Opinions of 1.05?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Why make a lopsided campaign? Because people want to win it. If you make a series of equally matched battles, you would get large portions of your force wiped out between battles and there would be very little continuity. I would go so far as to say that a campaign can only be lopsided to be playable when it has the constraints of modern combat.

Hmm, this is becoming a bit random.

So by saying that the war consisted only of lopsided engagements between things such as Russian conscripts and elite German halftrack infantry, what you're actually saying is that the entire reason CMSF has a lopsided campaign is because the designers cannot solve the simple game mechanic problem of a player losing any substantial amount of their force in a given engagement.

However - lopsided campaigns are only playable in a modern setting - because players want to "win."

Well, I don't understand any of it - but take the topic wherever you want it - has nothing to do with your original assertion or my answer to it.

Excuse me? I seem to recall many comments on the ahistorical methods required to make a CMX1 battle equal in all but the most specific situations. Things like the limits on allied artillery in CMAK, or CMBB Germans possessing more tanks in a company engagements than they had on the whole front, or early war Russians actually being able to conduct tactical manoeuvre.

I'll quote my previous message - because it seems that maybe you're addressing a different point or a different person entirely.

"WW2 is replete with examples of interesting, evenly matched, *combined arms* engagements where there wouldn't have to be arbitrary, silly restrictions to the player's methods and resources."

[flamingknives]

I can only explain how I see it:

I stated that you could create a lopsided campaign in WW2, you asked why one would want to, so I supplied a reason. Seems logical enough to me.

Quite why you've taken it to a bizarre absolute is beyond me, although I think we can make some sense if I turn it around.

As I understand it, you are claiming that because BFC have chosen to set their campaign following a company of highly trained US soldiers in light armoured vehicles, in a series of lopsided engagements, that all modern warfare is dull and uninteresting?

Am I correct?

As for this:

...what you're actually saying is that the entire reason CMSF has a lopsided campaign is because the designers cannot solve the simple game mechanic problem of a player losing any substantial amount of their force in a given engagement.

Well, it's less of a simple game mechanic and more of a fundamental feature of warfare. A fair fight will cause heavy losses on both side, which is why they are to be strenuously avoided.

Now, just because WW2 is replete with example of evenly matched combined arms engagements doesn't mean that a BFC, WW2 game would necessarily follow it. They might well choose to follow an elite halftrack unit of hampster-truppen through a series of lopsided engagements, which would be just as dull, surely?

My other comments were addressing your:

where there wouldn't have to be arbitrary, silly restrictions to the player's methods and resources

To show that WW2 games, where CMX1 is arguably one of the more realistic, use all manner of abitrary, silly restrictions to the player's methods and resources to make an even game. One side has more than it ought, another has less, C-cubed is magically evened out on all sides

[Sirocco]

I'm not even going to bother spending time reading that.

I will add, we should reclaim our collective tax expenditure since WW2, as obviously the SMLE and Bren, sans tripod, would have sufficed to this day.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

As I understand it, you are claiming that because BFC have chosen to set their campaign following a company of highly trained US soldiers in light armoured vehicles, in a series of lopsided engagements, that all modern warfare is dull and uninteresting?

Am I correct?

Not a statement that I ever made here.

Well, it's less of a simple game mechanic and more of a fundamental feature of warfare. A fair fight will cause heavy losses on both side, which is why they are to be strenuously avoided.

This isn't what you said, originally. Your concerns were game related. To quote:

"Why make a lopsided campaign? Because people want to win it. If you make a series of equally matched battles, you would get large portions of your force wiped out between battles and there would be very little continuity. I would go so far as to say that a campaign can only be lopsided to be playable when it has the constraints of modern combat."

Now, just because WW2 is replete with example of evenly matched combined arms engagements doesn't mean that a BFC, WW2 game would necessarily follow it. They might well choose to follow an elite halftrack unit of hampster-truppen through a series of lopsided engagements, which would be just as dull, surely?

Your assertion was that they had no option - that the war consisted only of uneven engagements.

