JudgeDredd
Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003 From: Scotland Status: offline
|
Again (for some strange reason) I have to concur with Ravinhood...although I will slightly deviate in that I have no problem with games being an "accurate representation" of a particular battle, as long as there are other things that can be switched in order to make it playable as either side... Again, like Ravinhood, I have no need to play an historically accurate game....it's a game. I don't mind that historical stuff is included, so long as I stand a chance of winning as either side. I can understand why people want historical accuracy....so they can see what it was like to command it...see if they can equal or better the commanders...but I don't know any battles well enough to be able to warrant that kind of satisfaction froma game...I really, simply, just want it to be fun. Anyway, I would expect that there have been many, many battles fought were any one (or more) particular parameter during that battle could've changed the outcome, ergo it follows, does it not, that very few games should have a pre-determined outcome at all. Still...I digress. I don't want, at this time, historical accuracy in my games. I want my games to be fun. However, I do understand why "grognards" would want historical accuracy...especially in a game that features a specific battle that they are particularly knowledgeable about. How's that for sitting on the fence!!
_____________________________
Alba gu' brath
|