[Borodin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Guest @ Jan 5 2007, 09:17 PM) [snapback]273485[/snapback]</div>

I have to say that the fact you find this a very balanced game boggles my mind. Everthing, even mundane things, is geared to give the computer controlled players the advantage. I really can't make sense of that. Perhaps it was done due to the fact that a really good AI wasn't possible at that time.[/b]

I have yet to encounter a rules-based AI which doesn't include features that give the computer player some advantage. Even some of the best in this regard still "cheat" in ways, because they realize that the human player is going to be better at creatively integrating and using all possible features to their advantage. So it's a matter of how much cheating you or I will tolerate, rather than finding a game (at least in my experience) that never cheats, at all. Do you ever play Master of Magic? Anything from the Age of Wonders series? All three have terrible AI, with no compensation in the first--so that it's relatively easy to beat--and plenty of compensation in the pair of AoW titles, that present a challenge only by ramping up the AI's powers and resources. Still fun games that quite a few people seem to enjoy; for what that's worth.

There is really very little about the magic classes that was done very well. It wouldn't have been so bad if NPC's also had to learn or pay for spells, but they don't. As pointed out in other posts, computer players are furnished with a complete list from the begining. I know some found they liked this since it gave them a sense of accomplishment but for me it lacks common sense. This is strategy game not a riddle game.[/b]

Your choice; not mine. I felt it did give me a sense of accomplishment. Are you saying you're right and I'm not? Is it possible that two people can both be right, when they have different tastes?

There really isn't a good point to be made in trying out different runes in either battle or prov modes when the results are sooo random. If they had wanted to keep casters from being to powerful there are better ways to handle it then having a totally random factor in either a misfire or breakage.[/b]

Can't agree with you. I think the chance factor adds to the unpredictability factor. So let me ask you: are you opposed to any unpredictability and/or randomness, or just to the degree employed in this feature?

In many games random events are a bonus. They keep the replay factor high and adds to the fun of a game. But in this title it's just to random. There really isn't much that isn't random. From learning skills, to gathering resources, to gaining new recruits from battles. To much is just " a roll of the dice" luck factor and in that sense I hardly think that resetting the game because you didn't like the results could be called cheating. As far as I can tell the only real cheating is the fact that computer controlled players have the upper hand in everything.[/b]

Have you ever beaten the game, without reloading? Just curious.

The fact that Koei closed it's offices just after this titled was released, adding the lack of features that are standard in all the Koei games I have played, and the lack of balance makes me think that this game was not really finished. I think the devs were told to wrap it up and ship it out before they were really done.[/b]

KOEI didn't close its offices right after BotEE was released. The company closed their North American branch and stopped further development of PC titles, because sales were poor in general for all its titles sold recently in the US. The Japanese model of computer games sales is very different from the one in the US, and it's been easy for KOEI to sell relatively small incremental upgrades as new products over in its core territory. That didn't work well for them, back in the day. Perhaps it would work better, now. In any case, the title was released a few months before KOEI shut down their offices, and they put a good deal of money into Balor's US publicity--not the kind of thing you do if you intend to pull the plug on the game.

The features I'm talking about are little things like being able to get heros to defect, picking who would be in leader in a prov, alliances with other rulers, and covert activities. Those are all standard fare in Koei games. Especially the defection of heros. This game really is all about heros and how many you have. You can't take or keep control of provinces without enough of them. Why make it level and/or combat based only? Any prov that has a previous tribe ruler makes him/her the defalut leader of that prov. The fact that being a higher level then who you are recruiting ( ronin) is required makes this an issue. I have to quickly get rid of that leader by moving or scouting to get the new recruit. That sometimes messes up battle plans I had in the making. [/b]

What you consider an annoyance, I consider an effort to force the player into using strategy. Same way, say, that Civ4 aribtrarily creates randomized "hereditary enemies" for its computer players in each new game, so that you will fall afoul of them, and have to make some enemies, yourself. The fact that continuing to trade with everybody causes you to be hated *worse* than an hereditary enemy makes no sense at all, but it's a deliberate strategic element of gameplay. I do agree it is counter-intuitive, though.

I think to overlook game flaws is fine but it is never wise to pretend they don't exsist at all, especially when pointed out by others. You risk losing creditability.
[/b]

As much can be said by a person who repeatedly comments here as one of many "Guests" instead of using a consistent name. And if you can show me where I stated that the game has no flaws at all, I'd be much obliged.