|
Arnir -> (7/28/2003 7:44:27 AM)
|
Joe 98,
Perhaps just because someone does not think exactly as you do they might, just might, still understand wargaming. Different wargamers have different expectations. Most wargames, IMHO, are played to see if you can do better than the historical outcome, whether that be holding out longer than history or getting the job done quicker. And yes, a player must react to his/her opponents actions not those of history. (Alternatively, people like me play the games to have fun but also learn about the history of the event. We are probably the ones that are the first to scream about something being gamey. )
All that being said, if, and that is a very big if, the game wants to allow for greater deviation than the historical pattern, it has to be done carefully. I agree that those deviations should take into consideratio the demands of other theatres. If any commander could have whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it, there would be little drama to the events.
However, I must say, and my apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted your comments, but your statement that "The standard scenarios must be historical. If you want non-historical scenario you use the scenario editor," strikes me as being extremely arrogant. Perhaps it is just the way you wrote it, but I'm not sure why your declaration must stand? If the game programmers want only historical scenarios, great. If not, great. And, your comment about B-52s in 1944 is asinine. I will assume that you were exagerating to make a point, but I think it weakens it instead. Different production strategies could result in more/less fighters, more/less strategic bombers available, etc. All of which would present different challenges and opportunities to the player. I doubt if the designers would allow too much "future tech" to be intoduced. (Just a guess).
I would state w/o any reservation that pure historical campaigns and scenarios are desirable if not mandatory, and they are my personal favorite. If the designers, however, want to add alternatives, then more power to them, IMHO.
As a lurker and only recent poster, my apologies to the community if my views are unpalatable. I firmly believe, however, that there are many different ways to enjoy this hobby w/o trying to dictate to others.
To reiterate an earlier post of mine, personally I think that if the purpose of the (a) game is to have the players face the same challenges as the historical counterpart, alternative histories should probably be extremely limited. However, if the goal is to allow players to have greater latitude, then give as many options as possible. These should include things that might not be pleasing to the player. I agree with Joe 98's comments about negative consequences or events need to be present.
|
|
|
|
