trust me, believe in the Devs. Balance and gameplay before realism. I think empires is fine at the moment dont worry about it people, more patchs and betas will come with different changes and everything. The patch might not be more realistic but its what the developers think will make for a FUN game. If you REALLY want a super realistic mod you just have to start making your own else just live with the fact that what your putting out to be used is nothing more than a suggestion for the community as a whole or the devs to say 'ok' or 'im not worried about that being realistic'. so if people are saying that old quote "its not meant to be realistic" well then if the majority(or dev) says its not meant to be realisic, well then its not meant to be realistic. quite simple really.
The only time I see that argument applied to suggestions is when people argue their idea is good because it is more realistic. making a suggestion to make the game more realistic does not make it a good suggestion. Realism is really not a factor when making a suggestion. First judge how it will affect game play. Then judge how balanced it will be. Then figure out how it will fit in with empires. then decide if it is realistic if you even make it that far. Honestly, I could care less how realistic it is. If I shot you with a gun, you'd more than likely die, or at least be in considerable pain and unable to move. In empires, you can still sprint and bunny hop around. not realistic.
because real arty can shoot distances 10 times the size of empires maps so somehow it correlates?... well shit that shoots it down right there I dono im stuck with you buddy.
Not only if realism is the only argument... sometimes they say it s bad because it adds more realism. I think many people are just repeating over and over again what they think a dev said sometime. When a dev said realism isn't the most important thing, they understood it's bad and therefore are repeating this over and over again.
It was actually a copy and paste sort of thing (about the arty's) I could care less about artillary tank changes but it was the best arguement I could pickup. I suppose What I was trying to say in a long and drawn out way that shooting an idea down by saying "this isn't meant to be realistic" is like saying "I want to get my post count up" unless of course the idea is entirely based around being more realistic in which case yell at them and pound their face in while using "this isn't meant to be realistic" as your war cry. However anything can be overused and I was trying to say that "This game is not meant to be realistic" should be used when the only thing the suggestion is about is to make the game mroe realistic. For example the artillery arguement (which some people seemed to loath me for bringing up) could have been better answered by mentioning it would make artillary to hard to use (assuming the round wentthat much farther) It could be overpowered as hell (firing from one end of the map to the other) etc. etc. I hope that makes sense.
I think when an Arty fires it should blow up the enemy comm regardless of where it hits.. that sounds more balanced.. Anyway. (I couldn't resist)
You have to check who's saying it first. Ask yourself the question - is this person a muppet? Then the second thing you need to realise is that some people just say "it's not meant to be realistic" because they can't be bothered to give you a whooole essay on why your idea is pants. It's a lazy thing, or it's an idiot thing. You just have to decide which it is, and more importantly, wait for a real response.
The artillery thread got a lot of this because one of the main points the guy was making in his original post was that a cannon should not realistically outrange an artillery cannon. The whole thread is about how the range of cannons isn't realistic. thus, the arguement that the game isn't about being realistic more or less sums up why the idea of limiting the range on cannons doesn't help anything.
