chris0827
Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Queeg quote:
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl The reason for making the scenario start as historically accurate as possible is to present the player with the same choices his historical counterparts faced..., not to force them to make the exact same choices. Making a different choice of how to use your assets is a valid course of action (wouldn't be much point in playing otherwise). Starting with assets your side never had --- or starting without assets your side did have --- that's the problem. Under those conditions ALL player choices are baloney..., because the scenario itself is a bunch of baloney. I agree with you...up to a point. Depends on what you mean by "assets." While the North clearly had the advantage on paper, there was no human being alive in 1861 who could have actually utilized more than a fraction of them. For example, in mid-1861, the CSA had more than 12% of its white, male population in arms; the North had less than 2%. And Lincoln had virtually zero chance of changing that - he faced too many political, economic and cultural obstacles. So while I agree with you that an historical game should present the player with the same choices his historical counterpart faced, I would disagree with any suggestion that giving the player God-like powers is, in any sense, either realistic or historical. That's not right. I made a typo in te strengths thread. The CSA had the 12% under arms in mid 1862, not mid 1861.
|