Poll #2: SCENARIO VS "BIG WORLD"

[MarkG]

final results
Scenario vs Big World

Scenarios(like Gettysburg, Starcraft)	8 / 3%
Big World(like Civ)	109 / 51%
Why not both?	93 / 43%
Not sure/No opinion	2 / 0%

212 total votes
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited February 24, 2000).]

[tniem]

Big world definitly. But how bout small scenarios for multiplayer. I'm sorry but I do not have time for Alpha.hq it just takes to long to play.

[tniem]

If scenarios are used then each step needs to have more influence then in the SM's Battle Series. If I lose at the first battle, I shouldn't just then have to play a hard second battle, I should be missing the troops that I lost. In SMG I would send my troops on a last minute rush in the hope of gaining some points back. If I do this and lose a couple regiments then I should not have those troops again. So if you lose your dinos an attempt to get a landmark then in the next scenario you should have less dinosaurs to work with.

[Dalkeith]

Only BIG WORLD, because you really get involved in the game and you really care about what you have achieved in the game
With scenario's you simply DON'T.

[WarVoid]

I'm edging toward-Why not both...

But you're talking StarCraft type scenarios.
I'm talking about civ2 scenarios.
If you mean civ2 scenarios then I want both Big World and Scenarios.
But if you mean StarCraft type scenarios (which are actually campaigns) then I want just Big World.
What Do You Mean???