Accuracy V. Playability

[stalin006]

when you join a nes what do you care more for?

that the nations are well balanced.

or that is historically accurate even tough it makes the game very one sided.

(this taken for the development of NEO VI)

 

[amirsan]

I think both, I want it to be historically correct like "no gunpowder in the Stone Age" and stuff like that but I also dont want there to be like a Roman Empire to be built up as easily. So make it balanced of the two. I think that is the best way.

 

[aaminion00]

Accuracy by far. I hate games where someone owns half of Africa by 400 B.C.

 

[Jason The King]

Accuracy. To balance the nations is to baby us.

 

[Julius Gandi]

It is all about the game play, if it isn't fun whats the point of playing

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

historic accuracy. THe more accurate the better, even if it does mean more challenge for the not-as- powerful nations.

 

[stalin006]

ok, now i know exactly where to aim for, thanks.

 

[Angelscotboi]

Accuracy? Have you all gone completely insane?

A NES is a game in which you write your own world history on a mythical world. Therefore there is no historical accuracy unless you are playing a NES which is like a scenario based around a real time period.

You want to be accurate yes in that nations shouldnt be able to practically conquer their entire home continent in the Bronze Age...
But you want to be Balanced in that you dont want to hold back nations just because they happen to be nations which werent "historically" great - like the Republic of Moldova, or the Aryan kingdoms of India.

 

[Amon Savag]

I like it historicly accurate for the NES...Such as if a player has a country with a huge population (Hell it could be persia for all I care) they should gain more men whilst growing the army or something...The fact that each country gains a certain amount with a certain amount of gold...Or gains the same amount of economy when raising it is basically saying that every country is a mirror image of the next

 

[Jason The King]

lmsw is right, we aim for accuracy, not historical accuracy.

though I think what they mean in historical accuracy is that the bronze age is historic and a nation did not conquer a continent in it. I don't think he means the civs specifically.

 

[Amon Savag]

Well...I say if there's a nation that can...Why not?If the player raises his country to be good enough then it should be...But I think that you guys as mods go more on fairness than greatness...I've had to be "kept in check" bye mods so many times it makes me want to puke(About 4 or 5 times).If a player's good there should only be other players to keep him in check.If the players aren't good enough then they should be conquered...Otherwise there's no reason in playing a country to your fullest because the mod's always going to shove you back into the mud...And I hate it when that happens.

 

[Amon Savag]

I like NES's full of realism...If a country is raised from it's birth to be a warlike country it should stay that way and gain bonusses accordingly...And if a country was a commercial country from birth once again it should gain bonusses accordingly..If a country is huge and it's population large it should gain more from itself than those that are small and population small...otherwise once again there's no reason in conquering a vast territory if it only means making your color bigger than everyone else's on the map.

 

[naervod]

Accuracy, not historical accuracy, although it shouldn't be über-slow either.