Also please keep in mind it is an interesting situation to model if you want to keep it "historical". This because taking 11th Army away after accomplishing the conquest of the Crimea is not really an incentive to conquering the Crimea or to keep an eye on losses while doing so. Basically having a "historical" rule might lead to a-historical moves by the player here. I am open for suggestions of course, but just want everybody to know it was a conscious decision of mine to leave 11th Army and Manstein in the south.
Old discussion, but never ending theme. I just want to address those things, as it's said that Vic is going to make the new game on Russo-German front.
So are my assumptions:
- unit models (tanks, aircrafts) can be historical (or close to historical proportions)
- units placement on map can be historical (mostly)
- industry capabilities or resources can be set at historical proportions
- map can be historical
But all of this can not justify "historical events"! If you want a historical game, you will get something that is not a game.
Example: to get historical results one should act historically and his opponent should do it to. More, there should be modeled historical losses in game or we will end with unhistorical combat strength proportion on map soon ;)
So if you want to see it historical, you should exclude yourself from playing (to not make any unhistorical mistakes) and script AI to do only historical moves.
Remember: historical input (resources) + historical play (losses) = historical output on map (day by day).
Is it this what you want?
For me "historical" game is a pure nonsense. The first move I choose after historical set-up, the very first battle I fight (with RANDOM number generator), when I loose 3 tanks instead just 1 (as was in history) I stray from historicity and take my own voyage into my own alternative timeline.
Should I try to encircle Soviets around Kiev instead if driving towards Moskva in 1941? Really?
Should I launch Case Blue to get Baku instead concentrate efforts on Stalingrad in 1942? Really?
Should I launch Zitadelle against heavy entrenched Soviets in 1943? Really?
If game let me NOT TO DO that (most games do), then stop calling for historical play.
If my 11th Army would be magically withdrawed after taking Sevastopol, then I will never take that city. Let there be one strayed Soviet unit in city if that allow me to save all my army. That is how many players will do. They find a way to avoid scripted restrictions, because in their games, those restrictions could look stupid.
Should MY 11th Army go to the north to take Leningrad after Sevastopol? Why? I just can capture Leningrad first, so no need to engage those army there. Can I do this? Yes, in most games I can. So please don't ask for avoiding "unhistorical" moves, as this games takes unhistorical road from the very first battle you did. You just got unhistorical results, and after that in second battle RNG gives you the same unhistorical results, and so on, so on.
Vicor, please do not do like Gary Grigsby in his series (historical withdrawal of units in certain dates). It's a way to nowhere.
If you must do something about the rest of the world when simulating only one front (huge one, but limited), then consider system that was in old PC DOS game War in Russia, also by Gary, but he was younger then ;)
Use container named like West, North Africa, Balkans, Norway, Germany and allow players decide what units and when they will put into those containers to simulate conflicts on other parts of the world. As units have combat points, it could be easily readable:
I have 300 combat points in North Africa vs. 900 allied combat points - I will soon lose. I need to reinforce North Africa.
But this should be up to player what he will do about situation.
And please allow players replace units, build reinforcements (as it is in DCCB) and add subunits to existing divisions (why I can't attach more stug battalions to divisions as 5th subunit?).
Also it will be very encouraging to let players steer their economy (industrial output). I just like to have options of building more Stugs and less tanks (or vice versa). Strict (scripted) replacements are not that funny.
Just my 2 cents.
< Message edited by Hanti -- 10/3/2013 3:10:29 PM >