Strategic Choice - Iseal
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2020 5:15 pm
Although I haven't finished the campaign, I have read a lot of threads including the ones about Iseal.
FWIW, I concur with the posters that say that the "lose-lose" choices if picking the Iseal path is a bad design decision, compared to the non-Iseal path.
It makes me think I'll never want to play the Iseal branch of the campaign, which is just sad.
At the tactical level, having some good choices, some bad choices, some both bad & good, and some neutral choices is very cool - ideally every choice should include a "neutral" option (i.e., avoid both the bonus & penalty).
However, at the strategic level, imposing game long penalties, with no option to avoid (other than completely avoiding a major campaign branch) is really really bad.
Note that temporary (scenario) penalties are just fine... Game does a great job imposing these for certain scenarios, often based on choices, which makes the scenario more challenging.
A sample way this could have been implemented for Iseal...
1st Scenario after Iseal = -3 penalty
2nd Scenario after Iseal = -2 penalty
3rd Scenario after Iseal = -1 Penalty
No penalty after 3rd Scenario
This would cause a mid term difficulty spike, but not a game long penalty...
Generally, I would have greatly preferred to see both branches offer different benefits (not penalties)...
Although arguably, lack of a penalty is equal to a benefit, it doesn't *feel* that way and most people don't view it that way...
A core mechanic of this genre (and RPGs) is building up your *strengths*... And (to me) the Iseal branch is a non-starter...
FWIW, I concur with the posters that say that the "lose-lose" choices if picking the Iseal path is a bad design decision, compared to the non-Iseal path.
It makes me think I'll never want to play the Iseal branch of the campaign, which is just sad.
At the tactical level, having some good choices, some bad choices, some both bad & good, and some neutral choices is very cool - ideally every choice should include a "neutral" option (i.e., avoid both the bonus & penalty).
However, at the strategic level, imposing game long penalties, with no option to avoid (other than completely avoiding a major campaign branch) is really really bad.
Note that temporary (scenario) penalties are just fine... Game does a great job imposing these for certain scenarios, often based on choices, which makes the scenario more challenging.
A sample way this could have been implemented for Iseal...
1st Scenario after Iseal = -3 penalty
2nd Scenario after Iseal = -2 penalty
3rd Scenario after Iseal = -1 Penalty
No penalty after 3rd Scenario
This would cause a mid term difficulty spike, but not a game long penalty...
Generally, I would have greatly preferred to see both branches offer different benefits (not penalties)...
Although arguably, lack of a penalty is equal to a benefit, it doesn't *feel* that way and most people don't view it that way...
A core mechanic of this genre (and RPGs) is building up your *strengths*... And (to me) the Iseal branch is a non-starter...