To show that WW2 games, where CMX1 is arguably one of the more realistic, use all manner of abitrary, silly restrictions to the player's methods and resources to make an even game. One side has more than it ought, another has less, C-cubed is magically evened out on all sides

A WW2 setting provides more options for even, interesting engagements than does a modern setting. WWII did not consist entirely of uneven matches, and does not provide the same set of restricted tools that a modern US vs Syria setting provides. Balance modifications in CMAK do not make true the ridiculous statement that the war consisted entirey of "Russian conscripts VS elite German halftrack infantry."

[ December 29, 2007, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[flamingknives]

Sirocco:

Interesting debating style. Presumably in a spoken discussion you would have your fingers in your ears and be shouting "la la la I can't hear you!"

If you care for it, perhaps you could explain how a section with M4 rifles changes tactics compared to one with M1 Garands, or perhaps MP44s?

Molotov_billy

Sorry - must have been someone else. But to give you an idea, that's the sort of complaint I am working against.

If you look at my comments earlier, you'll note that I don't actually mention the game, but the constraints of modern combat. Basically, the game has to be as true to life as it can be so in the game, as in real life, a series of equal engagement would ruin continuity by causing too many casualties. That, as per my original statement, is not specific to that game.

I did not intend to claim that the conflict was restricted to uneven engagements, merely that it did include them and would seem to consist of those from a certain point of view.

A WW2 setting provides more options for even, interesting engagements than does a modern setting. WWII did not consist entirely of uneven matches, and does not provide the same set of restricted tools that a modern US vs Syria setting provides. Balance modifications in CMAK do not make true the ridiculous statement that the war consisted entirey of "Russian conscripts VS elite German halftrack infantry.

WW2, in its entirity, possibly, but a CMX2 WW2 game will be of the same limited scope as CM:SF. Therefore it might be based in an era where one side has a significant materiel and skill advantage over the other. The campaign would be a series of lopsided engagements, whatever year or location it is.

One last thing, please refrain from telling me what my opinion is. If you are not sure, ask.

[Sirocco]

Well, you know, I don't respond well to being talked down to, that's one thing. And I've learned from previous experience here that if your view on something doesn't correlate to that held by BFC in whole or part you just don't get it. So I save time and skip the responses.

[Panzer76]

Some of us just want to play a *game* that gives us interesting challanges and the oppertunity for *balanced* battles vs other players.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If you look at my comments earlier, you'll note that I don't actually mention the game, but the constraints of modern combat.

It isn't very useful to discuss something when your opinions and ideas change from message to message. I'll bring out your quote again, and highlight the key words that tell me your concerns, originally, were game related.

" Why make a lopsided campaign? Because people want to win it. If you make a series of equally matched battles, you would get large portions of your force wiped out between battles and there would be very little continuity. I would go so far as to say that a campaign can only be lopsided to be playable when it has the constraints of modern combat."

Unless campaigns and battles are "made" in real life, and officers care about such things as continuity and playability, then what you were specifically talking about is a game and it's mechanics.

Change it if you like, though it makes a productive argument impossible if you do so.

Basically, the game has to be as true to life as it can be so in the game, as in real life, a series of equal engagement would ruin continuity by causing too many casualties. That, as per my original statement, is not specific to that game.

Who's concerned about continuity on a real life battlefield? Are officers concerned about the entertainment value of what they're doing, completely on par with the goals of a novel or a video game campaign? Absolutely not, the two do not connect.

I did not intend to claim that the conflict was restricted to uneven engagements, merely that it did include them and would seem to consist of those from a certain point of view.

Here's what I have to go off of, and this is exactly what I replied to:

"It's like playing CMBB with crack panzergrenadier battalion in -41 against understrength conscript company. Every time."

Your reply:

Well, isn't that the historical reality? If someone were to make a historically accurate campaign for WW2, it would be exactly that.

Will this be the case with every one of your replies - that what you said, and what I specifically quote, wasn't exactly what you meant, wasn't your intention, "but this is actually what I really meant?" Forget it.

You've retracted what you originally said, what I claimed to be false, so that's fine. I think I've learned enough about how this works to not touch any of the rest of your points. Turns out that my original "No" was more than enough.

One last thing, please refrain from telling me what my opinion is. If you are not sure, ask.

I don't have to tell you what your opinion is, and I've never done so - you've explicitly written out what it is you're trying to say, and everything I've said in turn has been underneath an exact, word for word quote of your own. The failing here was that you weren't able to clearly explain what your opinions were, or that you find it more important to change your opinions on the fly as soon as anybody has a problem with them. Either way, it's an exercise in frustration, and a grand waste of time.

