: I don't know why I wanted to post this, I just did.
We do that a lot. Ain't it great?
: Myth games are the best. It is that simple. I mean, the
: thought of that long, and fascinating plot, mixed with
: the challenging missions and strategic medieval
: warfare... And finally, doused with a huge load of
: carnage tendencies in each and every one of the
: levels, lol. Many people say stuff like
: "why bother? It's just as good as AOE or WCIII
: (warcraft III, the other is Age Of Empires), except
: for you only send in limited armies, and you can't
: make villages and stuff, so it sucks." Wrong.
Hm. "As good as"? I don't think so. Myth kicks seven kinds of hell out of Age of Empires. Because Age of Empires is without doubt the worst simulator of classical/medieval tactical combat I've ever seen. There's no incentive to use formation (something which pikemen and hoplites simply can't do without). There's very little incentive to form armies the way your historical counterparts did- whatever miniscule limitations they put on unit choice, one army is still pretty much like another. Monks are just hideously annoying. And I'm not even going to start on the vast inaccuracies in Age of Mythology- inaccuracies which could have been remedied in a way which would have vastly improved the game itself.
: Well now I think differently. Then again, it is tactics.
: There were more strategies and tactics required in
: medieval warfare than any other, which is what made it
: more fun. In modern wars like today, is there much
: tactics anymore? No. At least, not as much as the
: others. It is pretty much just using advanced
: technology: simple. And simply sending in units to
: attack. And there doesn't seem to be much tactics
: required in there either. Medieval warfare games like
: the Myth games are excellent. And Myth games
: specifically. Man, the plot, the warfare, the...
: everything.
Depends. I think there is potential for modern warfare simulators. Yes, you /can/ just use advanced technology, but sheer manpower can be just as effective. Even against automatic weaponry, a frontal charge of a defended position should be successful if the attackers outnumber the defenders 2 to 1. Purely in terms of technology, the US should have won Vietnam easily, but the Viet Cong were able to hold their own through use of this principle, focusing large amounts of force on individual US positions- in fact, much the same way the Viet Mihn won at Dien Bien Phu. As the Germans realised late in WW2, yes, high-tech bombers are all well and good, but ultimately, it's the Troopers, the Grunts, the Doughboys who win and lose wars. And, as always, the most interesting wargames come from situations where two different philosophies of waging war clash. I doubt the recent war in Iraq would have made a very interesting wargame, simply because Saddam allowed himself to be drawn into a Western-style conflict. But Korea? That could be quite something.
: Well, I gotta go. Here come the enemy, assaulting the
: stronghold. Bring up the drawbridge! Send warriors on
: patrol! Fire away the arrows and cannons! They are
: assaulting the stronghold!
Don't forget the boiling oil!
