Realism in RTS Games
Thomas j. Evans
Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
Why can't RTS games ever duplicate the historical and technical
realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
they likely lack realism.
On the other hand, why are all historically accurate wargames
turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
soldiers?
Just about every RTS game has the basic setup of building these
special structures which can then pour out tanks and soldiers like
crazy. StarCraft at least made the Zerg and Protoss more believable,
because they evolve their units from larva and warp them in from their
homeworld, respectively. But why can't RTS game be a little bit more
realistic. There shouldn't be structures that produce supplies or
food just like that, out of thin air. There should be supply lines, a
road or rail, from where food, ammo, supplies, and most importantly,
units and soldiers are delivered in convoys. As the base gets built
up, you could then build an armory or factory that produces weapons
and units, but you should have a very large, advanced base before this
is possible.
This is why we have rushing in just about every RTS game. This
unrealistic production of units. There's a million other ways RTS
games are horribly unrealistic, and I think if a game company
concentrated on making it more real, they'd hit on something big.
-T
LandShark0
>From: tho...@skyweb.net (Thomas j. Evans)
>Date: Tue, May 12, 1998 15:21 EDT
>Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
>setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
>the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
>clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
>and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
Either you haven't tried or have not been reading this newsgroup very long, but
Entrepreneur by Stardock is a real time game that, IMO, is quite realistic
(not to mention challenging and just plain fun).
As far as a realistic WWII RTS, try the Close Combat Series. Both CC and CC2: A
Bridge to Far offer very realistic scenarios in a very attractive package. In
fact, one complaint about CC was at times the units acted "too realistic".
Morale and strategic planning are part of the appeal here. In other words, most
platoons will ignore your command to run straight into a death trap.
I'm sure there are others, but these two are just a few of my favorites....
-Matt
Selby Dyer
Thomas j. Evans wrote in message <35589da...@news.skyweb.net>...
>Why are all RTS games so phony?
Simply because "real time" and "strategy" don't make good bedfellows.
Strategic thinking is (and lets not get into another thread on defining
strategy, look it up in a dictionary) a well considered process. Not a knee
jerk, mouse twitching activity.
>Why can't RTS games ever duplicate the historical and technical
>realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
>based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
>they likely lack realism.
Close Combat 1 and 2??
>
>On the other hand, why are all historically accurate wargames
>turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
>soldiers?
>
The turn based part is due to the strategic planning involved, as for the
graphics, I'm not sure - though PG 2 had very, very nice graphics and I
beleive East Front has good graphics too.
This is not a flame, but do you actually play many computer games in either
genre, or just StarCraft?
However, in the main I guess the industry thinks that turn based strategy
players don't care too much for glitz. A case in point is Steel Panthers 3
which tried to reproduce the 'feel' of 1 and 2 by using the same graphics,
but it just didn't work when 1 tank on screen represented 5 tanks in
reality. So perhaps it just never works down to that level.
>There should be supply lines, a
>road or rail, from where food, ammo, supplies, and most importantly,
>units and soldiers are delivered in convoys. As the base gets built
>up, you could then build an armory or factory that produces weapons
>and units, but you should have a very large, advanced base before this
>is possible.
>
This would end up with too much micromanagement and not enough time for
gameplay in a real time environment unless you were playing a real time
version of Capitalism where there is no combat.
IMHO, Total Annihilation was the best of the so called RTS games to date
because it almost completely released you from resource management and let
you get on with the serious business of pounding your opponent into iron
filings.
Selby Dyer
No plan, however good, survives contact with the enemy.
the count
Thomas j. Evans wrote:
>
> Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
> any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
> setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
> the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
> clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
> and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
>
> realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
> based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
> they likely lack realism.
>
> turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
> soldiers?
Because the serious war gamers who play the historically accurate
wargames are more interested in knowing that the important things
have been modelled correctly (morale, armor penetration, supply,
etc.) than in having flashy graphics. Money spent in accuracy is
money NOT spent on graphics.
And the RTS crowd, being most action gamers, comes from a tradition
of arcade games which have always attempted to push the envelope
of graphics, and they expect the same from their PC games. Money
spent on graphics is money NOT spent on game play.
Few are the gamers who cross both paths - historical war games and
action/arcade games. Since the game market is small enough already,
and that overlapping segment is ridiculously tiny, it isn't worth
the money to make a game that is both.
> Just about every RTS game has the basic setup of building these
> special structures which can then pour out tanks and soldiers like
> crazy. StarCraft at least made the Zerg and Protoss more believable,
> because they evolve their units from larva and warp them in from their
> homeworld, respectively. But why can't RTS game be a little bit more
> realistic.
