|
Rolfor -> (9/10/2003 2:32:49 PM)
|
THX again :)
How I said, it is OK for me now. The game is great and therefore it would be a nice addition.
I know: " That is the way virtually all board wargames (or historic war simulations) have been throughout history."
But here are - just for thinking about this - a part of an article
Steve Lieb writes in 99:
Grognards and Graphics: Coming out of the 2D Closet
>>> "... It's a worthwhile question and really the reason for this whole article. My goal when playing a wargame is to be presented as closely as possible with the decisions faced by a real(istic) participant of the battle I'm simulating. This could be a panzer commander on the steppes and cornfields of Kharkov; or it could be Archduke Charles at Wagram, a Federation Command Cruiser captain in the Mutaran Nebula.
Personally, I'm not just playing wargames to see if I can crunch numbers and estimate probabilities from 'to hit' tables faster than my opponent. I want to be there - I want to feel the desperation when my attack to cutoff the salient is rebuffed with heavy losses. I want to feel the cold sweat down my proverbial back when an opponent sneaks through my pickets to attack from a totally unexpected angle. I'm an adrenaline junkie as much as any Xtreme athlete, just more cerebral. I don't think I'm unique, either. Perhaps I'm guilty of overgeneralization, but I think this is pretty common ..." <<<<<
I just want the numbers for my head *g* (a small evolution of Cardboard Games). Steve wants "to SEE" and "taste" the men, tanks and guns (a big evolution of Cardboard Games). But it 2003 this shold be no problem too.
Greetings
Rolfor
Article-Link:
http://www.warfarehq.com/Articles/Wargame_Articles/grognards_graphics.shtml
|
|
|
|
