alfonso
Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001 From: Palma de Mallorca Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Knavery quote:
ORIGINAL: ool quote:
ORIGINAL: Mehring quote:
ORIGINAL: Klydon Well, instead of blaming the game, perhaps look at the players. Most Russians are just not going to allow the Germans to encircle at will or even make it easy for them. Should the game make it so that can happen? Doesn't make much sense. I have been watching all the AAR's and while there is the occasional counter attack that causes the Germans to retreat, this did happen in the real campaign in several spots during the 1941 campaign. Overall, the game may have some issues with the winter, but I don't share your opinion on the encirclement or retreats as being a fault of the game. +2 Truly, I get more fed up with German players displacing their own poor performance onto the game than with the game's admitted problems. The fact that the Russians can effectively counter-attack in summer 1941 and the Germans likewise later in the war, is a triumph over more primitive systems which generalise all exceptions out of the game. The Germans did so well in 1941 in large part because they were experienced in a superior doctrine to that of their adversary. If you're not experienced as the German player, you shoudn't do well. Go learn how to play! AMEN! The amount of German player "whineritis" in this forum is pathetic. Matrix changes this game much further why even bother putting it out if you lose the historical accuracy? Fully agree with Mehring, learn how to plat the game. Plenty of first person shooter games around if you want to win right out of the box without thinking or planning. I hear this argument a lot--that it's historically accurate if A, B, or C happens, so learn how to play the game. By that logic, there can only be one outcome. So why even bother playing? It then becomes more of an exercise to replicate what the German and Soviet forces did in the war. If you've mastered that, and can't change the outcome, there's nothing left in the game for you. History= conditions+ decisions+ other things (random factors?). When referring to historical accuracy, it is usually referred to conditions (I think that Ool was referring to that, to the accurate description of the situation at 22-Jun-1941). Some decisions are included in the game (e.g, production), but operationally the player can take his/her own decisions. Therefore, nobody has seen and nobody wishes a replication of the war. Logically, the conditions included in the game should reflect the general consensus among East Front experts. I would say that there is some consensus now that the Axis was the weakest side. Therefore, it is to be expected that between players of similar skill/experience, the Axis will "win the war" (but not "the game") less than 50% of the time. A problem is that what for some people is a condition, for others is a decision (e.g, German winter unpreparedness). But this has anything to do with "there's nothing in the game for you". You have the decisions (or what developers feel are decisions available). If you see the games played, there are a lots of results: Axis takes Leningrad, Axis is stopped at the Dnieper, Axis is vaporized during Blizzard, Axis preserves his army during Blizzard, Axis knocks out the Soviet Union in 1941,.... Who said you cannot change anything? If in order to reach a desired outcome (let's say, 50% chance of reaching better than historical results for the German player, and this is only meant as an example) the decisions, no matter how good they are, are not enough in themselves, and we want a change in the conditions to that effect, there is a loss of historical accuracy, and that is what ool criticized.
|