Because the RTS players don't want realism. They want munchkinism :P
> There shouldn't be structures that produce supplies or
> food just like that, out of thin air. There should be supply lines, a
> road or rail, from where food, ammo, supplies, and most importantly,
> units and soldiers are delivered in convoys. As the base gets built
> up, you could then build an armory or factory that produces weapons
> and units, but you should have a very large, advanced base before this
> is possible.
It would be impossible to manage all these things in a RTS (largely
because they are neither real time nor strategic - in a REAL real time
strategy game, there would, of course, be weeks, even months! for doing
this sort of thing... ;)
> This is why we have rushing in just about every RTS game. This
> unrealistic production of units. There's a million other ways RTS
> games are horribly unrealistic, and I think if a game company
> concentrated on making it more real, they'd hit on something big.
To make it more real makes it unmanageable in terms of the number of
things the player would have to keep track of. Having just building
and troops is plenty to have to worry about, adding in realistic
supply/production, convoys, railroads, etc. would make it rapidly
spiral out of control.
Games that have lots of stuff to keep track of also need to give the
player the time they need to keep track of it all. Turn based games
give the players all the time they could possibly need to make sure
they've done everything they need to do for that turn, RTS games don't.
Twin Ion Engine
In article <35589da...@news.skyweb.net>, tho...@skyweb.net (Thomas j. Evans) wrote:
>Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
>setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
>the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
>clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
>and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
That's why they are called clones.
>
>Why can't RTS games ever duplicate the historical and technical
>realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
>based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
>they likely lack realism.
A while back, someone has mentioned that the reason no realistic, present or
historical army is being modeled because no research is needed. While everyone
knows what is the acceleration, muzzle velocity, armor value and speed of a
M1A1 Abrams, no one except the developer knows your Arclite Siege tanks or
your Bulldog heavy tanks, because they are the ones making the rules.
>
>On the other hand, why are all historically accurate wargames
>turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
>soldiers?
>
Real wargamers don't care much for cute graphics and units with attitudes.
>Just about every RTS game has the basic setup of building these
>special structures which can then pour out tanks and soldiers like
>crazy. StarCraft at least made the Zerg and Protoss more believable,
>because they evolve their units from larva and warp them in from their
>homeworld, respectively. But why can't RTS game be a little bit more
>realistic. There shouldn't be structures that produce supplies or
>food just like that, out of thin air. There should be supply lines, a
>road or rail, from where food, ammo, supplies, and most importantly,
>units and soldiers are delivered in convoys. As the base gets built
>up, you could then build an armory or factory that produces weapons
>and units, but you should have a very large, advanced base before this
>is possible.
>
RTS is more of a "simulation" of strategy. That is, you have supplies,
defence, offence, territorial gains, stealth and espionage. Also, you have the
scissors-paper-stone versions of infantry, calvary and artillery units. Any
other thing is just the implementation details.
>This is why we have rushing in just about every RTS game. This
>unrealistic production of units. There's a million other ways RTS
>games are horribly unrealistic, and I think if a game company
>concentrated on making it more real, they'd hit on something big.
>
>-T
Rushing is due to the DESIGN of a game...its not an inherent problem of RTS.
Games like Dark Reign and Total Annihilation makes early game rushing a
non-existent scenario. While Starcraft does not have the sure-win tactics of
Red Alert's Tank Rush, the rush elements are there because of the weak defence
mechanism. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to counter a rush, just a tedious
early game SOP.
WiL :)
Visit the ALPHA CENTUARI HOMEWORLD at
http://home2.pacific.net.sg/~twinion/SMAC/Home.html
A web site dedicated to the game Sid Meier's Alpha
Centuari, sequel to the Civilization game.
Thomas j. Evans
On 12 May 1998 19:39:59 GMT, lands...@aol.com (LandShark0) wrote:
>>From: tho...@skyweb.net (Thomas j. Evans)
>>Date: Tue, May 12, 1998 15:21 EDT
>
>
>>Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>>any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
>>setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
>>the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
>>clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
>>and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
>
>
>Either you haven't tried or have not been reading this newsgroup very long, but
>Entrepreneur by Stardock is a real time game that, IMO, is quite realistic
>(not to mention challenging and just plain fun).
I haven't played it, but I've read reviews. Entrepreneur is an
entirely different kind of game, focussing on corporate domination
instead of battle, which is the direction I'm looking.
>As far as a realistic WWII RTS, try the Close Combat Series. Both CC and CC2: A
>Bridge to Far offer very realistic scenarios in a very attractive package.
