Historical accuracy or game balance... or both?

[Richie]

I'm interested to know what people like in their scenarios... Historical accuracy at the expense of game balance or game balance at the expense of accuracy... or a canny balance of the two. Hard, sometimes impossible...

Having done a little designing myself it's a hurdle I've often come across. I can say I've favoured one or the other in the past depending on the scenario, but...

I'd really like to know what you guys think

[junk2drive]

There was a thread about this not to long ago in Scenario Talk.

Semi-historical.

[Richie]

If your talking about the 'unrealistic custom scenario thread' you've entirely missed the point of my post...

[ May 10, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Richie ]

[junk2drive]

Sorry

"game balance at the expense of accuracy"

Sometimes the game just won't let you do historical things like fire through smoke and trees.

[Richie]

True, every system has it's limitations.

Then there's the compromises...

I've often thought about replicating the Kokoda Track (trail ) Battles...

But more so with force mix where weight of numbers may be involved in a battle, or a seperate victory condition that can be made to work within the CM system.

Do people want the scenario to play out regardless of historical realities in a balanced game or do the want to refight the war the way it was on the day... just to see if they can do it? To see if they can beat the odds?

What do people want?

I'm really interested to know!

[junk2drive]

"I've often thought about replicating the Kokoda Track (trail ) Battles..."

I have played a couple of those for SPWAW. I would like to see them for CM.

[Pzman]

If you design battles, do it the way you enjoy them, there will always be enough people who share your interest to make it worth while.

[Gpig]

I think every player will have a different opinion, of course.

I like either way. Just let the player know before hand which type of situation he/she will be fighting in, and let them choose.

If they feel like reenacting the slaughter of (insert battle here), then they'll launch the scenario. If not, they'll move on to the equal forces/mirrored map battles.

I'd say Pzman's advice is spot on.

(In regards to your questions, my hunch is that most players of CM would prefer balanced battles OVER historically correct battles.)

Gpig

[ May 10, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[scoop88]

I prefer historical battles, especially those with very accurate replication of terrain. It gives one a very strong sense of going back in time and "being there."

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Richie:

Historical accuracy at the expense of game balance...

Is there such an issue? Well maybe, because of game limitations.

As I see it, the #1 problem with "historical" scenarios is that for several reasons it's impossible to make them "accurate".

a) The most often overlooked "flaw" is player knowledge.

Quite often the players know a lot more about the circumstances than the historical commanders.

- For well known battles the players might very well know beforehand exactly (or nearly so) what units are available at both sides, and where they are at the start of the battle.

- (Good/experienced) players also often have a better understanding of different tactics available, and like to apply tactics that were out-of-fashion or not even invented when the historical battle took place.

Lacking designer knowledge.

It's almost impossible to get pinpoint accurate information about exactly who were there, their exact locations, the exact ammunition loadouts, fuel, food and sleep status.

Detailed maps/photographs of the entire battlefield, such as it was at the start of the battle, are also just about impossible to get hold of.

c) Simulator limitations.

- Suppose the designer knows everything. The software still doesn't allow perfect representation of the conditions at hand. At best you can get pretty close, and have the situation almost accurate at the start of the battle.

- Simulation "flaws". Dependin what simulator is used it does have a series of flaws that will make the outcome deviate quite a bit from the historical, even if you try to apply the historical battle plans.

That said; I do like to play plausibly historical, assymetric battles where one side have a massive tactical advantage (numerical/point superiority). These still don't have to be unbalanced, since balance is a matter of victory conditions.

Wiping out the opponent might be very easy. Doing it within a limited time while taking very few casualties in return might be a real feat!

Cheers

Olle

[simovitch]

Originally posted by scoop88:

I prefer historical battles, especially those with very accurate replication of terrain. It gives one a very strong sense of going back in time and "being there."

My feelings as well.

[JasonC]

I want to be given a historically realistic task, that I have some hope of at least partially accomplishing. I don't care at all whether my overall chances are 50-50 or 80-20 or whatever. But there does need to be a chance. Being squashed like a bug isn't strategy, it is a movie somebody else directed. Running over puppies isn't strategy, and is just boring. Some challenge, outcome depends on players, then historical tactics.

[SgtMuhammed]

I just want the ones I play to be realistic. That is why I tend to play historical scenarios. Too many times fictional scenarios should be classified as fantasy. Totally unrealistic OOBs and strange objectives or maps. Sometimes they can be fun but taking a company of Sturmtigers against a battalion of infantry just isn't what I consider a battle.

[Dandelion]

Accuracy can destroy realism. A map true to the 20m square to a real map can look really bizarre in the CM engine. I'll not even get into built up areas or roads. At any rate, it is usually quite impossible to stay true to real maps given the severe limitations of the engine, leaving you with a lot of comprimising anyway. Units do not have historical impact on events - think: machineguns.

I think we have all seen the ambitious and patient designer with extreme fidelity ending up with a strangelooking nonfunctional scenario. That's when you abandon fidelity and start making concession to enjoyability and believability. It is better that it looks and feels real, than it is real but looks and feels nothing like it.

Having said all that, Panzerman delivered the golden rule in more appropriate brevity of course. If you enjoy historical research and setups, do them. You can always regulate balance by the modest "scripting" gagues in the game. Time, locked setups, exit conditions, flag numbers and values, condition and quality of the units. You know.

Cheerio

Dandelion