Warrior General Games

I think I figured out the complex DAI in the original game way faster than this game. The terms and firing order is way confusing and I still haven't got it down. It feels like a cluttered mess. If nothing is ever going to change at least have a mouse over help tip with firing order and such.

I was told type of play was first. Apparently it is blitz or or no blitz instead. Then play type....# of WRs....zone or no zone....where does play distance factor in? Nothing is clear and is confusing. Player help forum was not much help so something in game would be useful.

Maybe it is oversimplified or something but it is just not good the way it is. For those who have been playing 2 for a while probably have it down and will surely make smart comments or maybe I am just not figuring it out as quickly as everyone else. Just a mouse over or something would help immensely, but it would still be real a funky set-up.

One simple change - let us tag our own plays as "short pass" or "medium pass". It is NOT an intuitive system as things are.

Or at worst case - just number the columns -- or explain the progression at the top of the page..


FIRST

SECOND

THIRD

Originally posted by pottsman
One simple change - let us tag our own plays as "short pass" or "medium pass". It is NOT an intuitive system as things are.

this would be really nice. either this, or give us separate tactics pages for each offensive formation.

I like the separate tactics for formation (WR #sets) myself. It would take a lot more time to initially set up but 90% of the tactics rarely change once set so it would save time in the end.

You could have something like...

2WR 2nd and very short:

play or plays

2WR 2nd and short:

play or plays

Have a tab system for each WR #set and a scroll for down and distance.

The way it currently is feels like they were not sure what to do so they called it good enough and moved on.

1. num of WR
2. play type/distance (Pass short/med/long; run inside/outside)
3. zone
4. blitz

Originally posted by mrm708
this would be really nice. either this, or give us separate tactics pages for each offensive formation.

They really should have done this in the first place but Bort thought that was cheesy. As if the game isn't cheese wiz as it is.

Originally posted by mrm708
this would be really nice. either this, or give us separate tactics pages for each offensive formation.

Would love to see this happen.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
1. num of WR
2. play type/distance (Pass short/med/long; run inside/outside)
3. zone
4. blitz

Why did this get a thumbs down? It's how the current system is. So if you're lost, this is the guide to use.

First, the O calls a play.

The D response is based:

1. on the number of WR
2. Play type and pass distance or run direction
3. chance of calling a zone play
4. blitz %

Now what I see happening from posts like these, is that people aren't lining up their Tactics setting with their Playbooks for each WR set.

If you want to run a varied Defense, you can easily have 6-8 plays in the D playbook for each WR set and yet only have ONE play be called in any particular situation.

Remember, it's a computer. It's dumb but logical. If you line up the steps/progression, it's actually easy and powerful.

I think too many people want it to be a GUI rather than text based math, but that's just presentation.

I just don't like the system. I feel like I'm having to figure out some math equation just get get the plays that I need in where I need them. I feel I have to trick and manipulate the AI into working the way needed. I have to almost start from scratch nearly every game which takes a ton of time, almost all of it on trying to manipulate the AI so I can get the right plays in at the right situation.

The whole play description should be just aesthetics only to let the user know what the author's intention of making the play was. Zone, play type, blitz should be irrelevant when actually setting up the defense. I want a more simple plug-and-play system rather than having to trick and spend a long time trying to get the right equation just so I can call the play that I need, where and when I need it.

Originally posted by Xars
Why did this get a thumbs down?

It was a GE post, ldo. This forum is starving for a heel, and he is the best we got right now. I didn't thumbs down that post though.

Originally posted by Xars
Why did this get a thumbs down? It's how the current system is.

Exactly why people are thumbing it down.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I just don't like the system. I feel like I'm having to figure out some math equation just get get the plays that I need in where I need them. I feel I have to trick and manipulate the AI into working the way needed. I have to almost start from scratch nearly every game which takes a ton of time, almost all of it on trying to manipulate the AI so I can get the right plays in at the right situation.

The whole play description should be just aesthetics only to let the user know what the author's intention of making the play was. Zone, play type, blitz should be irrelevant when actually setting up the defense. I want a more simple plug-and-play system rather than having to trick and spend a long time trying to get the right equation just so I can call the play that I need, where and when I need it.


It's actually fairly simple if you know how to set it up. I have a base tactics and playbook created. When I have a game coming up, I clone and rename them and make the necessary changes. I know the base tactics/playbook by heart and my game plans don't deviate much, so it doesn't take very long to make the necessary changes.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I just don't like the system. I feel like I'm having to figure out some math equation just get get the plays that I need in where I need them. I feel I have to trick and manipulate the AI into working the way needed. I have to almost start from scratch nearly every game which takes a ton of time, almost all of it on trying to manipulate the AI so I can get the right plays in at the right situation.

The whole play description should be just aesthetics only to let the user know what the author's intention of making the play was. Zone, play type, blitz should be irrelevant when actually setting up the defense. I want a more simple plug-and-play system rather than having to trick and spend a long time trying to get the right equation just so I can call the play that I need, where and when I need it.


Sorry it's taking you so long, but like GE I've developed several playbook and tactics that I use outright or copy from to make new D. I can build a new playbook in minutes.

The key is understanding certain nuances. Yes people are complaining about them, but once you understand the system, you can adjust fast.

Let's look at what the options are:

First, you need 2 plays per formation. If you just want to play Man Base all day, put in that and then put in any Zone play. For your Tactics setting, all you need is to call a Man play and you're done.

For more involved play books, use the Pass Distances even when playing against all run teams. A lot of D plays are tagged (Distance) Pass/Run. Focus on distance. Pick however many plays you want in your rotation.

Run direction tags are used mostly on blitzes (inside) or the outside run zones.
I'm on my phone, but tonight or tomorrow I'll build/ post a guide for involved D playbooks with corresponding tactics.

the main problem is that if there are two "short pass/run man blitz" plays, for example, that you want to be specifically called in different situations, i.e. play A called 100% of the time for 3rd and very long and play B called 100% of the time for 2nd and medium, it is not possible to do that.