Yes, this is true. But CC is just one out of gaggle of RTS games.
It's still not entirely realistic, either, having no air support and
limited units.
CC2 takes it a step closer to what I'm talking about, with its unique
allocation of supplies and other innovations. But both CC and CC2
lack base construction, which is still a big part of realistic combat.
>In fact, one complaint about CC was at times the units acted "too realistic".
>Morale and strategic planning are part of the appeal here. In other words, most
>platoons will ignore your command to run straight into a death trap.
This may be realistic, but it's not what I'm talking about. Having
realistic soldiers that decide for themselves that they're just not
going to listen to your orders may be realistic, but it's also
frustrating and doesn't really add to the enjoyment of the game, IMO.
-T
John Fuesting
There is no AI good enought to simulate an actual chain of command in RT.
When any base is established, there are defense plans and patrols, set up by
numerous people. Fire and maneuver on the battlefield are done in
formations, not just a glob of soldiers and tanks running around. The nature
of TB games allow for the player to take the time and simulate a chain of
command.
Twin Ion Engine wrote in message <6jahfo$cpl$1...@dosa.alt.net>...
>>any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
>>setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
>>the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
>>clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
>>and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
>
Thomas j. Evans
>
>Thomas j. Evans wrote in message <35589da...@news.skyweb.net>...
>>Why are all RTS games so phony?
>
>Simply because "real time" and "strategy" don't make good bedfellows.
>Strategic thinking is (and lets not get into another thread on defining
>strategy, look it up in a dictionary) a well considered process. Not a knee
>jerk, mouse twitching activity.
True, but the reason why RTS games turn into click-fests is because of
the speed. All one needs to do is slow down the action, and/or
perhaps have larger maps, and the game will have more elements of
strategy.
>>Why can't RTS games ever duplicate the historical and technical
>>realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
>>based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
>>they likely lack realism.
>
>Close Combat 1 and 2??
See my reply to "LandShark".
>>On the other hand, why are all historically accurate wargames
>>turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
>>soldiers?
>The turn based part is due to the strategic planning involved, as for the
>graphics, I'm not sure - though PG 2 had very, very nice graphics and I
>beleive East Front has good graphics too.
East Front has nice looking background graphics, but the units roll
over buildings and terrain in very ugly, unrealistic ways. And PG2
has decent background, though not as nice as East Front, but the units
are still icons that represent multiple units.
>This is not a flame, but do you actually play many computer games in either
>genre, or just StarCraft?
Yes. Not as many as I'd like, but I've played enough, and I read as
many reviews and play as many demos as I have time to.
>>There should be supply lines, a
>>road or rail, from where food, ammo, supplies, and most importantly,
>>units and soldiers are delivered in convoys. As the base gets built
>>up, you could then build an armory or factory that produces weapons
>>and units, but you should have a very large, advanced base before this
>>is possible.
>>
>This would end up with too much micromanagement and not enough time for
>gameplay in a real time environment unless you were playing a real time
>version of Capitalism where there is no combat.
Actually, it would do the opposite. Once you have your supply line(s)
established, all you need to do is defend it. Then your units,
soldiers, and supplies are delivered to you in convoys that come to
your base. As long as you keep it defended well, you need not worry
about *any* micromanagement. You don't need to click little icons to
build units or "train" soldiers, and you don't need to send peons to
mine some kind of minerals (gold, gas, tiberium, trees, metal, etc.
etc. etc. etc. etc.). This would cut back on micromanagement, not add
to it.
-T
Thomas j. Evans
On Tue, 12 May 1998 16:33:25 -0400, the count
<eglam...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>Thomas j. Evans wrote:
>>
>> Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>> any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
>> setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
>> the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
>> clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
>> and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
>>
>> Why can't RTS games ever duplicate the historical and technical
>> realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
>> based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
>> they likely lack realism.
>>
>> On the other hand, why are all historically accurate wargames
>> turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
>> soldiers?
>
>Because the serious war gamers who play the historically accurate
>wargames are more interested in knowing that the important things
>have been modelled correctly (morale, armor penetration, supply,
>etc.) than in having flashy graphics. Money spent in accuracy is
>money NOT spent on graphics.
>
>And the RTS crowd, being most action gamers, comes from a tradition
>of arcade games which have always attempted to push the envelope
>of graphics, and they expect the same from their PC games. Money
>spent on graphics is money NOT spent on game play.
I think a lot of RTS fans would take issue with being labled as
"action arcade" gamers. Indeed, there is some action elements to most
RTS games, but they're still "thinking man's" action games. I believe
if you ask ten RTS fans what's more important, the action/arcade
element of an RTS game or the level of strategic planning in an RTS
game, nine of them will choose the latter.
