Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
In their defense, the sieges in Total War games on normal difficulty actually do factor in the morale-motivation mismatch. But no one plays on lower difficulties and on VHard, morale is a non-factor for the AI due to huge bonuses, until the 'Army Losses' penalty kicks in.
It's actually quite sad and frustrating: so much of CA's sometimes brilliant design work actually breaks when played on Hard/VHard in their games, but for experienced players, normal is comically easy, creating a situation where the game becomes LESS strategically rich over time.
Another problem for CA is that it is extremely difficult to model shock in a game. So much of counter-attacking comes from being unexpectedly pushed from a direction or the sheer surprise of a retreating enemy suddenly moving towards you.
This would require intricate models for what the specific unit knows and it's relationships with units nearby as well as a significant amount of RNG.
I guess you would really need the AI to have better macro economy management, I'm not sure if this is hard, or if CA tried this and it wasn't fun. I play on Medium because I don't have much time and I like winning!
It's funny, I've played Total Warhammer on Legendary, but eventually dropped back down to 'Hard' because the difficulty 'cheats' break so many systems that Vhard and Legendary just aren't worth it. So I can absolutely imagining playing on Normal for the same reason.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
