|
jchastain -> RE: Question citizens (7/7/2005 8:49:34 AM)
|
Having games that link in that way is an often discussed vision, though it does present some practical problems. In any strategic game, you may have several battles during each turn. If they must all be fought using a very detailed battle simulator, then the strategic game will move at rather anemic pace. It is likely that this is something that would be cheered at first, but as players grew weary of fighting detailed battles without ever making any real progress on the strategic situation, it would likely get used less and less.
An even more interesting concept would be the ability to amass a team of gamers with them splitting up responsibilities. Imagine a war game center where a new player would join a team and play at the tactical level and with experience, might be promoted to where he fights at the operational level, and finally perhaps at the grand strategic level with the battles in each game being assigned out to series of player who amassed scored and earned promotions. Imagine if every division were led by a real human player with real human corp and army commands above him coodinating the fight. Imagine if you are the strategic player and you have an army where you are trying to decide if Ralegh is up to the task of taking on that Prussian army you see across the way that just devastated a Russian general with a pretty good reputation. Again, it would take a very long time to finish games, but the idea has potential and could certainly be very cool. Perhaps my (as yet unborn) kids will one day get to enjoy such a thing.
|
|
|
|
