Octavian
Posts: 65
Joined: 11/29/2019 Status: offline
|
Well, James, thanks for your comment of how much you enjoy the game. Thatīs what itīs all about, isnīt it? Me personally canīt find that same joy, although I waited for this game for nearly a year and was very much on the fence for it. Ernieschwitz, I am sorry, but I feel you completely miss my point and the core thought. Thanks anyway for correcting me on "under the hood" - I am a german native speaker, so it isnīt always easy to have such a special discussion in a foreign language for me. Still trying to improve. But back to the problem: I try to make my point a bit clearer by making it more concrete: I choose the system of recon points in this game for that purpose, but alas I could find many other points (supply, vigor, readiness...) to do so. As a commander in the field - speaking of realism - I hope you would agree to me, that I - given some experience or simply by nature - would be able to tell on a glance, if I WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE an enemy or not and also if I would be able to see him only partially or all of him. Starring at an open field and seeing nothing, I wouldnīt think: well, do I have enough manpower here, to really see the enemy if he would be there? And starring into a deep forest I wouldnīt think if I see some movement, I can see all the enemies, but would be cautious and so on. Given the scale of the game (1km per Hex) I think it is pretty sure assumption, that a commander would have a certain awareness of how much or if at all he can see something and to which extend. In DC Ardennes you must instead use a dozen or so factors in order to even get a feeling of how possible it might be to see something, a bit or nothing at all AND it is simply impossible to figure that out on a glance. Instead you have green, yellow, red eyes on the map (but be careful: they just tell you, that you MIGHT see something, if there WOULD BE a unit present of yours with enough recon points, experience, weather conditions...and and and. You simply canīt be sure of anything, because now the size of the enemy unit, their experience and the colour of their underwear come into play. So you end up by guessing (which is to some extend ok and "normal", but you DONīT EVEN KNOW ON WHICH BASIS YOU ARE GUESSING and that is exactly my point, that seems so hard for you to understand. I have no problem with hundreds of dice rolling and randomnes in a wargame. But I want a sort of transparency to understand at least the main factors of what is the basis of my judging and deciding, otherwise I prefer to go out and play a bit with my bucket and spade, you see? I could go on with supply f.e. Can you see how many people struggle to make any sense out of what they are presented in the game? Or readiness, or vigor or combat odds strangely jumping around if I add this or that unit. I (let that be a personal wish) want to be able to make at least an informed guess of what is going on there on my screen. I was also referring to Shadow Empire (Vics last game before DC Ardennes). So just let me add this example from there: There you have like 30 or so character traits for each important person you roleplay and they all interfere with each other and all this is so much over the top of your head, that you simply choose some guy, click and hope for the best. I feel very much the same in many of the decisions that I have to make in DC Ardennes and that is the reason why I feel, that this development of Vicīs games is - for me and only me personally - not going to lead me into something enjoyable in the near future. Which I regret. Still, lots of people, obviously enjoy these games very much (thinking of you James) and that may be as it is. I still think, Vics playerbase on the long run could be bigger, if he would decide to stop himself from having more and more complex, intertwined systems that the player canīt comprehend any longer due to a normal turn-based playing routine.
|