Found this nugget while rereading Fire & Movement, Number 76 (November 1991).
Several things struck me
a) the issues that we discuss here re: computer wargaming are, of course, nothing new to the wargaming hobby
we have had several discussions here in recent days about CM as simulation v. CM as game and more recently about the importance of "individual characteristics" (for lack of a better term) - specifically different sorts of nationality "traits". To read into what Swan is saying, a successful simulation (not game) would be dependent on how well these "traits" were captured and quantified.
c) and perhaps, it strikes me how far we've come in such a short time. Just 12 years ago we were looking forward to SECRET WEAPONS OF THE LUFTWAFFE (one of the games previewed in the same issue). But it was only 12 years ago. To read all the desperate posts begging for details about CMX2, one would think CM has been the standard in computer gaming for the last 20 years. Perhaps a little more patience is in order. I'd rather not see CMX2 do to CM what GIC did to the CC series.
On the whole though - where does CM fit? As it defied the trend and successfully simulated tactical combat?
Does it matter? Are we not happy enough having a fun "game"?
[ October 13, 2003, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]