TheMetal1 wrote:Didn't even know it was out there. What actually made it so horrible though
It played a little bit more like Risk (Which I dislike that game.) and you decided battles by putting your little, tiny, square blocks into a tower, that mixed it up (You put both armies in at the same time). Some blocks would get caught in the tower, others made it through. If you made it through your army guy lives. If it gets stuck he is dead. Rinse and repeat till either army is obliterated or someone breaks off of the battle and retreats.
This random battle was way worse than any kind of die-driven system which made any kind of strategic/tactical decisions a farce. In the only game I played I defended a territory with 3 army dudes against over 20 attackers. I won. I defended it again with upping my dudes to 5 and fought an army around 15. I won that to. People just gave-up trying to take that territory.
I'm sure it appeals to gamers that don't want to have strategy as a strength of a game, but it turned me off big-time.
"Paranoia is just another word for ignorance." - Hunter S. Thompson