[ December 30, 2007, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[flamingknives]

Ok, I see where you are coming from. Yes the campaign is an inherent part and a construct of a game. Any game that has a campaign. I would suggest that real-life officers, and more particularly the men under their command, do care very much about continuity, but that wasn't my original point, which was why you would make a lopsided campaign. For a game.

From the top:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />FK:

CM:SF is, by its very definition, all about a Stryker company fighting its way into Syria.

If you took a similar campaign but set in WW2, you could make it just as lopsided while remaining absolutely historically accurate.

m_b: Now explain why one would do such a thing.

</font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

Well, you know, I don't respond well to being talked down to, that's one thing. And I've learned from previous experience here that if your view on something doesn't correlate to that held by BFC in whole or part you just don't get it. So I save time and skip the responses.

Yet here you still are. You seem very set that modern warfare is vastly removed from the WW2 experience. Could you explain how you reached this conclusion? Perhaps you could describe the turning points and the key technologies.

Because I just don't get it.

[Sirocco]

Honestly, you're here to defend CMSF, even BFC by implication. And loyalty is no bad thing. But going over this with you would be a pointless exercise. Black is white, white is black, I get it. A section with SMLE's puts out as much firepower as one with SA80's, PIAT is comparable to a Javelin, I take your point.

[molotov_billy]

To simplify, because it's a mess:

Did WW2 consist entirely of one-sided engagements?

No. (Which was my clear and direct answer to the exact statement that I quoted.)

So a miscommunication there - we both agree on that point.

Other things, not related, but part of this thread and it seems worthwhile discussing:

Does WW2 provide a larger set of tools to make a more interesting set of battles, campaigns, or anything of the sort?

Yes

When given the choice, are lopsided campaigns, battles, and scenarios the desirable end effect of a video game experience?

For the vast majority of people, absolutely not. Providing a challenge is a key concept in making any competitive experience an enjoyable one - lopsided matches become tedious and uninteresting very quickly.

Is the problem of "continuity" an issue that absolutely prevents scenarios, campaigns, and operations from being evenly matched engagements?

Again, no. Completely solvable through game mechanics, regardless of anybody's perception of what the real life thing is.

Given that WW2 is full of examples of evenly matched battles and campaigns, that lopsided battles are not desirable, and that a balanced campaign is a completely achievable goal, one would wonder why a WW2 campaign in a video game setting should ever be a lopsided cakewalk.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Yet here you still are. You seem very set that modern warfare is vastly removed from the WW2 experience. Could you explain how you reached this conclusion? Perhaps you could describe the turning points and the key technologies.

Because I just don't get it.

I think JasonC summed it up pretty well in one of his posts, maybe even this thread, but I'd rather not sift back through 10 pages.

Anyway, perhaps not funadmental differences, but certainly some key differences that absolutely affect the way a person would play the game, or do the real thing.

The major evolution is that nearly any weapon system on the battlefield can destroy any other weapon system, at almost any range. No, rifles cannot destroy tanks, but a typical modern rifle squad or platoon can destroy anything on the battlefield, as long as they can see it.

The same is true with nearly any other weapon system - tanks, ifv's, strike aircraft, helicopters, C-130's bristling with guns of all calibres, even unmanned aerial vehicles. My javelins in CMSF can do just about anything any other weapon system can do. Roles completely overlap, and a commander doesn't have to be nearly as careful about putting the correct weapon system in the right place at the right time. When protection isn't adequate, the only major fundamental difference between weapon systems is their ability to spot eachother.

WW2 weapon systems were more of the rock-paper-scissors type. Specific vehicles were effective at specific things - just look at tanks. Where is the modern tank destroyer, the modern anti-tank gun, the modern infantry support vehicle? The abrams covers all of those things, and then some. In a pinch, the modern assault rifle can take the place of a machinegun, a sniper rifle, a submachinegun, a grenade, even a mortar. We may still have those things in modern warfare, but the differences are becoming increasingly subtle.

Secondly, in terms of fire and maneuvre, the focus has largely shifted to the firepower side of things. I do not have to carefully move my infantry squad to within 100 meters of the side or rear of a tank to kill it - As soon as I see it, my Javelin can destroy it, any angle or range.

