This game is unbelievably bad, buggy, and stupid

[Asher]

::sigh::

For every 4 bells you produce per turn, you can turn the will of one colonist. That's a rough way to remember it.

To revolt (50%) you need to produce x2 LBs than the number of all colonists inside and outside colonies.

Strictly speaking you will need 51%...

This is clearly retarded, is my point. Like this game was designed someone dumber than Dale, which is really something.

[Dale]

My problem is I'm too smart for these games. They're designed by idiots.

I'd like Oerdin to explain to me the rationale that military units fortified within a settlement will never want to revolt against the King in Europe even though 100% of the citizenry does.

Retarded.

Because the army is generally the King's men. Not every private but the senior officers would be. In those times people who did good deeds for the King got commissions.

What you're thinking of Asher is militia who is made up of common men of the area.

Either way, you didn't read the documentation, did something stupid, got your ass handed to you and whined like a 4 year old girl.

[Dale]

This is clearly retarded, is my point. Like this game was designed someone dumber than Dale, which is really something.

Nearly everyone's dumber than me, so it's not surprising.

[Asher]

Because the army is generally the King's men. Not every private but the senior officers would be. In those times people who did good deeds for the King got commissions.

What you're thinking of Asher is militia who is made up of common men of the area.

No ****ing ****.

So here I am giving fishermen, farmers, etc guns and you're trying to tell me they're NOT militia but the king's men??

You're so full of it. They were my own citizens, grown from my own colonies with their own professions. I just gave them all guns and said "fortify in this town" because I didn't have the food to support them as workers.

It's a ****ing piss-poor design, regardless of whether this is documented as part of the flawed design. It's a ****ing dumb design, and you're ****ing dumb for defending it.

[Dale]

Poor design or not, whether I defend it or changed it, or whatever you want to say.

The bottom line is it is documentated, but you chose to not read / ignore the Pedia and the game slapped you for it. Stop whining grow up and continue / move on. Get over yourself man, it's just a game.

If you don't like the game go back to OT.

[smak]

I think military units purchased in europe should retain kings men status when determining rebel sentiment but units that you grow from food or cannon that you build should not lower rebel sentiment. And units that immigrated are the ones that are effected by bell production.

I also think that when you declare independance the loyalist % of your citizens should turn into kings soldiers and reappear at the edge of your cultural border.

[Asher]

I think military units purchased in europe should retain kings men status when determining rebel sentiment but units that you grow from food or cannon that you build should not lower rebel sentiment. And units that immigrated are the ones that are effected by bell production.

Precisely!

Thank you, some sanity.

[Asher]

Poor design or not, whether I defend it or changed it, or whatever you want to say.

The bottom line is it is documentated, but you chose to not read / ignore the Pedia and the game slapped you for it. Stop whining grow up and continue / move on. Get over yourself man, it's just a game.

If you don't like the game go back to OT.

This does not change my assertion: the game is unbelievably bad!

You're now, correctly, no longer arguing about the sanity of the design because it is obviously bad.

I win.

One shouldn't have to read a hundred pages of documentation to learn about gameplay-gotchas that do not come intuitively from the game's premise. The fact that the poor design is documented somewhere doesn't mean it's not a valid thing to ***** about.

[Wiglaf]

The bottom line is it is documentated, but you chose to not read

Documentated is not a word and this has nothing to do with his argument. You're the one who made the site green aren't you.

[Dale]

You're the one who made the site green aren't you.

No.

[Dale]

This does not change my assertion: the game is unbelievably bad!

You're now, correctly, no longer arguing about the sanity of the design because it is obviously bad.

I win.

One shouldn't have to read a hundred pages of documentation to learn about gameplay-gotchas that do not come intuitively from the game's premise. The fact that the poor design is documented somewhere doesn't mean it's not a valid thing to ***** about.

Like I said before, if you don't like the game move on. Easy as that. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time posting in a forum for a game I don't like. I'd move onto something else and give it a go.

[Asher]

So you concede, then.

[Dale]

No I don't concede. I recognise there is no way to discuss gameplay with you when your attitude towards the game is so negative, so I invite you to move on.

[Asher]

You're conceding by repeatedly ignoring the fact that you refuse to discuss how the game concept is nonsensical. You tried to justify it several times here with nonsense (explaining how me arming my locally-grown fishermen with guns makes them "The King's Men" among other things), and failed spectacularly. Now you've just given up.

Admit it, it's a retarded design. You know it is. It's why you've changed it in your mod.

Just admit it.

[wodan11]

Let me see if I'm understanding...

The design is counter-intuitive. Nobody seems to be disagreeing on that point.

Dale you seem to be implying that it's OK if it's counter-intuitive, if the counter-intuitiveness (Wiglaf is that a word?) is documented.

Asher, while caustic, has a point that counter-intuitiveness, even if documented, is poor game design.

Personally I would agree, as evidenced by my contention that defining a term "gunpowder" which does not apply to all units which obviously carry a gunpowder weapon, is also poor game design. The mechanic should be defined some other way (i.e., if the game designers want a mechanic named "gunpowder" but they are flexible on the gameplay), or else a different word should be used (i.e., if the game designers want THAT specific mechanic and don't care what it is called).

The LB issue is even worse than the gunpowder one, because it not only doesn't make sense, it makes the game impossible to win if the user falls into its trap.

IMO poor game design on that level is a bug and should be fixed flat out, rather than trying to use a band aid such as meddling with the REF formula.