: We do that a lot. Ain't it great?
: 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.
If you thought that Age Of Empires games were crappy, Warcraft III sucks even worse. Man. There is, except for the last human mission, the crappiest medieval warfare simulator I'VE ever seen. Never as fun. I don't understand how it managed to become so popular. What, because of its graphics? Sheesh.
: 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.
I still think that medieval warfare games are the most fun. Yeah, I get what you're saying, and it's true, but still medieval warfare has the most tactics, and that is what makes it more fun. I still think it is dumb how in Warcraft III and those other lousy games, how you just build a village, get enough resources, and then just send in a huge army, and just tell them to attack certain targets, and finally: just sit there and cross your fingers hoping that your army will win. Boring. Myth games always kept you busy with strategy, and what to do, and what to counterattack, etc. Btw, I also agree, the war in Iraq wouldn't work well, it would be too easy, that Republican guard would get their asses kicked easily, our technology and training, etc, totally crushes theirs. But I guess it could have a strange twist to it like Return To Castle Wolfenstein did, with all those mutants and stuff.
: Don't forget the boiling oil!
Yeah, good idea! They oughta make an easter egg level in their next Myth or something where you have an army that is trying to defend a stronghold, and you can use cannons, and boiling oil barrels! :)
That would be fun. Maybe we can post that request to Bungie or something? Well, see you all later.
