Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Its just called bad game design, sure you can play bad on purpose but thats just overall not fun if the game isn't designed well, to call this in any way realistic is just plain silly to me. I mean heck from what im reading there are no persistent bodies or craters or any of those important details, what a bad game once more from another team of incompetent devs that dont know what defines their genre.
And to everyone else: How does giving enemies simply higher stats fix these issues created by the lack of mechanics? Its the games job to make you want to play the game and not autoresolve by default while letting you autoresolve obvious victories.
That's why I intentionally play as a WW1 general and keep sending soldiers to Ypres and Verdun to their deaths, even though there are areas that are weaker and would be an easy victory. It does lack depth and immersion as well as persistence in some area, but with what we have available this is the realistic~ish WW1 simcade in the market rn.
https://steamproxy.net/app/2109370/discussions/0/3820784854038213976/
A: Raising the difficulty
or
B: try to engage the game by actually playing the battles
or
C: Both?