The increasing lethality of weapon systems has put an absolute burdern on moving anything anywhere. Unless my opponents are armed with AK47's and are terrible shots, moving infantry outside of absolute cover is suicide. Modern optics and rates of fire make it so. A bolt action rifle (or even an MP44, which was rare enough to not be a fair comparison) is absolutely different than an M4 with 4x optics, a high rate of fire, a grenade launcher, etc.

[ December 30, 2007, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[flamingknives]

I'm not here to defend CM:SF, as such. It's just that my views of modern combat seem to be quite close to BFC's so it can often seem like I am.

Perhaps we could be more specific. How do the SMLEs fare against SA80s at beyond 600m? Perhaps we could see how SA80s fare against PPsHs below 100m? The WW2 2" mortar and the modern 51mm mortar are the same thing, 81mm mortars have more range, lethality and accuracy, but they are fundamentally still throwing a 3" high explosive bomb. Being on the recieving end of a Vickers is surely not much different from being on the recieving end of a GPMG in SF role, a modern MG3 is all but identical to a WW2 MG42.

Modern body armour takes the sting out of fragmentation, so perhaps the balance is tipped more in favour of small arms, but then artillery has got more lethal and body armour these days takes the sting out of small arms.

The fundamentals of the weapons are the same, but parameters have changed slightly. Not, IMHO, enough to change fundamental tactics. Possibly it might make a difference in the minutiae of a computer game, but I suspect there are other factors at work that are more significant.

I'd put ATGM as comparable to anti-tank guns rather than infantry AT like the PIAT or Bazooka. Certainly the older command-to-line-of-sight weapons, as they tend to be heavier, more fixed in position and easier to locate. Javelins are a step ahead and likely to profoundly alter armour tactics, especially when they are available in such proliferation as the US have it.

Defilade, however, still works, infantry scouting ought to work, suppression would work, find, fix and flank ought to be the staple of the day, same old same old.

[molotov_billy]

If any of that were completely true, we'd have seen an entirely different outcome in 1991 - and that's with a tech difference nearly half of what you're suggesting. It was an absolute slaughter, in a case where the technologically superior side was outnumbered and had the burden of attacking. It has been the same for the past 30+ years in any conventional engagement when one side has had a technological advantage, even as little as a decade or two.

SA80 performance compared to the SMLE and PPSH - not the point, and data that we both know isn't freely available. The point is that the SA80 replaces both of them and then some - and as I said earlier, can substitute the role of the MG3 nearly as well.

ATGM's compareable to anti-tank guns (No! But I'll let that one go) and Bazookas - again, the point is that a single weapon system replaces the usefulness of a half dozen others, and is a modest replacement for nearly any other weapon system on the battlefield.

"81mm mortars have more range, lethality and accuracy, but they are fundamentally still throwing a 3" high explosive bomb."

Why does the similarity of the mechanics of the weapon system matter when the end effect is exceedingly different? The difference is that I don't need a platoon of mortars which can only saturate an area, and is only worthwhile against troop concentrations - I can use a single tube, and drop a couple of airbursts over a trench, destroying a specific target. I can do the same thing with a strike aircraft, a helicopter, an unmanned aerial drone, whatever happens to be in the area.

Defilade does not work against an Apache hovering out of earshot, watching your every movement in IR. (or a c130, or a drone, or a strike aircraft, etc etc)

What type of JDAM did they use back in the 40's?

Find, fix, and flank - increasingly outmoded these days, and you see less and less of it from afghanistan and iraq. Generally the solution is to find the nearest cover, suppress the enemy, call in an airstrike. Movement gets you killed. Flanking becomes less of an option when effective engagement ranges of small arms require you to stay a kilometer away, at minimum - and this is against enemies with, as I said before, AK47's and near zero training with them.

Force size - the modern platoon has more firepower than a WW2 company. Masses of men and machines are not required to make headway into any area, even into the toughest defenses. Why send a company to attack a machinegun when I have a list of a dozen weapon systems that can destroy the machinegun without a loss? I don't need anything specific, whatever happens to be around.

