Surviving IS-2s ???

[Mike Abberton]

One huge problem (with many subcomponents) with gaming design in general is marrying the "average" historical results and the "exceptional" historical results together in one game engine.

This is especially hard since the exceptional results, say Michael Wittman's run of success at Villers-Bocage, are typically the best known, whereas information on average results are typically much less clear, especially since you need to weed out the various things that affect the "average", e.g. terrain, offense-defense, range, cover, concealment, experience, etc. In my opinion, a game designer is better off biasing towards the average rather than worry about incorporating the exceptional, even if it does cut down on variability and "fun".

I think the AF rule was, at least in part, an attempt to satisfy the market's craving for exceptional results in a system that was designed around the average. Some like it, some don't, and that's fine because it's all optional.

Mike

[Huib Versloot]

One huge problem (with many subcomponents) with gaming design in general is marrying the "average" historical results and the "exceptional" historical results together in one game engine.

This is especially hard since the exceptional results, say Michael Wittman's run of success at Villers-Bocage, are typically the best known, whereas information on average results are typically much less clear, especially since you need to weed out the various things that affect the "average", e.g. terrain, offense-defense, range, cover, concealment, experience, etc. In my opinion, a game designer is better off biasing towards the average rather than worry about incorporating the exceptional, even if it does cut down on variability and "fun".

I think the AF rule was, at least in part, an attempt to satisfy the market's craving for exceptional results in a system that was designed around the average. Some like it, some don't, and that's fine because it's all optional.

Mike

While I strive to work towards historical averages in my scenarios, some exception can be created by giving elite armoured units high morale and leaders with high rates. Also it is great fun to have a Panzer Ace in the oob, even if he drives a Kübelwagen...

[Herr Straße Laufer]

One huge problem (with many subcomponents) with gaming design in general is marrying the "average" historical results and the "exceptional" historical results together in one game engine.

This is especially hard since the exceptional results, say Michael Wittman's run of success at Villers-Bocage, are typically the best known, whereas information on average results are typically much less clear, especially since you need to weed out the various things that affect the "average", e.g. terrain, offense-defense, range, cover, concealment, experience, etc. In my opinion, a game designer is better off biasing towards the average rather than worry about incorporating the exceptional, even if it does cut down on variability and "fun".

I think the AF rule was, at least in part, an attempt to satisfy the market's craving for exceptional results in a system that was designed around the average. Some like it, some don't, and that's fine because it's all optional.

Mike

Good points Mike. :smoke:
Remember, too, any plan does not survive first contact?
And, we are all players of various skill levels and tactical quirks that effect any plan?

Plus, the simple playing of a scenario could never be a historically accurate recreation of a battle. Though, some designers are painstakingly meticulous in having them start out that way? Once the game begins anything can happen. :eek1:

We also can not account for the quirks in the game engine for rolling the dice. When luck is included as a factor facts will mostly take a back seat to "real" events? :chin:

In the historical equation that does not even count the "options" available?

Good thread!



HSL

[Larry Reese]

As far as retreating goes, you should have the option of retreating in reverse gear, and for example, you just pop the tank in reverse, and retreat but at a movement cost price, say instead of retreating 6 hexes, you can only move 3 hexes because you are moving at a much slower speed than if you were moving forward. If you are forced to retreat 1 hex because you were shot at, it would be nice if the AI would allow you to retreat in reverse.

As I noted above, on the scale of this game, I think it is beyond belief to expect that you would reverse a tank 750 meters. Just did not happen. We're on alluvial plain here and you still couldn't back 750 meters anywhere without hitting something, bogging down, or disabling the tank. But then of course, I think the retreat rule is fine, so I'm sure you expected this response. :-)

LR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Larry, as with most things CS, players want things that they think make sense "to them" until confronted with the scale and scope of the game? :chin:

We may even look at the AF rule as extreme disrupt? The unit breaks cohesion and the individual tanks "scatter" to save themselves. Thus having some exposing their weak sides to the enemy?



HSL

[Crossroads]

Larry, as with most things CS, players want things that they think make sense "to them" until confronted with the scale and scope of the game? :chin:

We may even look at the AF rule as extreme disrupt? The unit breaks cohesion and the individual tanks "scatter" to save themselves. Thus having some exposing their weak sides to the enemy?



HSL

Plus, I believe, the only way for the tanks at time to get out of trouble was to turn around and "floor it"? Even within the scale of one hex?

As I said I am no expert here (either) :kill:

Extreme disrupt? LOL, I like it!

As I wrote the only change to AF - and this is IMHO of course - I could think of was the roll of dice as to which direction the platoon would end up facing.

As with EA, it must be a good thing as such that the optional rule plays different to original, isn't it?