|
Capitaine -> (7/24/2003 4:38:12 AM)
|
One point is, soapy, that people are going to enjoy different games and, to a certain extent, their relative enjoyment will determine perceived quality. IOW, it is possible, I think, to define "good games" and "bad games" in a general sense. However, among those considered good, obviously there will be a great latitude among players who are looking for differing experiences. Personally, I do not like games as much that permit ahistorical diplomacy to a large degree. Therefore, I was more interested in EiA's combat and logistical mechanisms, as well as the hard political rules, as opposed to the pure "Diplomacy" elements involved.
OTOH, 3R (whatever iteration) gave you a historical situation, and rules that limited what nations could do diplomatically, while still allowing some degree of diplomatic maneuvering. Just not as drastic, for that would change the nature of WWII. The "old" 3R is obviously dated, but if you would like to see the "state of the art", go to GMT's P500 site and follow the links to "A World at War". Pretty impressive IMO. :)
|
|
|
|
