[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Its an interesting proposition, I suppose it would depend on how much realism is lost in a given example. There is a point at which I would no longer be interested in a game if it sacrifices a substantial amount of accuracy in favor of a balanced contest. It depends on what you get out of the game, what makes it so compelling to you. For me, it is at least the appearance of a historical simulation that is important, not whether the game is balanced or not. To me, balance can always be achieved through the formulation of a set of victory conditions that can make the game interesting to play even if its clear one side can not "win" in the conventional sense. Either way, its an interesting question, what do the rest of you think? [/B][/QUOTE]
Gee, Ed, I start to worry about myself. I've read your answer several times and still cant find anything I could argue about !!!
Seriously, to go a bit further - if I play germans and soviet player didnt win up to may 1945 I consider this my victory. Just an example how we can balance the game. Historically IMHO germans had no a single chance to win, even with Leningrad and Moscow taken in 1941.
BTW I didnt say BALANCE I said playability. And as you said for everybody something else makes game playable. I think majority of players will prevail. But fortunatelly we can always have alternative scenarios for the rest
This statement could be the start of a long discussion. :)[/QUOTE]
Could be, but I am pretty sure we will find something more important soon :)