Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeaQueen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
It's just seems silly for me or to certify, for example, SeaQueen's RIMPAC mission, since we know without even playing it that it won't be "broken" and anything else I might have to say is just my opinion. (Then again, that's never stopped me before... too easy!!!:hmm  |
I'm prone to goof up as much as the next person. Have you played that one, btw? What did you think? I worried it was too easy. I don't like how they make the improved KILO basically a supersub because while it's good, it isn't THAT good. Lately I've been playing with Harpoon mostly, but I haven't by any stretch given up on Dangerous Waters. I just have been interested in different questions lately (STK ops and stuff). |
No, you're not as prone to goofs as the next person, because you keep your scenarios KISS-simple. There aren't a lot of triggers, scripts, etc. invovled that could cause something to go wrong. This is kind of what I mean by taking note of different designers. When you put something out, I expect it to be large, open-ended, simple, and reliable. I also know I'm probably going to beat it on the first try.
As for RIMPAC, I played on manual TMA, and I ended up bloggling the positions of the screen ships before I had to go deep to avoid detection. I ended up within about 4nm of one of the DDG's because of that, but the AI couldn't capitalize on that. After evading or or two shots from the SVTTs I was in position to take out the Nimitz. I ended up two hits short since to of the wakehomers went backward first, but a breif sprint and a few shanked ASROCs later and the Nimitz was on the bottom.
The design was all fine, but I thought that it was rather sad that the AI couldn't hit me when they should have had me on active or at least triangulated passive.