It is correct to say that WW2 was the first modern war, and that the basics of every future weapon system came into existence at some point in that war. But to say the evolution of those weapon systems makes only a subtle difference in the execution of warfare, is to me, just off the wall bizarre.

Here again is, in my mind, the fundamental difference that you didn't address in your reply:

Nearly any weapon system can destroy almost anything else, roles completely overlap, and a commander doesn't have to be nearly as careful about putting the correct weapon system in the right place at the right time.

[ December 30, 2007, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[flamingknives]

Thermal imagers and advanced electro optics are big advances, as is air support, but Sirocco seems hung up on small improvements in small arms.

The MG3 is the MG42, except chambered for 7.62mm NATO rather than 7.92mm Mauser. The M2 is still widely used - the British adopted it in the ground role quite recently - so small arms technology hasn't advanced that far. The 81mm mortar is still in use, lobbing unguided bombs a couple of kilometres.

Kalashnikovs are hardly so lethal that you have to stay 1000m away. Possibly you might want to stay that far from the airstrike you've just called in, since fast jets are notoriously bad at target discrimination, even if you've just given the co-ordinates.

The introduction of optical sights is probably more significant than the adoption of a larger magazine for a semi-automatic weapon (M1 vs M4) Automatic fire with an assault rifle is little different to automatic fire from a sub machine gun - i.e. short range only.

[Sirocco]

No matter how much you bait me with your trolling, I'm not getting into this. I have far more useful things to do with my time. And with that, consider the field yours, for what it's worth.

[flamingknives]

Ah yes, that'll do it, label me a troll.

Heaven forbid that this might be a discussion forum rather than a "Make vague statements then not back them up" forum.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, let's calm this down a bit

First, we have to understand that this is a topic that is 98% opinion, and since opinions will differ it's silly for anybody to think that their own position is beyond reproach. The following are my opinions...

As I've said, many times before, the game is inherently balanced. Or at least it is no less balanced than any of our previous CM games. If you want to make an evenly matched battle between US and Syrian forces, there are countless ways to do this. They will likely be "historically inaccurate", but that's different than saying things aren't balanced.

"Historically accurate" battles in CMx1 were no more likely to be balanced than in CM:SF. In a real war neither side wants a balance. They have zero incentive to do this! For example, in WW2 days the attacking side was not supposed to attack unless it had 3:1 (or greater) force at its disposal. If it didn't have such a force, then in theory it wouldn't attack and therefore no battle would take place. Likewise, the defender tried to keep the ratio favorable to its stance, perhaps even withdrawing if reinforcements weren't possible and an enemy attack were likely.

Therefore, it's a bit silly to argue that a game should have tactical battles that are "balanced" and "historically accurate". It's generally got to be one or the other, not both.

It's very easy to create a battle in CM:SF where the US forces get their assess handed to them. Sure, there might be a lot of flaming Syrian wreckage and bodies scattered all over the place to achieve it, but that's not a drawback. CMBB was filled with matchups like this, same with CMAK. Heck, even CMBO too if the Germans had certain things and the Allies didn't. Therefore, the player must adjust his expectations of what "balanced" is.

"Balanced" is not two forces starting out with roughly equal numbers and quality forces. "Balanced" is two sides having a roughly equal chance of winning. As long as the game allows an inherently inferior force to lose a lot more, or score more points for their kills, then everything is fine. CMx2 allows this to a far greater degree than CMx1 ever could. Additionally, CMx2 allows for Blue vs. Blue and Red vs. Red battles, which means you can have 100% parity of numbers and types of units if you should so choose. Sure, it isn't "historically accurate", but as stated the entire concept of "balance" is historically inaccurate from the start.

As for the tactics element of this discussion, there isn't much different about tactics in CM:SF than any CMx1 game. Combined arms are basically the same and most have roughly the same capabilities. The exceptions are AT (both sides) and air capabilities (Blue). Not that the concepts have changed any, just their effectiveness (accuracy and lethality) and tactical flexibility (range). But the basics are still the same as they were 60 years ago. I think anybody in uniform who has studied WW2 tactics would agree.

