Re: unfair starting positions

[Peter Garrone <pgarrone at acay dot com dot au>]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:46:05PM -0800, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
> Last night I played standard Xconq all the way through, just to say I
> had done it.  It was a tedious cakewalk.  The 3 hour endgame of bombing
> the remnants of the last 2 guys into oblivion was particularly tiresome,
> the inevitable outcome was known long before.

There is always the ai command. Turn your side over to the ai, get a
drink, and watch.

> 
> Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
> Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA
> 
> Taking risk where others will not.

And with a sig like that you're whining about the wimpy AI?

Just thought i would share my experience with the coral sea game.
All the Japanese transports attacked Buna instead of Port Moresby,
and I formed a wolf-pack with all my subs and sank them there, thus
winning the game.

The carrier borne dive bombers were totally useless, absolutely refusing
to attack any enemy ships due to the wrong sort of ammo.

A japanese carrier sailed alone into the middle of my fleet, and I just
about had to expend every possible hit-point sinking it.

Its sort of a pity because obviously someones gone to a lot of trouble
to set up a realistic game with the correct initial units and map and
everything,

The carriers in xconq are too invulnerable. They can sink anything on
their own, without aircraft. I reakon that the bigger the ship, the more
vulnerable they should be to subs, forcing the carriers to have
protection. Capital ships should just annihilate unaccompanied carriers. 

Just some rambling thoughts,
 Cheers,
  Peter G.