Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeonSamurai
Falcon 4 was light years ahead of redstorm rising's campaign
Redstorms was very very simplistic. Your performance determined the entire outcome on all fronts, the missions themseleves were pretty simple (only 3 target groups running at a time at once max, up to 2 non mission groups, and the mission group). F4 fought out the entire war in real time for air and ground, and included factors such as resupply and the like.
Nothing touches what F4's campaign engine could do, or even close realy
|
Well yeah that's not the point. RSR had a simliar dynamic campaign concept to falcon 4.0. True, Falcon 4 had the more advance campaign mechanics, but most recent modern era naval games I played ( sub games from sonalyst ) only had linked scripted maps not a dynamic campaign. Even though SHIII and SHIV have a dynamic campaign your success or failure has zero impact on the outcome of the war. That's is what made RSR a very memorable game for me. I think it's was the only naval (sub) game I played that had a dynamic campaign where your actions dictated the war's outcome. That's the point I was trying to make.
** EDIT ** I just remembered another naval game that I played that had a dynamic campaign where your actions determine your sides victory. Great battles of the North Atlantic 1939 - 1943. You could play either as the British or the Kriegsmarine. Basically a surface ship engagement simulator. I remember the game also had historical events which would effective your navy inventories ( if you lost a battleship or what not ). Unforunately submarine and antisub warfare was behind the scenes and the player had no control over that aspect.