(09-22-2011, 10:29 AM)ivanmoe Wrote: The fact that there are so many titles is why it's so important to document the differences. One of the criticisms that you hear of these games is that they are "cookie-cutter" knockoffs that shouldn't be taken seriously. Wouldn't a great way to counter that belief be to generate simple documentation that allows folks to analyze the differences between games?
Those who throw out those types of criticisms are just so wrong. Would you not drive your Lamborghini on a certain road, because all roads are the same made of concrete and asphalt? The truth is roads take you to different places though all roads are
"cookie-cutter" knockoffs of other roads, right? The depth of research that goes into each and every PzC title is way above anything I have ever seen in 40 years of war gaming.
Such nonsense is spewed by those who have no idea of the depth of the PzC game system. There is much subtly in the way the elements interact. Pay attention to that aspect as RickyB suggests and you will have many hours of enjoyment. Analyzing the thing is not fun. That is work.
There are plenty of great people here at the blitz who will play a PBEM small scenario with a new or returning player to get them back into the game. Experience is the best teacher of all. And a dang good things these guys in the PzC games are digital. I would have been hung long ago for my mistakes coming up the learning curve.
Dog Soldier
Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.
- Wyatt Earp