|
sven6345789 -> RE: Realism discussion (8/23/2013 11:01:03 PM)
|
first, let's take a look at the historical situation. The german offensive in the east was a big gamble. The chances of winning seemed god, but actually, they were low. It all comes down to the aim. Why do you start a war? Do you have limited aims, or do you want to destroy the other side, as the germans planned during or after Barbarossa?. A limited victory would have been possible. Had the german leadership approached Stalin in oktober 1941, they could probably have gained parts of the Baltic states, Bessarabia (for Rumania), parts of the Territory Finland lost during the Winter War and so on. But that was not the Plan of Hitler. He wanted to conquer the Soviet Union and exterminate the populace, nothing less. This was an aim beyond the reach of the Wehrmacht. The Germans had only very little knowledge of the total OOB of the russian Army. They had no idea of the actual strength beyond the Smolensk Kiew line. They had no idea of how many reserves the russians had. In August 1941, the german war machine could no longer push the russians back all along the front. They had to decide, Moscow, or Kiev, or Leningrad. They only had the strength for one target. They chose Kiev. The original plan was to destroy the red army in 2 months, followed by mopping up. Obviously, the original plan had already failed. FRom this point onwards, the germans had no real chance of winning their ultimate goal. Hitler would not accept any other but the ultimate goal, and that doomed germany.
Now, In the game you want to have a realistic chance for winning. You also have hindsight. You know what the russians are capable of, you can memorize the russian starting positions (leading to the low pocket) and the russian player knows what he is up against, and that there will be a bad winter in 1941. So, the position is different from the beginning. To give both sides a reasonable chance of winning, you need to form Victory conditions that compare you to historic results. Let's not forget that the soviet player does not reach a decisive victory if he reaches Berlin as historical, but only a i believe marginal one. You need to be better than history. THis is obviously easier for the russians to accomplish. I have never seen a flawless boardgame of the russian front, and i doubt that i will ever see one. Still, some are good a simulating the ebb and flow of the battles on the front An old one is AH "Russian Front". This game simulates both sides quite well, but even in this game, it is almost impossible for the germans to win in 1941. The more detail you put in a game, the more unforseen problems can arise. We have seen it in the development of this game. WITP-AE has been mentioned in this thread, and although a lot of work has been put into it, it does not work acceptably without house rules. Historically, Australia was beyond the reach of Japan. Only a major effort would have made it possible to conquer it. The Japanese never had the chance to mobilize the resources, not to mention the Army/Navy rivalry, which is totally absent in the game. WITP-AE is also a game where Hindsight is important. No japanese player would pull of a Midway operation the way it was done historically. Why? Because we know what could happen if you do.Loose those carriers, and the good old days are over. China is another matter.
Let's accept it. A game can get close to history, but it will always be a game, not a simulation. A game about the east front will never be able to give both sides the same chance of winning, similar to a game about the pacific war (not to mention the western front, wonder who wants to play the germans in war in the west?) If you want that, you must accept ahistorical possibilities.
I want a game that simulates the historical ebb and flow of the war and simulates both sides well. And it should be fun. I do not want to memorize the soviet setup or do math regarding how many hexes i can loose each turn and still win. That is not my game.
|
|
|
|
