Should I give the first one a go, then? That would seem to be what you're trying to tell me.
Yeah, if you haven't played the first then DT2 would get a higher score from me. A lot of what's in the first is repeated here with some improvements and some unique new problems.
Dippity-Do!
Should I give the first one a go, then? That would seem to be what you're trying to tell me.
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
If I had to pick one or the other, without having played either, I'd go for the first because I think it's balanced better.
The 2nd has an additional playable character (Lu Bu) that warrants consideration.
Truth is, games like this don't come around all that often so get both (like me).
Dippity-Do!
OK, cool. Now all I have to do is actually find a copy of the first.
I've been looking for one ever since I heard the second was due out, but I've not had any luck to date.
14-6
Pit Traps aren't as annoying in Dtactics2. Their range is limited to five squares, and characters start off much closer to each other. In addition, fewer units have pit and trap, so it wasn't as aggavating on both sides.
I also don't mind the uber combos, as they adjusted the damage to number of combo ratio accordingly.
Removal of trumps was my favorite part of the game as they did nothing to make the game more fun. If it was a choice between chained combos and trumps, i would take chained combos all the way.
Yeah, trumps did suck. I still say that Pit and Taunt are crappy, even with the limited square range. First, drawing your commander 5 squares to his death by being surrounded by your enemy can make him/her useless if you constantly have to make sure that he/she can't be nailed like that. Secondly, it's a relatively low-level tactic that your opponents (and you) have early on in the game. If this were a high level tactic acquired very late in the game I'd have less of a problem with it. Yes, the combos have been adjusted somewhat, but a 4 or 5 Zhang Fei combo will kill just about anyone and I think it sucks that one commander can do four or five tactics in succession on the same turn.
or bust.
Welcome to the club! Now go forth unto the Ephesians and Gentiles and spread the gospel, my son. Me and Haoh have been this game's lone voices crying in the wilderness for the last year.
That's the one thing I don't mind about it - it means you have to constantly surround your commander, rather than just charging blindly forward. The only thing that still bugs me about it is that it's still such an arbitrary move, and certain generals should be immune to it - ie., Zhuge Liang. Base it on the leadership score or something.
As for trumps, I never really had any opinion on them one way or the other. They just seemed a little unfair, since I'd always have Sima Yi or somebody out there and get the "enemy tactics sealed" trump all the time, and they'd just get "strategist can't move left" or something stupid like that.
Yes, the single-general combos can be overpowering, but my armies became unstoppable tactical juggernauts fairly quickly in the first game as well. I'm fortunate in that I have some favourite lesser characters that I always use in these games, Like Cao Ren or Jia Kui, so things don't get too hectic.
-Kyo
Yeah, you know, if you based it on leadership scores and made it so the "top dog" wouldn't get sucked into it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Trumps just seemed silly to me to begin with and wholly unnecessary. I mean, why bother?
Same thing with the single general combos. Combos in and of themselves are cool and with a little coordination and thought you can be rewarded with a combo. It seems like the General combos are instant gratification orientated and detract from the overall strategy and fun of it all.
Dippity-Do!
That there quote is rife with Biblical allusions. Mystifying.
What the Hell is a "Trump," and how did they work?That's the one thing I don't mind about it - it means you have to constantly surround your commander, rather than just charging blindly forward. The only thing that still bugs me about it is that it's still such an arbitrary move, and certain generals should be immune to it - ie., Zhuge Liang. Base it on the leadership score or something.
As for trumps, I never really had any opinion on them one way or the other. They just seemed a little unfair, since I'd always have Sima Yi or somebody out there and get the "enemy tactics sealed" trump all the time, and they'd just get "strategist can't move left" or something stupid like that.
Yes, the single-general combos can be overpowering, but my armies became unstoppable tactical juggernauts fairly quickly in the first game as well. I'm fortunate in that I have some favourite lesser characters that I always use in these games, Like Cao Ren or Jia Kui, so things don't get too hectic.
I just made it to Liu Bei's Chapter 2. The story is progressing nicely. Man, if there's one thing I love it's Asian history. I couldn't handle Dynasty Warriors (but I've been coming around slowly), but Tactics is just amazing. Go Koei!
or bust.
I guess I won't argue with that. Making you work for it is a more solid concept.
This is a strategy-epic of biblical proportions, with its own trinity and everything. There's even a hidden scenario based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, complete with cool tactical Jesus combos. What's the mystery?
Basically, a round would start and your strategist would get some random ability, like "opposing strategist can't move" or something. It could have been cool if it were based on some sort of plot point or something, but it just happened out of the blue.What the Hell is a "Trump," and how did they work?
-Kyo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks