Panzerfaust
01-20-2004, 01:11 PM
To Mike Selinker:
Whew! It's been a bit since I last posted.
Thanks Mike for replying to my post back at the end of December.
Quote:
-------------------------
“I hope someone important to the development of the game reads this…”
(From the end of my post on December 30, 2003 04:21 AM at the bottom of page 2 in the "New A&A game out in 2004???" thread)
.
-------------------------
"Will I do?
First off, if you're Germany and you don't try to take Stalingrad, you will lose at least 80 percent of your games. Stalingrad has an industrial complex and an AA gun that matter a whole bunch. It's just not a victory city. There was no way we could include all the cities that truly matter.
Similarly, there's no way we would have left out the cities in the United States. This isn't a walk-through of what did occur from 1942-45. It's a game about what could occur, and that includes the Axis invasion and conquest of L.A. and D.C.
As I said in another post, you can write scenarios that make Stalingrad a victory city. Just be aware that you may have to change the setup to make it fair.
Mike "
-------------------------
(Your post on December 30, 2003 12:12 PM at the top of page 3 in the "New A&A game out in 2004???" thread)
Yes, you’ll do. :D I appreciate your comments. Especially when you said "it's a game about what could occur." I agree with you. It’s not that I don’t think that people shouldn’t be able to attack the mainland USA, or that you should “leave out the cities in the United States.” People should both be able to and be encouraged to employ any strategy they think will bring them victory. Gang up on Russia or Germany, go after the USA, or whatever. The more strategies and ways to achieve victory the batter game it will be. A stagnant game with only one option for victory or that locks you into only one outcome every time you play it is not only no fun, but wont sell. With that being said I'm sure you, the other game designers and all the players are all after the same thing here. ;)
My point isn’t about excluding the USA from being a target, but one of balance between historical accuracy and the ability to change the historical outcome. It’s a very tricky balance but the game needs to resemble WWII enough so that it feels like you’re fighting it, and yet it also needs to be different enough so that you’re not locked into the historical outcome ever time you play it. The players need the freedom to make different decisions than the leaders of the nations represented, either to avoid the mistakes they made or to make all new ones. The invasion of mainland USA historically realistic? No way. The invasion of mainland USA fun, and should it be allowed? Sure! smile.gif Again, I know we’re all after the same thing here.
Ok, you’re point is well taken about the US having 2 victory cities. I’m also very pleased to here that Stalingrad is on the map and that it’s been given importance by having a factory and AA gun. That goes a long way to quelling my fears of this new game not resembling WWII enough. I’m still curious though about your response to the proposal I’d made in my last post?
Quote from my post on December 30, 2003 04:21 AM at the bottom of page 2 in the "New A&A game out in 2004???" thread):
--------------------------
“Add Stalingrad.
OR... make it 7 cities on each side (seven's a good number) and then add another city to Germany (Bucharest, Romania for instance... to account for those oil fields that were so important to the German war effort or say another minor axis power's capital or something), but whatever you do add Stalingrad to the game. The war in the east WOULDN'T be the same without it!”
--------------------------
Obviously ignore the part about Stalingrad being “added” as at the time I didn’t know it was represented in the game, but why not just make the number of victory cities 14 (7 per side)? I know 12 is a nice even number that allows each ally to have a nice even 2 cities each, but really I don’t think it would hurt to give Britain 2, the US 2, and USSR 3. I would wager based on the 40-50+ different A&A players I’ve been privileged to play against over my life that they, and most other A&A players, would have more problems with the RIGHT cities being chosen as victory cites than if each side has a nice even number or not.
Even though WWII was a “world” conflict it was still OVERWHELMINGLY dominated by Europe. While Japan’s conflict with China predates this, it was by no means considered a global conflict. No, from the start of WWII (Germany and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland in ‘39 and the allied powers declaration of war shortly there after) Europe would claim the GREAT majority of battles, men and material, casualties both civilian and militarily (the majority of those even were between Germany and the USSR – figures eclipse other allied and axis powers by millions). No offence to the Pacific, which is equally a part of WWII, but it makes sense to give Europe two more cites (Stalingrad and another one to Germany). It not only adds more of an historical element, but adds even MORE strategic possibilities! Always a good thing. smile.gif
Keep up the good work Mike and the rest of the A&A staff! And continue the great tradition of the game since MB first came out with it and the rest of the game-master series (Fortress America, Conquest of the Roman Empire, and Shogun -- A.K.A. now Samurai Swords). Add Stalingrad as a victory city and bump up the number of cities to 14 (giving another one to Germany as well). It’s a great compromise and no one will notice that each side has 7 instead of 6 or that the US and Britain have 2 cities while the USSR has 3, or that Germany has 4 and Japan 3.
