|
Buzzard45 -> Rb has some good points. (8/8/2003 9:31:49 PM)
|
Its all too easy to try to compare this game to history and find faults. One of the big attractions for me is its evolving nature. We ALL combine to try to make the game more enjoyable. There are countless versions of it since SP1. Each with its own pluses and faults.
I have been on both sides of 30% plus artillery. You cannot hide from it for long on any size map. You must mass to make an attack and when the mass is found...well... I have tried various limits on all types of units to balance the game and make it more of a challenge. The game , as a game, needs balance. As history? Well, history is always written by the victors and is slanted in its truth as such. The loser is seldom the good guy. But in a game, the loser is often the good guy.
We all pretend to be in command of "real" armies. Gladly, its not real, and then again it is. Its a real game with real limitations not unlike the playing of a trump card in Bridge. You may only do so if certain conditions are met. If you wish to hold all trump cards, you might have trouble finding opponents.
You make for interesting reading, Ammosgt. As it applies to game, if we all wanted "no holds barred" it would be the norm rather than the exception. The players decide, negotiate look for a challenge and it is that which has brought a new dimension to the game. The banter, discussion and brotherhood of the forums, for most of themembers, is as important or more important than the game itself.
It is very correct to say that this does not reflect historical facts. It has, however, history as its base and that is another appeal. We can all look at and many touch and feel the equipment that we purport to command. We can all compare our exploits with those of history as well as our fellow players. You are also correct in that we are missing many challenges of the game. Many of the challenges that you allude to have beed tried. Large Maps , one gun per meter of front. Massed armour, no amour, little armour. Some of this , lots of that. What the experienced players bring to the newbies is just that, experience in what makes an enjoyable game. They are free to set their own limits. There is no conspiracy. If a new player comes along with new tactics and methods that win (or lose) they are discussed for all to decide whether or not they condone or abhor the methods.
I am a proponent of "Gary's rules of engagement". From my experience, this is the most complete list of what makes for an interesting game. I would like to see it or its like incorporated as a standard of play with no restrictions of variations, of course. Even though we have a manual of play we do not have a bill of rights or a constitution, if you like. Something that defines fairplay while allowing for your own ideas to come forth and be welcomed. No one would object to anyone playing under whatever conditions they want and can get an opponent to agree to.
I am still waiting for this challenge from VikingNo2
"[B]Join us next time fight fans, when the only stipulation on the game is that I have to fight with 3 snipers and a Ammo truck with a vis of one. But that will be fair because the other guy only get tanks.[/B] ":) :rolleyes:
I think he might win.:eek:
|
|
|
|
