|
mind_messing -> RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor? (9/8/2015 12:57:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alpha77
So you think in real life war - commanders knew everything ? [X(] There is actually more confusion and missing info in most real WW2 combat (not to speak of earlier eras) than in this game. The uncertainty adds to realism (for me at least). So you might say BUT we know a lot of why certain victories or defeats happened, yes but a bigger part of knowledge came from wide research years after these events.
Commanders knew more than we can learn from the combat reports.
It's not about uncertainty, it's about clarifying the information already provided to us. I'm not asking for FOW to be done away with.
If you're mounting a multi-divisional attack and your units suffer a bad leaders roll, why should we not know what unit's failed the roll? In reality it would be obvious that Colonel A's infantry regiment blundered right into an enemy ambush because he didn't have scouts.
quote:
This is also why I would rather have NO or RANDOM stats leaders in games. Normally one cannot evaluate leaders exactly on points value.
Also there were leaders that were just not to judge really. I think of eg. Paulus or Monty. Had they been in different situations, they would have performed differently. So you assign a good offensive value to Monty. He would deserve it for El Alamein, maybe not so much for France or Arnheim. Therefore he could inspire troops and be more careful (or slow) in his approach. Now for dashing tank raid not the right person, but to wear an enemy in a fort down more so....
Paulus you give bad defensive value for Stalingrad... well was the wrong person there anyway. As chief of general staff (more planning than leading) he would deserve a better rating.
Whats with guys in the game, is Yamamoto in ? Guess yes, I dont know his stats. Guess they must be quite bad...Nimitz, he could perform so well cause he had the backing of his superiors... and the big industrial machine behing him. How had he performed with meager resources and in steady conflict with other officers or politicians?
Bit OT.
The leaders system in-game does a good job of capturing the quirks of leaders.
Monty would have a high land value but low aggressiveness.
Paulus would have an above average land value but low leadership and inspiration to capture the fact that he was competent enough for staff work but ill suited for the actual role of commander.
The fact that the game can solidly model the Japanese leaders that are outliers validates the leaders system for me. The Japanese leaders with high aggressiveness, leadership and inspiration but abysmal land skill means banzai charges and such make sense in the game's context.
I would have preferred a more dynamic system to leaders myself, but on a game of this scope that simply isn't possible, and the model we have works well given the scope.
OT:
As an aside, I always thought a leaders system based on traits would lead to interesting choices for command. Rather than assigning numerical values to leaders and presenting players with numbers, you'd be presented with a leader with various traits.
Their pre-war history would be reviewed and they are assigned traits relevant to their background, with leaders earning other traits based on their experiences in combat. Leaders who have previous combat experience would have a "veteran" trait, giving them bonuses
It would be an interesting mini-game trying to match the leaders to the combat situations you're likely to face.
For leaders that were promoted during the war or without much experience, you'd take the risk that both sides too historically - that untested leaders might not be cut out for command. Sure, that untested Colonel in command of that regiment in New Guinea could develop the "jungle expert" trait, or he might end up with the "coward trait"
|
|
|
|
