|
STEELER13 -> level of accuracy (10/18/2003 1:31:53 AM)
|
[COLOR=Blue]
Yo All,
Excellent question but it is only tip of the iceberg for the discussion. For me the selection is limited due to level of accuracy.
For example of one level, someone who wants to game a situation of Rommel's Afrika Korps or a particluar aspect of a battle, wants the basic vehicles and rough ratio of troops as were actually present. To have a King Tiger or Jadgpanther or Das Reich show up on Omaha beach June 6th hurts that credibility that says this is an Omaha Beach battle, in my opinion.
To take to another level, however, which is to say each squad should be armed [B]exactly[/B] or have the [B]exact [/B] numbers as they were in WWII is not only too much detail but in my opinion very hard to prove. Heck, Nipe, Glantz, and others can't even agree to how many tanks participated in Prokhorovka so how do you get historians to agree on what weapons were used by a SQUAD in a battle? Standard TOE didn't mean it was always standard. I know in some cases among the MCSE team the number of MG's per squad was one particular discussion that came to mind and each person had very legitimate points.
I personally liked to see Gammon Bombs as every article I read of the 101st at Normandy included mention of these neat weapons used to knock out bunkers and tanks alike.
But....how nitpicky can you get?
With regards to hypotheticals, I must mention I like playing ahistorical games occasionally but to me a hypothetical is based on decisions..."what if Peiper went around Bastogne"...not "what if Peiper had several MAUS tanks at Bastogne". The last is like giving the guys in the Alamo an MG42 or a Metal Storm(see earlier post by someone!). This situation would be fun for all of about 5 minutes.
But then again historical battles as someone pointed out are not "even" battles...often they are one-sided.
So next poll should be level of accuracy wanted....vehicles, setting, OOB, unit Weapons, etc. Just my humble opinion...[/COLOR]
|
|
|
|
