I disagree, Alex. I think with the proper adjustments, the RMG for AoW:SM produces decent, if not outstanding, maps for either MP or SP. In MP, the biggest unbalancer is the relative positioning of neutral cities for the players to seize. To correct this, all you have to do is select "no cities" in the setup, so that the only cities on the map are those built by the players. In my experience, this creates a fairly balanced game.
As for SP, the solution is the opposite. One of the AI's failings is that it does not construct new cities. Consequently, when I play vs the AI, I select "many cities" in the setup, and I do not build any new cities during the course of the game. So, the only cities available for either the AI players or myself are those that already exist on the map. This prevents me from overpowering the AI thru sheer production ability, and, along with a higher difficulty setting, makes for a more competitive game.
In Fantasy Wars, the AI seems quite well implemented. Tactically,it seems to make many fewer stupid moves than the AIs in most other games. I know from sad experience that, if I leave my leader exposed, the AI will exploit this and send enough units against my leader to kill it and end the game. So, I think it's possible that an RMG for Fantasy Wars might produce a challenging SP game. As for multiplayer, the lack of an economic, city-building aspect in Fantasy Wars means that all you really need from an RMG is a randomly created battlefield and the possibility to purchase your own army. This seems to be an easy thing to implement--altho, admittedly, I am not a programmer. Adding intermediate quest locations, to retrieve an artifact for example, would be nice, if they could be placed fairly, but this is not a necessity in order to produce a decent MP encounter.
|
04-03-2008, 01:49 PM
Threaded Mode