>Few are the gamers who cross both paths - historical war games and
>action/arcade games. Since the game market is small enough already,
>and that overlapping segment is ridiculously tiny, it isn't worth
>the money to make a game that is both.
The success of Close Combat 1 and 2, games that are basically the
combination of wargame and RTS, tell me otherwise. And since games
like Command & Conquer and Warcraft 2 sell in the millions, I think
the market is plenty large.
>> Just about every RTS game has the basic setup of building these
>> special structures which can then pour out tanks and soldiers like
>> crazy. StarCraft at least made the Zerg and Protoss more believable,
>> because they evolve their units from larva and warp them in from their
>> homeworld, respectively. But why can't RTS game be a little bit more
>> realistic.
>
>Because the RTS players don't want realism. They want munchkinism :P
Uhh, I'm not sure, but I think you just insulted all RTS gamers.
>> There shouldn't be structures that produce supplies or
>> food just like that, out of thin air. There should be supply lines, a
>> road or rail, from where food, ammo, supplies, and most importantly,
>> units and soldiers are delivered in convoys. As the base gets built
>> up, you could then build an armory or factory that produces weapons
>> and units, but you should have a very large, advanced base before this
>> is possible.
>
>It would be impossible to manage all these things in a RTS (largely
>because they are neither real time nor strategic - in a REAL real time
>strategy game, there would, of course, be weeks, even months! for doing
>this sort of thing... ;)
Selby said something similar. I don't understand why this concept
seems so hard to manage. It's so simple. Defend the road that leads
to your base and then go do something else. All of your supplies,
units, and soldiers arrive by convoy to your base and you need not
worry about it. The player would not have to control the convoys,
they would simply arrive to your base by themself and unload trucks of
soldiers and supplies, and tanks and jeeps would park themselves
somewhere.
The only micromanagement it would add is the management of defending
your supply lines. But this is the type of management that most RTS
gamers would enjoy - concentrating on defensive strategies instead of
mining ficticious minerals and metals.
>> This is why we have rushing in just about every RTS game. This
>> unrealistic production of units. There's a million other ways RTS
>> games are horribly unrealistic, and I think if a game company
>> concentrated on making it more real, they'd hit on something big.
>
>To make it more real makes it unmanageable in terms of the number of
>things the player would have to keep track of. Having just building
>and troops is plenty to have to worry about, adding in realistic
>supply/production, convoys, railroads, etc. would make it rapidly
>spiral out of control.
The supply/production would be eliminated. It would all happen
off-screen. Some other base somewhere grows or recieves food and
produces or recieves ammo and then it comes to your base through your
defended supply lines. The convoy would not be controlled by the
player, just defended. The railroads are just one example of a
possible supply route. None of these things would add to the
micromanagement requirements on the player.
-T
Wher...@any.way
I don't really mind fantasy-based games, but after all the Viet Nam
books I've been reading lately, I would love to see TA with Huey's and
tanks and things. Wouldn't that be just neato as heck?!
Nate
Martin Rapier
In article <3558c764...@news.skyweb.net>, tho...@skyweb.net says...
>On 12 May 1998 19:39:59 GMT, lands...@aol.com (LandShark0) wrote:
>>>From: tho...@skyweb.net (Thomas j. Evans)
>>>Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>>As far as a realistic WWII RTS, try the Close Combat Series. Both CC and
CC2: A
>Yes, this is true. But CC is just one out of gaggle of RTS games.
Yes, but the point is that they aren't _all_ unrealistic.
>It's still not entirely realistic, either, having no air support and
>limited units.
Yesss. This one was debated to death when CC2 came out. It may be doctrine
today, but in WWII only a complete loony would call in an airstrike in the
middle of a confused battlefield 200m across.
>CC2 takes it a step closer to what I'm talking about, with its unique
>allocation of supplies and other innovations. But both CC and CC2
>lack base construction, which is still a big part of realistic combat.
What complete rubbish. Oh yes, we are short a few Tiger tanks, lets build a
factory in the middle of the battlefield. Real combat units may have supply
depots etc, but they certainly don't 'build bases' in the Red Alert style.
>>In fact, one complaint about CC was at times the units acted "too
realistic".
>This may be realistic, but it's not what I'm talking about. Having
>realistic soldiers that decide for themselves that they're just not
>going to listen to your orders may be realistic, but it's also
>frustrating and doesn't really add to the enjoyment of the game, IMO.
You can't have it both ways - if you want realism, then fog of war, command
control and morale aspects come into it. If you really don't like it, you can
switch all the morale effects off in CC2 anyway.
Cheers.
Martin.
--
Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
Corporate Information & Computing Services.
University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
The opinions expressed here may be those of my employer, or they may not.
http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/
Thomas j. Evans
On 13 May 1998 12:04:22 GMT, M.Ra...@shef.ac.uk (Martin Rapier)
wrote:
>In article <3558c764...@news.skyweb.net>, tho...@skyweb.net says...
>>On 12 May 1998 19:39:59 GMT, lands...@aol.com (LandShark0) wrote:
>>>>From: tho...@skyweb.net (Thomas j. Evans)
>
>>>>Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>>>As far as a realistic WWII RTS, try the Close Combat Series. Both CC and
>CC2: A
>
>>Yes, this is true. But CC is just one out of gaggle of RTS games.
>
>Yes, but the point is that they aren't _all_ unrealistic.
Yes, there have been a couple that have tried to introduce some
realism to the RTS genre, and what do you know - they've been
successful games.
>>It's still not entirely realistic, either, having no air support and
>>limited units.
>
>Yesss. This one was debated to death when CC2 came out. It may be doctrine
>today, but in WWII only a complete loony would call in an airstrike in the
>middle of a confused battlefield 200m across.
Air support does not necessarily mean atomic bombs. CC/2 has no air
units at all, and there were military aircraft in WWII. That's all
I'm pointing out.
>>CC2 takes it a step closer to what I'm talking about, with its unique
>>allocation of supplies and other innovations. But both CC and CC2
>>lack base construction, which is still a big part of realistic combat.
>
>What complete rubbish. Oh yes, we are short a few Tiger tanks, lets build a
>factory in the middle of the battlefield. Real combat units may have supply
>depots etc, but they certainly don't 'build bases' in the Red Alert style.
I never said the Red Alert style was realistic. That's exactly my
point, the whole build-a-factory-that-spits-out-tanks is in 90% of RTS
games, and it's totally rediculous. But in reality there is always a
base of operations, HQ, or whatever you want to call it. They don't
just drop some tanks out of the air and send them into the fight with
nowhere to return.
>>This may be realistic, but it's not what I'm talking about. Having
>>realistic soldiers that decide for themselves that they're just not
>>going to listen to your orders may be realistic, but it's also
>>frustrating and doesn't really add to the enjoyment of the game, IMO.
>
>You can't have it both ways
Why not? What goes into the game is entirely up to the developer.
Why not just include the realism that makes the game interesting and
fun while leaving out the realism that makes the game frustrating and
annoying?
-T
Daniel e Eduardo Silva
You should check out "Enemy Nations".The demo and review can be found, fo
example, at http://www.gamesdomain.com
This RTS game is mixed with a simcity game, sort of.Oh yeah, and you have to
build roads(if you want the supply trucks to go faster :) ) It passed the
maket unoticed, even if many online magazines gave them rave reviews.
Check it out, honest, you´ll love it. I do:)
Eduardo
Thomas j. Evans wrote in message <35589da...@news.skyweb.net>...
>Why are all RTS games so phony? There is hardly a scrap of realism in
>any RTS games out there. It's always either some science fiction
>setting with particle beams and hovering space craft, or it's set in
>the distant past with cavemen pounding on catapults with big wooden
>clubs like in the cartoons, or it's some fantasy setting with mages
>and warlocks conjuring magical forces.
>
>Why can't RTS games ever duplicate the historical and technical
>realism of turn-based wargames? Why hasn't there been many RTS games
>based during WWI, WWII, or Viet Nam? I'm sure there are a couple, but
>they likely lack realism.
>
>On the other hand, why are all historically accurate wargames
>turn-based with cheesy graphics, having icons that represent units and
>soldiers?
>
Daniel e Eduardo Silva
Here愀 the direct link to the review and demo.
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/apr97/enmenu.html
Ng Hsien-Ern
Daniel e Eduardo Silva <hel...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> You should check out "Enemy Nations".The demo and review can be found, fo
> example, at http://www.gamesdomain.com
EN wasn't that bad, but my main beef is that it had too few military
units. I mean, come on - only 3-4 different tanks, no real artillery
(except those missile-thingies), a couple types of infantry? Naval units
seldom if ever came into serious use, and there weren't any aircraft!
As a city-building sim, it was decent enough, but it tried to do too many
things.
--
-The Puppet Master
nghs...@iscs.nus.edu.sg
OK, so I couldn't get a decent sig...
"Bother," said the Borg, "we just assimilated Pooh."