|
Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/10/2006 11:45:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Because sometimes things shouldn't work like clockwork. In the real world, you can't just attack for six days and dig in on the seventh. The other guy gets to do his moves at the same time.
Just as in real life you say? I know what you mean, my week never has exactly 7 days, my days never 24h, and sometimes I wake up and 3 days have passed without me noticing it [;)]
OK, we are talking operational level here, battles might not go as planed, advances might be slower than expected, units might get routed or shot combat-unfit through fierce battle, yes, many things can go wrong, but all of them are pretty good modeled already. Battles taking longer than anticipated? No problem, but they shouldn't prevent the rest of the front from doing something (anything!) in the meantime.
Advances are slow (because of mud or unexpected enemy units blocking the road? Sure, it's nicely modeled
units forced into reorg after an attack unable to do anything? Sure, its in the game already.
But... can you tell me any occurence during one of the many wars that raged over the last century that would come close to turn-burn effects or early turn endings?
Ah, I know, do you remember when during the opening phase of Barbarossa after 6 houres of combat the entire german army suddenly stopped doing anything for a week, which gave the soviets ample time to evacuate their entire forward units? No? Neither do I.
Or do you remember when at the beginning of Bagration after the opening devastating soviet artillery barrage all 10 million soldiers on both sides suddenly stopped fighting because they were glued to the radio, following the intense battle between a soviet recon company and a finish engineer platoon in the arctic north, which raged on for 1 week ? (it was a draw, soviet losses 10%, finnish losses 8%) The soviet recon units vowed to continue its attack next week, so the other soviet armies are not expecting any combat along their sectors in the near future. No? Neitehr do I.
Or do you remeber the recent incident when a US ranger companny attacked an iraqi stronghold near the syrian border, and all US attacks on Baghdad were stopped, to allow the US boys together with the fedejin saddam to follow the battle on CNN? No? Neitehr do I.
Such things dont happen in real combat, there is no such thing as turn burn effects, there is a reason why each army has its own staff, why each division has its own commander, why each platon has its own CO. They are no borgs who all simultanious stopp fighting once their connection to the mainframe is cut. They can continue to fight even without any communication, they usually get their objectives (take town XYZ) and should they lose contact with their HQ they simply try to follow their orders as good as possible.
quote:
No. I don't think players should be allowed to break scenarios- for their own good. Of course, you can always go into the scenario editor yourself anyway.
I strongly believe that this is something players should be able to control, just like Fog of War , if both sides agree to play without FOW (for example because they are beginners) its should be possible, if both want to activate/deactivate Command & Control they should be able to. The scenario designer should give advices of how he thinks his scenario is best played, if he thinks active disengagement should be turned off, he can state his opinion in the readme, but the final decision should be on the players side.
|
|
|
|
