Honestly, you have no idea how I play SPWAW. You have an impression of me based on my words in this forum, but those words (while I try hard to be forthright and accurate) paint an imperfect picture at best. If you could look over my shoulder while I was playing, I think you would be surprised.
But I don’t think that matters because I also believe that you have judged me to be a player who absolutely does NOT play the game “as it was meant to be played”. I also believe that if you had your way, players who don’t play the game “as it was meant to be played” would be forced to conform to your vision. I’m just grateful that we got Gary Grigsby’s vision back in 1995-7 of a game that did not take a rigid stand on “how the game was meant to be played” and provided options for all kinds of players to play however they wanted to play.
In any event, here is how I play the game. I play the game to be challenged. That is how I play the game. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I have a degree in history. Something that I suspect most people on this forum don’t have. I know something about history. But I do not play the game to simulate history. And I do not play the game to model historical combat. Why not? Because the game CANNOT simulate history. The game CANNOT model historical combat. It’s a game. It’s not history. And that is the truth.
And my impression of YOU is that that truth eats at you because you want the game to be an historical simulation and an historical model and it’s just not.
An historical simulation and model would be real-time in 3D with no hex-grid and no alternating turns. The simple fact that the game is turn-based, I-go You-go, with units moving one at a time over a rigid hexgrid, renders any historical simulation value pretty much zero. Even the OOBs, as much as you want them to be historical, are actually game compromises based on rigid OOB units limits and weapon slots. Frankly, SPWAW has more in common with Chess or Checkers or Go than it does with simulating actual historical combat. And I treat it as such.
Yet, when it comes right down to it, SPWAW is all about appearances. People want the game to appear to be historical. People want the game to feel authentic. People want the game to seem to be realistic. But that is as far as SPWAW can take it. Illusions of historical reality. It’s just a game. And the rigid uncompromising demands of the game trump history absolutely 100% of the time.
To repeat, I play the game to be challenged.
This whole thread is all about what settings and adjustments make the game less challenging or more challenging. It is also an attempt to provide readers with commentary that discusses each of them.
Personally, to me, “rigging” the game is something that makes the game less challenging. So, when you say that I’m the only person who “rigs” the game, you are actually saying something completely backwards from the way I actually play.
C&C OFF makes the game less challenging, so I play with C&C ON.
American artillery makes the game less challenging, so I don’t play the Americans.
Playing Delay and Defend missions make the game less challenging, so I don’t play Delay and Defend missions.
And so on and so on.
If you want to be accurate, you should say, “Victor wants challenging games and adjusts the settings and game conditions to minimize any advantages he might gain against the computer.” Whenever you have pointed out a situation where the player gains an advantage against the computer (like with Auto Rally ON/OFF), I have adopted the more challenging option (in this case, Auto Rally OFF).
To sum up, this thread is all about what makes the game more challenging or less challenging. And I personally play the game to be more challenged, not less challenged. In other words, I do NOT rig the game in my favor. I do the opposite.