And yes, the Campaign we shipped with the game is designed to have the Blue win most of the battles most of the time provided there is competent leadership (i.e. a good player). That's the way all Campaigns are in all games. They are designed to challenge, not to defeat. If someone doesn't like this, they can create/use their own Campaigns that do things differently. The manual explains how to do this.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

I would add that given the massive tech disconnect between blue and red in CMSF, "balance" is much harder to achieve in the scenario. True there are more levers and triggers and A/I tweaks in CM2 than in CM1, but it takes a smart scenario designer to employ them properly.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"Historically accurate" battles in CMx1 were no more likely to be balanced than in CM:SF. In a real war neither side wants a balance. They have zero incentive to do this! For example, in WW2 days the attacking side was not supposed to attack unless it had 3:1 (or greater) force at its disposal. If it didn't have such a force, then in theory it wouldn't attack and therefore no battle would take place. Likewise, the defender tried to keep the ratio favorable to its stance, perhaps even withdrawing if reinforcements weren't possible and an enemy attack were likely.

Assuming everyone was being rational, didn't have restrictive orders from higher ups, had perfect intel.. Also it becomes mighty hard to cram great number of troops into an arbitarily narrow zone. Can't fight a division out of a single road and all that.

I'm saying is that you very well may have "even" force match-up in a given small zone but on divisional level one side is getting creamed. And the hard-fighting company/battalion is screwed due to being cut off even if they beat their "immediate" fight.

And that was the gist of my argument, even on -41 autumn there were battles that would be very "challenging" for germans on company/battalion level.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

And that was the gist of my argument, even on -41 autumn there were battles that would be very "challenging" for germans on company/battalion level.

This sounds very true. The Russians didn't get creamed in 1941 because they lost every single engagement of company size on up. They got creamed because they lost the strategically pivotal battles they had to win to avoid being encircled and cut off from their supplies.

In a future war with Syria I'm sure the US would technically lose a few small engagements due to foul ups in the chain of command, wrong turns, friendly fire, etc. It just wouldn't lose the ones that really mattered. CM:SF simulates the foul ups.

[molotov_billy]

Nonsense abound. The war had a series of significant turn arounds at every level of organization - entire fronts fluctuating across continents, operational back hands and back blows on the order of severeal thousand, turning the tide of indivual battles hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times. How many times did the tractor factory change hands, or any random hill at Kursk?

How does one explain to me, then, that the only thing a commander has to do is to hold up three fingers, make a wish, and the battle is won. It's naive fantasy at best. Where did all of these stalemates and reversals come form? Did the typical German and Russian officer not know how to count to three?

Nevermind that the 3 to 1 ratio is just a rule of thumb, something that becamse incredibly nebulous given different force types, equipment, training, positioning - that proper intelligence almost never existed, and that war during 1940 was an akward, ungraceful hurling of men and machines in various directions which might contain less of the enemy, but oftentimes contained just as many, or twice as many. But BFC, try as they might, can only find lopsided scenarios.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Nope - lopsided scenarios were a decision, not a requisite of reality.

I'm not interested in building a scenario for a flawed product - give me a correct set of features, an interesting enviroment, the game mechanics to mirror reality (not just a one-sided yawn fest) without silly arbitrary scenario designer tricks, and I'm sure I could take a crack at making a campaign. But wait - I'm the customer, and you're the guy getting paid, so maybe that isn't the way it's supposed to work, is it? I'm still waiting on a finished product that I paid $50 for.

[ January 02, 2008, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

And yes, the Campaign we shipped with the game is designed to have the Blue win most of the battles most of the time provided there is competent leadership (i.e. a good player). That's the way all Campaigns are in all games.

No.

None of it was designed beforehand and it bit you in the bum. Numerous things can be done to solve the problem of hurting their forces, or even destroying them.

The linked set of unrelated scenarios that, coincidentally, have to be played in order - the thing you call a "campaign", unfortunately only has the tools available to make itself - a series of "modern" engagements where the tools that make my force modern are arbitrarily stripped away from the player in nearly every scenario - using the silly tricks that scenario designers have learned, based on the limitations of the engine.

I would argue that you are both right and wrong - yes, given a concrete, unchangeable path and a single set of forces, if that set of forces is destroyed, game over. You've restricted yourself to that type of design.

Not the case in real life, not the type of decision making any commander would have. Single sets of forces can be rendered useless, but the battle continues, and there are consequences in real life for poor execution and planning.

[ January 02, 2008, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[flamingknives]

Go on then m_b, explain how.