|
dr.hal -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/11/2011 4:44:56 PM)
|
I've just now read this thread and find it interest to say the least. I would like to go back to what Vettim89 said about there being three types of players. I would respectfully suggest there is a fourth, and that is the historical player. What I mean by this is a player that tries to play the game as he or she would understand history. There are many things that the game "allows" due to its mechanics that would not even be thought of during the real war, for example using a bunch of CAs' spotting planes as an attack force on a main Jap base (small scenario with off board bases not in play). IMHO this would not be done in real life even IF thought about by a SAG commander. I know that innovation is certainly a real thing, but some possibilities within the game seem to allow that concept to go to far. My point here is NOT to complain about the game or even players that use such tactics, as it is a game after all, but to suggest to you that some of us are straitjacketed by our knowledge of history (specifically the war in the Pacific) that acts as a subconscious preventer in doing things that might otherwise be allowed. Thus there is a fourth type of player or maybe this is a modifier to Vettim89's three types? Does any of this make sense to you? Hal
|
|
|
|