Sincerely,
Panzerfaust
[ January 20, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Panzerfaust ]
Whew! It's been a bit since I last posted.
Thanks Mike for replying to my post back at the end of December.
Quote:
-------------------------
“I hope someone important to the development of the game reads this…”
(From the end of my post on December 30, 2003 04:21 AM at the bottom of page 2 in the "New A&A game out in 2004???" thread)
.
-------------------------
"Will I do?
First off, if you're Germany and you don't try to take Stalingrad, you will lose at least 80 percent of your games. Stalingrad has an industrial complex and an AA gun that matter a whole bunch. It's just not a victory city. There was no way we could include all the cities that truly matter.
Similarly, there's no way we would have left out the cities in the United States. This isn't a walk-through of what did occur from 1942-45. It's a game about what could occur, and that includes the Axis invasion and conquest of L.A. and D.C.
As I said in another post, you can write scenarios that make Stalingrad a victory city. Just be aware that you may have to change the setup to make it fair.
Mike "
-------------------------
(Your post on December 30, 2003 12:12 PM at the top of page 3 in the "New A&A game out in 2004???" thread)
Yes, you’ll do. :D I appreciate your comments. Especially when you said "it's a game about what could occur." I agree with you. It’s not that I don’t think that people shouldn’t be able to attack the mainland USA, or that you should “leave out the cities in the United States.” People should both be able to and be encouraged to employ any strategy they think will bring them victory. Gang up on Russia or Germany, go after the USA, or whatever. The more strategies and ways to achieve victory the batter game it will be. A stagnant game with only one option for victory or that locks you into only one outcome every time you play it is not only no fun, but wont sell. With that being said I'm sure you, the other game designers and all the players are all after the same thing here. ;)
My point isn’t about excluding the USA from being a target, but one of balance between historical accuracy and the ability to change the historical outcome. It’s a very tricky balance but the game needs to resemble WWII enough so that it feels like you’re fighting it, and yet it also needs to be different enough so that you’re not locked into the historical outcome ever time you play it. The players need the freedom to make different decisions than the leaders of the nations represented, either to avoid the mistakes they made or to make all new ones. The invasion of mainland USA historically realistic? No way. The invasion of mainland USA fun, and should it be allowed? Sure! smile.gif Again, I know we’re all after the same thing here.
Ok, you’re point is well taken about the US having 2 victory cities. I’m also very pleased to here that Stalingrad is on the map and that it’s been given importance by having a factory and AA gun. That goes a long way to quelling my fears of this new game not resembling WWII enough. I’m still curious though about your response to the proposal I’d made in my last post?
Quote from my post on December 30, 2003 04:21 AM at the bottom of page 2 in the "New A&A game out in 2004???" thread):
--------------------------
“Add Stalingrad.
OR... make it 7 cities on each side (seven's a good number) and then add another city to Germany (Bucharest, Romania for instance... to account for those oil fields that were so important to the German war effort or say another minor axis power's capital or something), but whatever you do add Stalingrad to the game. The war in the east WOULDN'T be the same without it!”
--------------------------
Obviously ignore the part about Stalingrad being “added” as at the time I didn’t know it was represented in the game, but why not just make the number of victory cities 14 (7 per side)? I know 12 is a nice even number that allows each ally to have a nice even 2 cities each, but really I don’t think it would hurt to give Britain 2, the US 2, and USSR 3. I would wager based on the 40-50+ different A&A players I’ve been privileged to play against over my life that they, and most other A&A players, would have more problems with the RIGHT cities being chosen as victory cites than if each side has a nice even number or not.
Even though WWII was a “world” conflict it was still OVERWHELMINGLY dominated by Europe. While Japan’s conflict with China predates this, it was by no means considered a global conflict. No, from the start of WWII (Germany and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland in ‘39 and the allied powers declaration of war shortly there after) Europe would claim the GREAT majority of battles, men and material, casualties both civilian and militarily (the majority of those even were between Germany and the USSR – figures eclipse other allied and axis powers by millions). No offence to the Pacific, which is equally a part of WWII, but it makes sense to give Europe two more cites (Stalingrad and another one to Germany). It not only adds more of an historical element, but adds even MORE strategic possibilities! Always a good thing. smile.gif
Keep up the good work Mike and the rest of the A&A staff! And continue the great tradition of the game since MB first came out with it and the rest of the game-master series (Fortress America, Conquest of the Roman Empire, and Shogun -- A.K.A. now Samurai Swords). Add Stalingrad as a victory city and bump up the number of cities to 14 (giving another one to Germany as well). It’s a great compromise and no one will notice that each side has 7 instead of 6 or that the US and Britain have 2 cities while the USSR has 3, or that Germany has 4 and Japan 3.
Sincerely,
Panzerfaust
[ January 20, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Panzerfaust ]