Rod, the Pacific theatre was not as much read by me. Whenever I have my mind challenged I try to read up and become conversant in the topic.
Unfortunately the Holiday Season and some personal issues have taken up time and I have not hit the book stores or clicked for internet sites.
I know personally some of the writers and the publishers of Osprey, from years ago working for their parent company. As I stated earlier, they are more the "Readers Digest" of military knowledge. I am sure there is a fountain of painstakingly researched works that would do much better.
My initial google search turned up some works that I may have to add to my collection. Due to some personal issues and the holiday season, I'll have to aquire them after the first of the year.
And, I agree with Mr. Guberman! If the original designers created unit TOE's that included some weapons that may be taken out and added independently into the game, without reducing the effectiveness of the original unit, it will begin to shift the balance originally thought of by the designers? ie. 50mm mortars. Mg's as part of infantry platoon fire, etc. Or, how about those nice German tank hunter squads that can be put into a scenario with the already Panzerfaust laden Volks and Waffen infantry platoons. I could create a scenario that would drive a tank lover crazy and make anyone scratch their heads as to how any armor survived on the battlefield.
The game has many "abstracts" that every player can say, "hey, it was not done that way" ... and changes could be made but, there would be no regard for how they relate to other things that "balance the game" out?
For example, one of the deadliest weapons used by the Soviets against the Tiger I was not an AT gun, it was the 120 mm mortar firing it's simple HE shell. It has to do with the location of the radiators. Does that get modeled in the game? If you think "yes" then you will need to remember that the Soviets never really exploited the effectiveness of that weapon to specifically take out the Tiger I.
And for that matter, commanders of tank companies would hesitate to drive into concentrated artillery bombardments, which often could stop and decimate an armored advance. Do we want to add something to the game to reflect it? It was a way, throughout the war, to slow down or stop armor attacks.
Or, how about the effect of a large HE shell upon an armored vehicle? The concussion effect is not reflected in "penetration tables"? But, there are examples of tanks receiving direct fire from 105 mm shells where the spalling or concussion took the crews out of combat effectiveness. And, I read somewhere of tanks being taken out by direct fire of 150 mm HE. How often do you see that in the game?
And, there is the tactic of American SP artillery driving to within direct fire range and taking out a concrete pillbox, have you tried it in the game.
And, I won't get into the close combat tactic of shoving a rifle barrel into the vision slit of tanks to take them out. That is clearly not reflected in the game?
As stupid as it sounds the game is a "closed" and/or a self adjusting environment. If you take out, add, or change dramatically, one thing you will have another come forward that may not have been as effective.
I often say that Avalon Hill ruined a simple and fun game in Squad Leader, by making too many "realistic" rules that began to slow the game down and make it impossible to have fun while playing it.
Be careful that you do not try to make what was a simple and fun computer game. It is not intended to repeat reality as much as model the fun and flavor of battles on it's particular game scale.
And, I agree that the Banzai is way too effective in RS and is one or the reasons that I do not spend much time playing it.
One issue coming up is snipers. I hope that snipers will be left for the scale of Squad battles? ;)
As you can see, we can think beyond confines of what is "real" to what is the game that we love?
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
