Gregor_SSG
Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jmlima quote:
ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG The critical part of your question is 'no armor or artillery' present. If you don't have those, and if the regiment in question has its flanks protected, then its going to be very hard to dislodge no matter what terrain it is in. .... Erm.... are you saying that for the game purpose it's the same thing to defend within a city and to defend in a frozen steppe? The critical words are 'if there's no artillery present' but if the fight is in any way important you will have artillery present. As we all know, combat in wargames is always an abstratction and there are various different models that have been used in both boardgames and computer games. Since they are all abstractions, and pretty massive ones at that, there is no way to argue their correctness from first principles. All you can do is try them and see if they produce a result that makes sense. For me, Kharkov does just that. If I see an opponent defending in a Forest or city hex, I immediately feel that I have a problem, because my artillery will be less effective. I want to see if I can outflank it, either by picking off units on the flanks or more broadly by encirclement, or to bring up the heavy artillery which is less affected by terrain. I know its going to be hard to just blast it out with an unsupported frontal assault. To me, that's the right result. As an alternative, consider our earlier games where terrain did not affect artillery at all, or where artillery couldn't even cause step losses. Were those games completely wrong? No, they just manipulated abstract elements slightly differently to get the results that the game designer wanted. In the end, it's how the game plays that decides how well the design works. Gregor
_____________________________
|