🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <89090717595044@masnet.uucp>, calvin.bruner@canremote.uucp (CALVIN BRUNER) writes...

>Well, I for one will be extremely disappointed if the new versions don't 
>come out for the Atari ST, although I certainly can sympathize with the 
>economics of the situation.  Perhaps they are just going about it the 
>wrong way.  For instance, Interstell upgraded my 2.0 version of Empire 
>to 2.5, and didn't charge me ANYTHING!  I was quite surprised, and would
(other stuff deleted)
     What are the differences between 2.0 and 2.5? My landlord/friend 
bought 2.0 when it first came out and played it once. He decided that it 
was strategically insignificant. So I played once at the preset levels, 
and found it boring. So I turned up the computer opponent nearly all the 
way, and found it more boring because it took longer to win. I played it 
a few more times to be sure, because all the reviews raved about it. I 
was still bored. Eventually, he traded it for an assembler, which he and 
his wife gave to me for Christmas. Recently, another friend of mine 
mentioned Empire, and I recounted my experiences. He inquired the 
capabilities of the game and pronounced it 'a brain-dead version'. Seems 
he playes on mainframes...
     We are all hard-core wargamers so our perceptions may be warped.

On not the same subject, does anybody have strong feelings about the 
Universal Military Simulator? I didn't like that one either. Units 
'retreating' TOWARD the enemy?

JUst so you don't get the wrong idea, there have been games I liked a 
lot. It seems to be the wargames that are weak.
>---
> * Via ProDoor 3.01R 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kitakaze Tatsu Raito	Neil Gilmore     internet:gilmore@macc.wisc.edu | 
| Jararvellir,          MACC, UW-Madison bitnet: gilmore@wiscmac3       |  
| Middle Kingdom        Madison, Wi                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+