My experience from the franchises that allow optional hands on combat (Total War and Imperialism) is that you tend to end up with one of two consistent outcomes:
1) Hands off results that are so crappy compared to how a human player would do that they arent an option.
2) Hands off results that are so good that there is no reason to play the battles.
In this case, the hands-off results would be exactly like EU - as they'd just use their existing combat simulation for that one.
And that it ALWAYS has the following effect:
- Substantially slowed down campaign gameplay.
Yes, if you fight every single battle manually - which you'd only do if slowing down the game didn't bother you
- They found a niche (that isnt your cup of tea) and they cornered it.
No, that's not correct. I really like a LOT about their games - I'm just suggesting some optional improvements.
- Going in the directions I get the feeling you want would put them up against competitors with superior resources and experience in designing those game elements.
What a strange feeling to get based on nothing at all. Silly.
- The games have evolved fairly significantly between generations. The difference between EU2 and EU3 are bigger than those between different iterations of TES games. Ditto for V1 and V2 as well as CK1 and CK2.
EU2 and EU3 are more different than Morrowind and Oblivion? Arena and Daggerfall?
Hahaha, that was a great one! Thanks for the laugh
And I do smell some irony in you complaining about a company not making their games more accessible instead of sticking with their hardcore fanbase
I don't know where you go poking your nose - but I'm not talking about making the game accessible - but more appealing to the hardcore fanbase.
Again, I refuse to accept that the "fans" actually prefer sliders to something tangible and hands-on.
I'm not talking about making it casual - but less boring.
There's a difference.
But if you want to believe I'm advocating that it gets dumbed down or something - I can't really help that.