Rasputitsa
Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001 From: Bedfordshire UK Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx All that stuff is on the margins, MT. The combat model...that's getting at the hearts and guts of the game, and if you really want to change the design you want to be as close to the throne as possible, as it were. But it is fun reminiscing about about the olden days. And the analog era of wargaming still has things to teach the digital era. I'd like to think so, anyways, being an old fart myself. You are never going to have an accurate representation of the Eastern Front, or any other front, while you have the power to control every unit on the map, it never happened that way. Something like the John Tiller games with objectives and unit stance being set by the player for subordinate commanders, or Panther games, setting subordinate unit orientation and frontage, defence and attack stance, setting time to move, orders delay, etc.. Making a game highly detailed doesn't make it accurate, it just makes it a highly complex chess game, bigger board more playing pieces, but with the set openings (Lvov manoeuvre), predictable rule sets, etc.. Operating through subordinate commanders would put a realistic feel back into the game, with the historical capabilities of the different nationalities modeled and evolving during the game time period. There could be no bug out if your subordinate commanders are not able to get their units moving in time. These features were beginning to appear in earlier games, even if the technology was not fully capable, then the drive for complexity took over. I had more enjoyment out of WIR then get from WiTE.
_____________________________
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon “A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon “Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
|