"Realism" vs "Playability"

[Valor]

Gentlemen,

Reading some posts (or parts of it) in the discussion about 1.04 version, one of my conclusions is that the main problem behind the assault rules, variable visibility, 6 minutes turns, building bridges, some new units etc. is the old conflict between REALISM and PLAYABILITY.

Of course in the ideal world the best solution would be to have 100% realistic game very fun to play. But lets get back to reality :P

Is that ideal mixture attainable in CS?

I'm afraid it's not. :(

One system forced you for fast, dynamic play, very often not too realistic (Shoot - Disrupt - Capture tactics etc.), the other force you to play much slower but very complex, detailed etc.

Which one do you like?

Answer that question to yourself and that will be your answer which version do you prefer.

Best regards

Slawek

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Slawek, my friend.
Honestly I would have liked something in between the old and the new. It might maintain the old fun while adding some realism?

Yes, there was disrupt, surround, and capture in a fast paced fun game.
Extreme, version 1.04 assault, creates a formulaic "bell, book, and candle", let's say the words and burn the incense, spin three times in a counter clockwise direction, while chanting in Latin backwords, slow plod toward the end, type game? Miss one word, spin, or whiff of incense and you fail. Or, the game engine takes over and you fail off the chance of bad luck? Then your efforts and fun go out the window as you attempt to slowly plod on.

On top of all else version 1.04 extreme assault changed every scenario that was not specifically designed for it. And, just adding turns will not fix each scenario? If anyone thinks that, they are mistaken.

RR

[British Tommy]

To be honest with you, I don't really give a damn. All I care about for the moment is that I can play EF,WF and RS on this Vista computer and so far the grin hasn't left my face :)

[Chuck10mtn]

To be honest with you, I don't really give a damn. All I care about for the moment is that I can play EF,WF and RS on this Vista computer and so far the grin hasn't left my face :)

Some people are easier to please than others. If all you wanted was not to hear the disc run in your computer the congratulations you have reached the end. you may die a happy man.

chuck

[junk2drive]

I still don't understand how a game where you take turns and has probability rules for supply (section 8.0) can be debated for realism.

Oh well, that's just me.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Let's cut right to the chase with realism.

There is none.

It is a computer simulation based on mathematics and people interpreting weapon data and battle reports of action that happened in WW2.

You cannot get realism in a game you can only attempt to simulate it.

People who make a living getting shot at are experiencing realism, although they are not playing a game.

Put as much realism in as you like, but please make it all optional like HPS does with PzC.

As Huib said they have games with 20+ optional rules and nobody is complaining.

Make it all optional and I believe everyone can get along.

Thanx!

Hawk

[schnurbart]

In the case of our game..the vital features were created by the best war game minds the world ever produced. None of if is arbitrary. So to be fair to one defender of current ideas. yes is a new game..i think many problems with the conservatives is this new game is a mix of ideas that take away what the originators intended..Teeth clenching armored warfare that is easy to learn but hard to master.

[Huib Versloot]

That "realism" or "simulation" and "playability" would contradict is just an assumption not backed up by examples. My own scenarios on average receive very good ratings so I assume for most people they are fun, yet I hardly compromise the historical situation.

That "All scenarios" designed prior to 1.04 are now affected in their playability is not more than an assumption as well, not backed up by examples of certain scenarios, that we can try to see if the argument offered could be valid by playing the scenario and see for ourselves.

I've checked my own scenarios and about 80% has actually improved (IMO) with 1.04 extreme assault rules , even if they were designed before 1.04. Only a few need a small adjustment.
I also have not heard any alarm bells ring from other designers that they feel they have to do a major overhaul on their existing scenarios because of 1.04.

/H

[Valor]

That "realism" or "simulation" and "playability" would contradict is just an assumption not backed up by examples. My own scenarios on average receive very good ratings so I assume for most people they are fun, yet I hardly compromise the historical situation.

The problem is not that some scenarios are "realistic" while others are not. I fully agree with Hawk, that it's impossible to talk about realism in simulation game. Every simulation is just simulation and every sense of "realism" is just subjective perception...

That "All scenarios" designed prior to 1.04 are now affected in their playability is not more than an assumption as well, not backed up by examples of certain scenarios, that we can try to see if the argument offered could be valid by playing the scenario and see for ourselves.

Just try playing "Ortona: Canadians Stalingrad"! With German spotter units (like some MG Pltns) very difficult to pull back due to assault rules, Axis can call in arty fire which kills Allied loaded infantry longer than designer assumed they would be able to. If you add 3 VP for every truck you will receive the answer. That would be about your examples.

I'm not saying that "every scenario balance" is affected. However there are some which are. And there is enough of them that this issue might be addressed. Just releasing the question by simple "not backed by examples" is a bit too easy riding.

Best regards

Slawek

[Otto von Blotto]

I will just answer the question asked PLAYABILITY every time, it is a game after all.

Slawek wern't we going to start another battle ?