Crowbar said:
Sergey Kryvorotchenko said:
Crowbar said:
Sergey Kryvorotchenko said:
Let's consider 2 cases:
1. Your Prizes' progress is known. You need just send Units to Prizes and wait for your progress reaches the certain value. Very simple.
2. Your Prizes' progress is hidden. And you have to a) find out what is the Resource value of each type your Units; b) Calculate all the loses; c) investigate which types of Units are more useful for exchange on Prizes; d) pay attention to details to find out your bank is full and it's time for a big reward!
And which case is more strategical to you, Captain?
Number one, because with it I can plan, i.e., make strategy. With number two, I can play detective/researcher/adventurer (or ignore the prizes, as I usually do).
You can plan with number two as well. Why not? You just need to investigate this feature carefully to make a more precise plan. The difference is just in difficulty level.
I cannot plan if I don't know how it works. The question was "which case is more strategical to you?" and my answer is: "the one in which I can plan to make strategy". The other one is a detective game (where you can change things under the hood without us knowing). We can play both, of course, but only one is (more) strategical.
I can accept that one can plan to a certain point without knowing the exact rules and/or when they change (i.e., in case #2), but there is no doubt that one can plan better if they know how it works, making the case one more strategical, which was the original question I was answering.
I feel like we're going in circles, sir Crowbar. Prizes are a difficult part of the gameplay. I know a lot of players who lose their troops. On the other hand, I know players who get their rewards constantly. What does it mean? It means some players have a strategy even without their Prizes' progress (bank) and another part doesn't have any strategy or tactics.



