if you'll like the other, but if I compare just the strategy layer by game balance/overall polish and content then compared to SMAC, Planetfall has: I can't flood the world via pollution and block efforts to stop it in the UN, or ruin someone's nutrient yields and cause a famine by terraforming a mountain next to them in Planetfall; so it's an objectively worse game. SMAC is good not just for it's characterization, but also because it lets you do INTERESTING things... because it was janky and not overly polished or balanced, and the AI being bad gave you the freedom to gently caress around sub-optimally if you didn't want to carpet the world in cities and nerve gas needle jets for the 300th time. (I already walked back my criticism of AOW on the grounds that I also never liked MOM/HOM&M so I think I just really don't engage with the subgenre; and since so much of the 4x layer is in service of the tactical battles that I find tedious I can't manage to care or engage with it.) Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
I think SMAC is really not a good game- it doesn't hold up, and yeah Age of Wonder Planetfall is to me a better-designed game, though i'm not hugely into 4x games that feature tactical combat. The factions in SMAC are extremely dim-witted ideological caricatures instead of being human societies which is somewhat bizarre to me for a 4x game, which is hilarious because they're not actually that different in game. It had some interesting writing for its time but was completely dunked on by civ 4, imo, game design wise. Also, I think Rule the Waves is much more fun if you enjoy designing the ships- if that's not important to you, Rule the Waves is not going to be all that interesting, it's kinda one of those space 4xs with a ship designer but the ship designer is much of the game. The rest is nice and all, but the core is building the ships and seeing how they do. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 09:07
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:Were you skimping on researching torpedo techs? There are really major step changes in the destructiveness of torpedoes. IIRC each new torpedo protection tech is paired up with a torpedo warhead tech, and any torpedoes earlier than that are basically hard-countered by the new protection tech. No, I had it focused, and my ships were (as far as I was aware) well designed and this happened over several wars over several years. Honestly I walked away from the game with no doubt in my mind the game was designed to give the AI a large advantage in battle (to make up for the AI itself not being great, mind you) and now I'm not sure how to take everyone insisting that it's not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 13:12
|
|
|
Lowen posted:SMAC is one of my all time favorites. I think that even if you don't like Planetfall, saying SMAC is a better made game than Planetfall in this day and age is bananas. This criticism is weird to me, the SMAC unit designer specifically doesn't involve much in the way of "bigger numbers" because that part is all handled automatically, the designer is specifically there for you to change the other stuff that isn't just "bigger numbers". Balancing specializations against costs with conditional stuff and stuff that alters how a unit plays completely. I'm not gonna say it couldn't be better, just that this criticism doesn't work. How does the Planetfall customizer work? quote:SMAC was a great game when it came out, but by modern standards it's barely acceptable. By modern standards it is still absolutely better than average and more than acceptable, but that's mostly because the modern 4x standard is "really goddamn bad". I haven't played PlanetFall in particular, but the ones I have played SMAC is still hands down better than them pretty much every single way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
nrook posted:Out of curiosity, do you think Civ IV has been surpassed? I personally don’t really feel 4X game design has moved forward since then. The quality bar for the genre is really low— tons of developers, including even well-known series like Civ itself, release games that don’t function as serious, interesting games because their AI opponents can’t actually compete with the player. But then, these games are enough of a commitment that I can only play a small fraction of them, so I can easily imagine I could have missed bigger trends. Only by Fall From Heaven. I think Civ V had some good ideas but colossally hosed up with their modding setup. Civ VI made more progress on the asymmetry side of things but honestly I just think the Civ formula has outlived it’s usefulness. Edit: I should say though that in an abstract sense the newer Civ games *are* “better”. They’ve advanced graphics, audio, total amount of content, and UI significantly. They’re just less than the sum of their parts and aren’t FUN. Nobody’s made a truly quality, pure 4X in a decade - although Old World comes close. Planetfall is a quality game with a couple warts, but I don’t consider it pure 4X either (or even majority 4X). The a total War Warhammer series is a similar classification as Planetfall. Stellaris… regardless of what it is now the start was so bad that I don’t consider it a quality game. orangelex44 fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
If you didn't play Alpha Centauri before and have no affection for it, it's really not that special. It's absolutely not the pinnacle of 4x people evangelize it to be.
Squiggle fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 14:13
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:Stellaris… regardless of what it is now the start was so bad that I don’t consider it a quality game. Stellaris is in such a ... weird loving place for me, like there's a lot of good in it, but it's like chunks of good in a big mushy sea of absolutely miserable. It's so weirdly unpleasant in many spots on a technical level, the basic moment to moment gameplay loops are all so bad, and last I played most of the bits that were conceptually appealing were so badly implemented they were only good in concept, and I was just left with the feeling that I'd have been much happier if I could somehow play the game without interacting with any of the 4x elements at all. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Apr 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Stellaris is in such a ... weird loving place for me, like there's a lot of good in it, but it's like chunks of good in a big mushy sea of absolutely miserable. It's so weirdly unpleasant in many spots on a technical level, the basic moment to moment gameplay loops are all so bad, and last I played most of the bits that were conceptually appealing were so badly implemented they were only good in concept, and I was just left with the feeling that I'd have been much happier if I could somehow play the game without interacting with any of the 4x elements at all. This may be a taste thing. I bought Stellaris day 1 and apart from a weird phase where the AI went braindead for 1-2 patch cycles, I had (and still have) great fun with it. Steam tells me I have played Stellaris for over 3581hours now... yikes
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
SMAC is the pinnacle of the type of 4X game it is. That's what I think. The whole genre of "4X" is too vague a notion that to say something that broad just invites apples to oranges comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:SMAC is the pinnacle of the type of 4X game it is. That's what I think. I’d be willing to argue SMAC is below Civ IV. Maybe even below Civ II, it’s close. Civ IV had better modding support, UI, balance, and AI along with quietly excellent graphics/sound. SMAC is worse in every category outside of subjective flavor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Bremen posted:No, I had it focused, and my ships were (as far as I was aware) well designed and this happened over several wars over several years. Honestly I walked away from the game with no doubt in my mind the game was designed to give the AI a large advantage in battle (to make up for the AI itself not being great, mind you) and now I'm not sure how to take everyone insisting that it's not. I have absolutely not noticed this myself -- my experience with torpedoes is that they work just fine at sinking ships. One thing that's possible is that the game has a semi-random tech tree where techs are sometimes skipped for a few tiers, to make fleets of different nations diverge. My best bet is that precisely this happened to some key torpedo warhead tech for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 15:26
|
|