Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Instead of designing games that can handle the complexity of simulating defense in depth situations, it seems like the design trend is towards using the greater horsepower computers offer to just ramp up the numbers of units massively.
That's not to say the They-Are-Billions style defense games are bad; they're not. I played TAB and it was fun. But it seems like the genre of fort/castle builders never simulated actual fort/castle design very well and now seem to be moving further away from basic principles.
Maybe I should add a primer on some of the principles of historical defense design to the to-do list for the blog at some point (though I'd probably keep it restricted to the European tradition for the sake of my sanity).
I'm tempted to speculate that this is also because "success, with difficult to replace losses" is treated as a failure mode by most gamers, whereas it's something that's simply planned for when the alternative is a total loss. Then when the other way feels more fun, you see more.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
