Afterwind reviewed on gamingirresponsibly.com, my thoughts on it

Napísal 4rant, 31.03.2012 at 19:13

The cons are crap. Seriously wtf, steep learning curve? This is one of strategy games that has the lowest learning curve I've ever played... :|
.. and no single player? Argh.. did they say that about World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike too? :|

What needs fixing is balance of strategies. Problem is that some strategies just works so much better than any other because of how units are implemented (I'm talking about bomber + air transport combo) and that putting out units around your cities should be "automated" or something, because it is really not alot of fun having to place them in *perfect positions*. I'd give Afterwind 7.5/10 as it is now. 9/10 if these problems were fixed. The last point is bug fixing. :]

Napísal Garde, 31.03.2012 at 23:56

Napísal 4rant, 31.03.2012 at 19:13

The cons are crap. Seriously wtf, steep learning curve? This is one of strategy games that has the lowest learning curve I've ever played... :|
.. and no single player? Argh.. did they say that about World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike too? :|

What needs fixing is balance of strategies. Problem is that some strategies just works so much better than any other because of how units are implemented (I'm talking about bomber + air transport combo) and that putting out units around your cities should be "automated" or something, because it is really not alot of fun having to place them in *perfect positions*. I'd give Afterwind 7.5/10 as it is now. 9/10 if these problems were fixed. The last point is bug fixing. :]

I'd currently give Afterwind a 6/10, the only *major* problem I see is the community, considering whenever iv'e joined a game iv'e had to have Samnang hold my hand (Bros' 4 life, Umirin?), because I simply cannot stand the countless hordes of rank 5-8s' who ally-bang me (why? Iv'e always sucked at awind, it's not like you have a better chance of beating me or anything, youve already won most likely). Strategies are atrocious to me. I hate them. There are too many factors in the game to introduce a level of boosts on them; thats' why I wish be default all games outlawed the use of strats for even field, and that you would have to manually set it to use them. But this will never happen, just countless nerfs' and boosts' that don't work. Some bugs are apparent, the save button; was it ever fixed? Defending your city could be possible in my Tactical TCG idea (see my signature; click on the link for "100 days' ideas''). If what I said was fixed, definite 8/10. The other 2 points are off from too much similarity to Risk; I like /aw/ because it's a lot more in-depth, but I wish the option to make it as in-depth as a Paradox game was added.

Napísal YOBA, 01.04.2012 at 13:42

I wish people stop comparing the two. A program, as much as a game does, has certain goals. More features does not equal more fun.

Strategies are pretty annoying. Especially when you miscalculate the number of units required to capture a city. But they add much depth to the game and make it overall much more fun to play.

And you can't claim Paradox (at least its Clausewitz Engine games) does this better, because all the bonuses a country buys are not visible to its enemies most of the time. The sliders in EU3 for instance cannot be seen by the enemies. Paradox Interactive's games are grand strategy games; it can take the better part of two or weeks to finish a game of Victoria II; even more for Hearts of Iron (with the expansions that cover the Cold War) or Europa Universalis. In comparison, the longest game of Afterwind I've ever played was a seriously action-packed 4.5-hour long game. It was genuinely exhausting, unlike the typical Paradox game. And that is intentional, because Paradox games are real-time and not turn-based so you won't be left shitting your pants before the turn ends.

I'd say Afterwind is 9/10, mainly due to several technical limitations which prevent the really big things that are proposed from being implemented.

And yes, the save button was fixed a very long time ago.