|
Vathailos -> (10/3/2003 3:18:30 AM)
|
Ammo SGT,
I hope you don’t mind me pitching my 2 cents in here. I feel as though I would like to address a few things you say, and give you and/or others the opportunity to comment on my observations.
First off, with regard to “technical accuracy”, I think I agree with you on [I]almost[/I] all points. I am a stickler for historical accuracy. For example, I think that the difference in penetration values with 76mm AT guns depending upon who’s cocking the gun is ridiculous and it should be corrected. But let’s examine the issue a bit deeper.
Why are they different? Is it an oversight? Was it “tweaked up” after complaints, as you suggest? Or is it an attempt by the designer(s) to illustrate that the Germans were able to utilize the equipment more effectively? I don’t know the answer.
If it was an oversight, fix it. If it was tweaked, that’s wrong, readjust it back. If it was a legitimate attempt to show more adept German usage, I think the PEN values should be equalized and the crew skill levels should be changed instead. Another way to skin that cat, if you will. Bottom line, I’d like to see as close to historical pen/ROF/et al values as possible.
I haven’t seen anyone post that they’re “for” historically inaccurate or biased “tweaking”. I know that part of the appeal of SPWAW is it’s level of historical detail. Discussion based on bettering that is beneficial, and IMO, vital. More accurate detail make a better product for everyone. We all win. If there’s an actual bias for one nation or another, as you accuse, then that’s very, very unfortunate.
Part of the problem we run into however when chasing the brass “accuracy” ring is that of sourcing. Just whose numbers are the right numbers? Just whose accuracy or penetration data is most historically correct? And one other important area to consider would be [I]do those numbers translate into how the systems were actually used in the field?[/I] As a politician once said, “statistics can be used to say anything.”
I can’t remember where you stood on the M9 Bazooka for example, IIRC, you felt they weren’t strong enough in 7.1, or that other nation’s LT/M AT weapons were too powerful in comparison. Having played against the US, facing those M9s, I can vouch for the fact that they are over-powered in 7.1. They can take out SS-crewed Panther Gs in single shots, often remaining hidden while doing so, at ranges of 4 hexes or greater, consistently. If they were realistically that effective, we really mis-geared our war production effort. A few hundred thousand M9s and the Axis would have been at its knees in weeks. I exaggerate slightly, to make a point. The balance there was way off IMO, and I believe in many others opinions as well.
Assume a best-case scenario, through debate, trial and error, we finally agree on the best set of numbers for all weapons systems involved throughout the OOBs. Then we get to the question leading us back to the beginning: If all the numbers are historically accurate, but the balance of the game suffers greatly, how is that best remedied?
That’s a very tough question to answer. And we can all Monday-morning QB the designers’ efforts to answer that question. However, we need to keep in mind that they have given us a great product, that will never be perfect. They probably did what they believed was best for all (without bias toward a particular country) at the time of the releases. And in addition, that they have access to other code-related information that may make some of the solutions we might see as obvious impossible to implement.
I have to agree with RB that your tone does more to alienate the undecided and discredit your stance than it does to help. It may help you to vent, and I hate to see that this has gotten you so frustrated if that is indeed the case. This is one of the few games I’ve found out there where there are no “cheat codes”, where little script kiddies and “l33t h4x0rz” gimps proliferate and prosper. It’s a unique community, with a wealth of information represented in its membership. Debate is healthy and essential.
I guess what I’m trying to say to close this is (and if anyone’s hypocritical when giving advice about “tone”, ahem…) that a different tone would convey your message more clearly. I for one happen to agree with what I see as your cause, namely that of historical accuracy.
And what’s there to lose? Even for the “Tiger Kiddies”? If the French do end up having better early-war guns in their OOB, that doesn’t change the historical results. They were still defeated rather handily. This speaks volumes about the quality of the leadership on both sides. The Germans had more experienced (read: Prussian Officers) troops, ergo better tactics/leadership and victory.
I hope 8.0 is as close to a technically accurate representation as we’ve seen to date. It’s only icing on the cake for me however, as I think Panzer Leo’s done an outstanding job with H2H.FR. Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
