Charles22
Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
|
Wild Bill: Very good, but actually I take a different route to where the problem is. Part of the problem is that ver few people seem to know what's actually RL in force selection, and then again, one could always run into an entire company of KTigers because they were grouped that way often enough.
I think there are, for me, two approaches to history and part the difficulty in not picking an entire company of KTigers, is the fact that you don't know the other guys force composition, which sometimes you might know on the battlefield (at least against another front line unit.
The other part of history for me, is kind of a weird approach, but it's based on averages. What I mean by that, is that I should be able to break down the Germans, for example, into percentages, so that my tank composition is largely affected by the time it was produced, the situation of the enemy's force composition, and also production of the tank.
For example, let's say that my force consists of thirty tanks in late '44. Perhaps 2 tanks can be KTIgers, 6 Panthers, 6 PZIVHs, 6 SGIIGs, 2 Nashorns, 2 Marders etc (not meant to total to 30), which out of all the tanks they produced, might be somewhat realistically representative. The only thing working against such a composition is platoons, such that I hate to have only 2 KTIgers, so that they're restricted to section size (which exposes the command tank, and if not exposed only leaves you one to fight with), and I also feel goofy, at times anyway, with combining a platoon of different models (though I understand that when the Fireflys came out they were for a while restricted to platoons comsisting of other tanks, so that you might have 4 M4A1s with 1 Firefly).
There's just a ton of times I'm torn between having too good a force, a too patchy (like different tank models in the same platoon), one or one that's just plain no fun. I can't tell you how many times I've given up on campaigns simply because my tank choices got so good, while the AIs didn't, but I was expecting that they would.
I think plenty of us us are satisifed with the idea of playing a RL formation through the war and get stuck with what they would get stuck with, but then we also get whimsical where what want to play our generalship of the economy, tactics, or what not, so that we want to think across the board and see how things would improve under our hands.
Playing wargames can be a war sometimes.
Oh, one last thing. I think the problem with people buying grossly unrealistic things is often handled wrong. It's easy for me to say that, because largely the AI which I always play, seems to be a lot fairer about force selection than many human opponents I hear about. In any case, what's sad for me, is that games seem to be always modified to keep people from playing like children and it shouldn't be. I think when units are being abused, that a suggested set of rules needs to be brought out, such as percentages for what each nation produced of a certain tank, and the pleyers can agree to follow those guidelines or else they can agree to just buy the absolute best stuuf they feel they can win with. I hate it when units are dumbed down or removed because some two-year-olds in HTH decide they want to do the ridiculous.
It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc.
In summing up, I don't think the problem lies with children abusing games, but in how the children are treated. Being children, if the rules are always worked around them, to keep them from doing dumb things, a dumb product will often result, but if an enforcer is placed, especially on force selection, they'll get bored and then those wanting a good touch of realism will be left alone.
I can hear "Plastic Soldiers" calling them, even now.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited February 28, 2001).]
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Gaming Today - Some Choices - 
- 
- 
Tankhead
------------------
Rick Cloutier [email]tankhead@tankheadcentral.com[/email]
Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources
WB
.
The only area where some ground rules need to be put into play is where both opponents agree on what limits are to be imposed and not seek to take advantage of the other player.
I personally pick units based on historical availability. Tiger tanks on the SP level would not be more than a platoon or a ratio of one Tiger to about 10 PzIVs or 3 MkV's.
This gives a touch of realism that makes it more enjoyable for me.
But as you all have stated, each should make his own choices.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
- 
- 
.
Armies are usually built up by brigades or regiments, these consisting of bns. These Bn (and that is the game size in SPWAW) consist of 3companies (in most nations) and these companies use the same material. So, if your opponent likes to play a SS panzer bn he should historically have Panthers or even Tigers, supported by artillery. Even the famous Kampfgruppen consisted the most times of bn size forces.
I personally do not like big unmixed historic forces but the good balanced unhistoric mixes of infantry supported by some tanks and a little offboard arty.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread