simovitch Wrote:I hear you Ed. Being a board gamer from the '60's I do tend to rationalize questionable results with "well, I guess it's an abstraction for ____". The visibility thing adds something positive for me, but I know it's not for everybody.
Actually, I am quite glad that there are those that listen.
The entire version 1.03 upgrade would have been much better with variable visibility as an option so that you and those that like it would be able to use it.
I won't comment on the close assault rule. My words are on numerous threads concerning it.
Being an "old" boardgamer from the '60's, I too saw results as part of the abstract, in resolution. There is always a fine balance between realism and playability. I would neither want to play Advanced Squad Leader as much for the same reason as I would not want to play the older "Tobruk" and fire off a 40 mm bofors. That's a ton of fun?
Often the game hinged on the luck of the die roll.
In PBEM games it is a combination of realism, playability, and balance that keeps a players interest. That and fair, fun, competition.
Once the game engine takes over there is little to hope for in the way of fun or fairness. Variable visibility is simply the game engine taking over.
BTW, I am sorry you had a bad experience playing "double blind". Your opponent might not have understood what the meaning of blind play is. I know that some of my newer opponents ask me to pick out games that I have not played. I just say "no, I've played them all", or at least it seems that way, and I run the risk of picking one where they will say "not fair, you played this already".
I often tell them to pick one that looks interesting to them. I'm sure that I have played it but, it is among so many that I probably would not remember if I did or not.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
