|
amatteucci -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 8:59:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Panzeh
I'll let you guys in on a secret- the DC engine doesn't actually count all those thousands of troops or tens of tanks- the engine has a smaller number of units that it considers- then it multiplies them by a number to give you a roughly realistic division strength for immersive purposes. You can see this in the combat results window.
I knew about this "secret" since the days of DC2. Anyway, it does not mean that strength numbers are irrelevant in combat resolution. A division with 300 T-34 will perform way better than a division with no modern tank, even if the engine will not simulate separately the fire of every single vehicle.
quote:
Also this game abstracts out a lot of obsolete tank types into German Panzer IIs and Soviet T-26s. I imagine an enterprising modder could change this but keep in mind going over 8 sub-types in a division results in a less good looking list.
As I wrote, I understand that all Soviet obsolete tanks are abstracted under the T-26 label, all Soviet new tanks are abstracted under the T-34 label, all German/Axis light tanks are abstracted under the Panzer II label and so on. I already said that I can live with it. Given the "granularity" of combat resolution, there would be no point in having different entries for, say, a T-26 and a BT-5 since, in game terms, their stats would be the same.
I'm not asking for unnecessary detail.
quote:
Yes, the Soviet tank divisions had often wildly varying strengths at the beginning of the campaign but they're normalized here for, I think(I can't speak for Vic or Cameron), clarity. If you have to go in and click on every single tank division to see whether it has 10 or 100, that rapidly becomes an exercise in tedium, which is something Vic has worked to avoid. In any case, the effect is fairly minimal- these tank divisions are massively hindered in their operations by the Soviet system and they will rarely survive the first few turns.
An exercise in tedium? Really?
For me knowing where are my best units and where are my worst units is an exercise in operational and strategic command and not a nuisance. I like this aspect of the game and, I think, every wargamer does.
Moreover, even if all divisions were created the same, after the first turns their casualties level, their fatigue, their level of entrenchment etc. etc. will be different anyway, so every player will be compelled to check his units stats to see whether they are a spent hulk or a fresh full strength division etc. So this supposed exercise in tedium is unavoidable in the game.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Queeg
I play war games, first and foremost, as games. And all games - no matter how "realistic" they claim to be - are built around a set of abstractions. Even with an OOB perfect down to the last cartridge, there still must be rules for movement, supply, combat resolution and a dozen other real-world factors that can be modeled only abstractly. In my experience, what separates an outstanding game from a merely average one is less the depth of its detail than the quality of its abstractions.
I agree that the quality of the game abstraction is the prime indicator of the validity of a game but cannot understand why one would refrain by having better detail. This is not a situation where you cannot have them both.
quote:
We already have plenty of games that try to model the Eastern Front in detail. I'm excited to see a game that takes a different approach - indeed, one that models real-world factors that the other games completely ignore. That different approach doesn't make it any less of a war game.
I too am excited to see a game than models real-world factor that other games ignore but I do belive that there is no point in ignoring other factors that the other games doesn't ignore.
As I already wrote, WitE has problems in spite of its detailed OoB, not because of it. If here we can easily have the best of both worlds/approaches, why would we renounce this possibility?
P.S. If what I wrote does not make sense, please refer to the previous posts by Michael T and 76mm, they said what I meant to say in a more coincise and clear manner! [:D]
|
|
|
|
