|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 23:01:43 GMT
I always felt like WC3 would make more since as 2 or 3 games. The lack of the Cold War makes it pointless to include it at all. Give me a game where it either focuses on WWII or it focuses on the Cold War. I'd also like to see planes as a unit that have to temporarily stop with low fuel. Are you talking about the lack of cold war-era generals? WC3 do have conquests and campaigns for the cold war (the first half, though... not including Vietnam) I just feel like it should've focused on one or the other. The Cold War that they did provide was not very good at all. There was not much thought over it anyway and the lack of generals also. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 23:15:06 GMT
Are you talking about the lack of cold war-era generals? WC3 do have conquests and campaigns for the cold war (the first half, though... not including Vietnam) I just feel like it should've focused on one or the other. The Cold War that they did provide was not very good at all. There was not much thought over it anyway and the lack of generals also. I don't know the storage limitations, but maybe they could have fleshed out the cold war to the extent they did world war 2, and make it one good game? Of course, cold war generals is a hard question, but perhaps just adding a couple per country would work, since many stayed on during the early years. AND ADD AN AMERICAN ARTILLERY GENERAL ALREADY, CLARK NOT COUNT. BTW, what annoys me is that they added an alien mode, but the missions end in the cold war. Could have added missions like "fall of London" "Destruction of So and so statue" "Chinese Resistance Operation" This would also have added some more medals to a medal-starved game. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2017 0:12:59 GMT
I just feel like it should've focused on one or the other. The Cold War that they did provide was not very good at all. There was not much thought over it anyway and the lack of generals also. I don't know the storage limitations, but maybe they could have fleshed out the cold war to the extent they did world war 2, and make it one good game? Of course, cold war generals is a hard question, but perhaps just adding a couple per country would work, since many stayed on during the early years. AND ADD AN AMERICAN ARTILLERY GENERAL ALREADY, CLARK NOT COUNT. BTW, what annoys me is that they added an alien mode, but the missions end in the cold war. Could have added missions like "fall of London" "Destruction of So and so statue" "Chinese Resistance Operation" This would also have added some more medals to a medal-starved game. Little known fact: Devers actually fought with artillery before tanks. Why didn't they give him a star or two more in artillery. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jan 10, 2017 0:41:31 GMT
I just feel like it should've focused on one or the other. The Cold War that they did provide was not very good at all. There was not much thought over it anyway and the lack of generals also. I don't know the storage limitations, but maybe they could have fleshed out the cold war to the extent they did world war 2, and make it one good game? Of course, cold war generals is a hard question, but perhaps just adding a couple per country would work, since many stayed on during the early years. AND ADD AN AMERICAN ARTILLERY GENERAL ALREADY, CLARK NOT COUNT. BTW, what annoys me is that they added an alien mode, but the missions end in the cold war. Could have added missions like "fall of London" "Destruction of So and so statue" "Chinese Resistance Operation" This would also have added some more medals to a medal-starved game. There is an Alien campaign, but are you referring to the different colored automatic missions where you shove some generals into it and hope they comes back successful? I don't really have much fondness for things like that. They're more like a nice little extra, nothing more. |
|
