Abstracting vs Realism

[BriantheWise]

Hubert made this game and all who played it, found that it was good, and we praised him as thus we should, for it is a very good game.

Nevertheless, there are critiscisms about this and that, and so many. From RussBenning, i hear this: Jam towards Stalingrad, and the Russians lose. Then he says, do a double line of defense, and it's WW1.

From another, I hear, air power is too strong. I think, consider it, armor and air smashing the lines. You can fix this if Hubert adds extra counters, and or movement for armor, or extra hexes, lots of hexes. 3rd Reich managed it with special rules. A helluva lot of special rules, everywhere. I had to read that rule book, and read it a second time again. So did the other players (it's a great game by the way, but not computer friendly as we know). And the AI couldn't figure it out either.

So abstract it. Just consider that air/armor/infantry is combined arms. Don't have a way to force the eastern front? bomb the front line, pretending that the bombers are strike panzers.

I don't know. I am an old Clash of Steel Fan.

It had some hickups. But I thought it was great.

I can only imagine how hard it is to make this game work. Too many rules and you have an HC.

I think the game is balanced. I think the game works. I have these complaints/issues/suggestions, about this game:

As has been said, and they do make sense:

1) Add a row, or a half of a row to Africa. Take it away from somewhere, if limitations require.

2) If a country can't use the research they gain (ie rockets in Britain), remove the box. Don't tease.

3) Clash of Steel has a very nice algorithm for

influence/leaning for the minors. I think this could be added in a patch, even.

4) AA research should be carried over to the units, in part.

And so on.

The basic issue with the game, though, is the time line. 3rd Reich had it, in Quarters. And Class of Steel had it in randomness. This game has a different time line. Operational movement, in a week, is not quite, well correct. Moving from Liverpool to Malta in many turns and being tired to get there, is well, not quite, correct. Bombing things to elimination is well not quite accurate. And on and on.

But here is what I see. An awesome game that captures the elements, majesty and dynamics of any World War 2 game I have played.

(so I yammer a bit. I am allowed)

The escalator to reality says this: Risk, Axis and Allies, HC (just a bummer of a game with high hopes) Clash of Steel, CommandHQ, Strategic Command, Third Reich (which is semi-obsolete, and if I had a forum for that game, I would ask why the Brit's alway have a BRP of 40).

So, to summarize, I challenge anyone, particullary with me, playing the little iddy bitty winsome allies, to win, and make any axis be, well, I'll tease you later.

Meanwhile, Hurbert, awesome game, great execution and find a way to add a row in africa, please. (I discovered this game late.)

Brianthe Very Very Wise

(i found the next button)

[pzgndr]

So abstract it. Just consider that air/armor/infantry is combined arms.

Very very wise.

Since we're dealing with a PG-style system of one-unit-at-a-time, the sequencing of combined arms attacks is a game tactic and not a reflection of reality. It is an abstraction that looks better over time, like any game at this scale. Does the allocation of combat power in a region achieve desired results from month-to-month? In general it does in SC. Ths sub war, North Africa and some other aspects still need some adjustments, but the rest of the game plays well.