I don't think it adds much to the gameplay, whereas it can make things worse, and would lengthen the production time of StarCraft II besides. In C&C, veterancy seemed too random, and was also pretty weak. Why so many games get this wrong is beyond me.)Ĭ&C and probably many other RTSs use veterancy. Most officers have university degrees and start their careers as second lieutenants.
(On the same note, getting promoted from NCO to officer is extremely rare. Unit leaders need to be better thinkers, not better killers. They should simply increase in experience. If you're going to use veterancy, you shouldn't have units increase in rank. If there's a "natural born killer" in the fire team, but he's inexperienced and is a poor tactician, he isn't going to get promoted just because he kills more guys than the corporal. They may not have many leadership options, and will of course be outranked by squad leaders, platoon leaders, etc, but as I pointed out, they have to be able to communicate in battle (and that's more than just pointing a grenade launcher). A Marine corporal leads a fire team (four guys, including the corporal), whereas in the Army, a sergeant (E5, one rank higher) leads a fire team.
Marines do things differently from soldiers. Corporals (E4) are an NCO rank, the lowest one, as it happens.
0 kommentar(er)
