Ivan Wrote:I tend to agree with the developer. While wargames are to an extent reenactments (modelling a real event often) they are also games. There has always been elements of chance (hence the use of dice) and elements of what if. Models also, by their nature, have have an element of abstraction. Abstraction is fundamental and unavoidable unless we all fly over to Russia and fight it out for real. Although I haven't been in a battle I imagine things can get pretty messy, smoke, dust, burning oil, fires etc. Visibility would therefore be variable to an extent. Putting variable visibility into the game seems to me an effective way to model this even if it's an abstraction (as it must be). And as someone else pointed out visibility can also change naturally.
I see an analogy in military modelling forums where there are continual arguments about the correct shade of field grey uniforms or tanks colours. People become obsessed about this. Yet, it's a fact that uniform colour was variable for all sorts of reasons, but people still insist on having exact paint codes etc.
Yes, the quest for historical accuracy is important but if you take away elements of chance all you will be left with is a simple reenactment where the outcome will be preordained. Then it won't be a game anymore.
For what it's worth I like most to the new changes and think the team has done a great job. Love some of the new units and hidden shooters.
Just my pennies worth.
Adam
Adam,
Believe me when I say this; I am not for pure historical accuracy. I am interested in a game that once set the standard for games in it's genre, not to be morphed into a game I cannot recognize.
Both Wyatt and Huib (and to some little extent, myself) have presented our reasoning. Realism and game-ability are factors where either should not be dismissed, or given more weight.
I am a more a "scale" and playablitly guy than a realism and historical accuracy guy, like Herr Huib. But, we do agree on one thing. Variable visibility is neither within the scale or very realistic.
Also, and I am not trying to beat a dead horse, making scenarios "long" was never the intent of the original designers or developers of the game. It was originally a "tactical" scaled game. Grand Tactics or "micro" Strategy was the furthest thing from their mind. Don realized that fact when he designed some of his Bulge scenarios. One battle has you fight over three individual scenarios that better represent the "historical" action. Had he tried to make a single, extended "long playing with many turns", scenario we may not have the historically accurate depiction of an event over many hours with variable troops and variable visibility?
And in this scale supply is an abstract factor, as well as ships, and planes.
I've seen some of what "others" wish to have in the way of supply, with dumps and air drops from C-47's. Yikes! But that is way out of the original intent or scale of the game. It just does not make sense to add it because you can?
To me it falls, always, back to game scale.
Regards and
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
