Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
ray o'hara schreef:
> the game is pushing the romance of one side, games
> with nappy frogs and cw rebs do it too. they are the sexy side, most it
> seems play against the ai so make it favor the sexy side. too many games
> make those sides invincible as if the idea was to feed ego over game
> balance.
The losing side in a big conflict is always the sexy side - why ? -
because one of the attractions of wargaming is that you can "change
history" - This "change history" used to be prominently printed on
(board)game boxes as a marketing slogan - it worked for me
> too many games have panzer or rommel or r.e lee in the name over
> the years. then the games back up the titles bias.
The other way around would make no sense would it ? If you buy a game
named "Rommel" you kinda expect a special "Rommel" counter which when
stacked with other units gives it a combat bonus or such.
In other words : you get what you paid for.
I agree that too many wargames seem contend to stick to Napoleon, ACW
and WWII - maybe because these were conflicts in which one side seemed
to be winning, reaching a high tide and then the other side slowly went
to achieve victory. This makes for games in which both players get
their chance to attack - which is more fun than to defend all the time.
There was a thread in soc.history.what-if sometime ago on "most unknown
battle" - did some reading-up based on what was posted there - you
wouldn't believe what scope there still is for very interesting
campaigns/battles outside the Euro/USA popular history books.
Unfortunately : the biggest portion of the buying public for wargames
is situated in Europe/USA hence you will be hard pressed to find a game
on the Taiping Rebellion in China (more deaths than WWII - a seesaw
action - colourfull characters - everything)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram