gunnergoz wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:49 pm
I like beer and pretzels as much as the next guy, but there's no reason thinking people can't manage a little bit more complexity and still have casual fun and quick games. This game just begs for a little more complexity IMO but with this industry, the marketing people decide what niche games will cater to, and what games will be funded to production.
Everything has its place but I think one shouldn't stray away from the game's core values. And bringing too much complexity would be a diservice. I actually think they've increased the complexity of PC2 just enough without getting too far off it's original path. But hey, in the end, the developers will do what they do. Maybe they will side with your idea of thinking.
If one could research development say, and have an arty that could also defend tanks, one would not need AT. It would simplify the choices a player makes in terms of core composition, they can do it all with arty, no need for AT units. Making the player player make tough choices is really what makes a game interesting.
Halftracks take core slots, so how long go I hold on to my Opels? How do I maximize the offense of my prototype unit while minimizing it's exposure to damage? That's where the game shines.
There are reasons to take one unit over another, and I won't be in 1945 with a Wehrmacht with Hummels, Jagdpanthers, and King Tigers. Late campaign cores looked dreadfully similar in the past. I think if we could research and expand a units abilities we would lose that, we would by nature min max it and end up with the same research and core compositions. And have a simpler game for it.
