When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...Originally Posted by screwtype
When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...Originally Posted by screwtype
I would hardly call the aging of generals a crucial part of the gameplay if the passage of turns won't be relative to time anyway. It's a trivial problem, albeit I am a little concerned as to what purpose this serves, but it remains trivial. And I highly doubt they would let it go unmoddable.Originally Posted by Perplexed
If they're not going to indicate the year at all (Originally Posted by Lucjan
) then I suppose it doesn't matter that much. However, it seems strange that in a supposedly historical game in which the starting year and the ending year are clearly indentified, that the year would not be shown...
Last edited by Perplexed; 07-19-2006 at 05:04.
Bookmarks