|
sajer -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/5/2011 8:14:36 PM)
|
I have been playing games for a very long time - going back to board games. I think what is being discussed here is very important. It hits right at the core of what is wrong with large strategic computer based simulations. As it always happens, players at some point discover that by playing any side that they can "game" the system. This is based on rigid rules of what really happened.
This where all creators of theatre-wide simulations go horribly wrong in their thinking.
I think the post by Big Anorak hits the nails on the head - right from the manual:
quote:
The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses
on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders
on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and
operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for
many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."
First of all it is NOT an alternate history creator - it is to a very small degree - but no matter what the Axis does, unless he gets an auto-victory - he is basically screwed. The Soviets will build up and eventually overrun him.
This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.
Also by not having the what-if's imbedded in the game it does not take into consideration the most important part of the human vs human or human vs AI overall strategy - there is too much rigidity in the game. You KNOW that the Germans will have this much production in this year or that. You KNOW what replacments or units will be transferred to the front and when. You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.
I recently wrote a long post about this exact problem. It was blown off by a few people than got thrown into the trash of other posts - and lost.
I introduced the idea of creating a simple creation of out of theatre (and in) "what-if's". I made the mistake of listing ten or twenty of them. It was then shot down by certain posters, saying that "Ohhh.. that would have never happened". You see that was never my point. The idea put forth is WHAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID!! And they were always questionable to happen till the end of the war (i.e. simulation).
These variables would keep players playing the game to the end to my estimation.
The most important part of a strategy simulation that should be implemented is the "fog of war". I always play my games with it fully implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of a fog of war. Do you really think that the Soviets or even the Germans had the capability to "see" through the eyes of recon planes "everything" that was going on at the front - through hundreds of recon sorties. It's almost as if the Soviets and Germans had spy sattelites for pete's sake.
You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.
I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.
Also I am reminded by Hitler's quote on the Soviet Army: "All you have to do is kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
Would he would have attempted the invasion if he had known that the Soviets would get American/British help via the Murmansk port? Or had the capacity to "move" factories east behind the Urals?
I'm getting away now from my main point. I also don't want to bore you with hundreds of "what-if's". But hopefully you get my drift.
The main thing wrong with big intricate simulations like this if that we all plunk down $60 to $80 because are intrigued by the thought of a huge intricate model of the greatest battle ever fought - the Russo-German war in the East. It is fun for awhile, but then a strategy arises from constant play by smart players to "game" the system. I am not blaming them at all. They after all find the flaws in the game - as to almost make it unplayable.
In the end I am only saying that if this game could be modeled to include historical variants it would keep the players- playing the game to the bitter end. Also it would give the players the ultimate satisfaction - "FUN".
But, companies spew out these games, like War in the Pacific (where you just move pieces around a board for MONTHS - knowing the U.S. will win the end.) Then moving on from WiTe ( after getting thier money) to designing WiTw - where again they will again get paid. With the deep design flaw is still present. After you slap down big cash for War in the West - players will eventually find a way to "game" that computer simulation. But by then they will be on to their next project..and so on..and so on.....
The thing is you don't really "fix" a game by creating dozens of patches. You don't stop the blood from severed arm with a band-aid (I know what that is all about - because I have seen it up close). You have to fix the root problem. Until that is done - I will keep my money in my pocket.
You can poo-poo my post - but in my heart and in my opinion I know I'm right.
Keep up the good fight men!
|
|
|
|
