Will Eagle Day tBtR be a game or a simulation?

[Prospero]

Hello everyone!

I have been reading quietly in this forum for over a year. Now it's time for my first post.

As stated in the title: Will Eagle Day tBtR be a game or a simulation?

A game has the sole purpose of making fun playing it. It should always create dramatic situations to overcome and should be exciting.
A simulation should try to mirror "real life" as best as possible.

So, what will it be?

[K.Pooley]

ORIGINAL: Prospero

Will Eagle Day tBtR be a game or a simulation?

Interesting question, but the way it is phrased presumes part of the answer; suggesting that it must be either 100% or 100% the other. Surely a wargame (the particular sub-type of game that EDTBTR belongs to) aims to produce an enjoyable game by simulating a RL situation. It is a simulation intended to be fun.

It should always create dramatic situations to overcome and should be exciting.

I'm not sure about 'always', as like any simulation there will be boring bits. I love the game (simulation) but sometimes it can be tedious in the extreme (e.g. plotting two-hundred missions in a complex and highly-detailed sequence in order to achieve your aim), while sitting back and watching your plan unfold on the screen can be very exciting.

A game has the sole purpose of making fun playing it.It should always create dramatic situations to overcome and should be exciting.
A simulation should try to mirror "real life" as best as possible.

IMO you're a little confused as to your terms. Or did you actually mean 'Where on the spectrum running from simple-quick-and-easy to difficult-laborious-and-complex does this particular wargame come. I remember that SPI used to rate the difficulty/complexity of their wargames on a scale or of 0 (or maybe it was 1, I can't remember) to 10, so that Monopoly would be rated as a 3.5 say, while a monster like Drang Nach Osten would score a 9.6 or so. You won't find 'fun' anywhere on this scale, as in reality it is a completely different dimension, running off at 90º to the other. How much fun a game is will very greatly depending on the individual, so that while some people would find a game like Monopoly a bit too much like hard work for their taste, I can remember spending many happy hours helping a friend to sort out the many maps and thousand of counters for DNO. Fun, like much of life, is entirely relative.

Kev

[Fallschirmjager]

The game is a pretty good depiction of the air war over Europe from 1943-1945. It has some level of abstraction but the game does pretty good job of placing you in the role of theater commander for the air forces in the ETO.
On the Allied side there is not much you can do as far as close air support. You can attack axis army assets but in a much grander way.
On the Axis side this is not a problem since close air support in the ETO was a almost complete rarity. On the Axis side you can assign patrols and interceptions.
On the Axis side you control air frame and engine production as well as overall war production to a limited degree. This is heavily abtracted but in a good way since the production aspect of the game is just about right in terms of playability and making you think you have taken on a second job.
You have no tactical control of your aircraft outside of telling then where to go, the path they take to get there and the alltitude. After that it is up to each planes ratings and dozens upon dozens of die rolls.
The air combat seems realistic enough and again has enough of a hand off approach to be fun.

So to answer your question. This game is a wargaming classic. It is a big grand game that would be classified as highly realistic if stacked up against all games. As a wargame however, it is still classic and big and grand. But it is extremly playable.
Hell if you want too you can assign every airforce on your side to the AI and let then plan all your raids and sit back and watch. I am not afraid to admit that I consider myself a avid fan of the game and still let the AI plan my raids and then I go in behind and add/delete/modify.
The AI is pretty good at planning. Its only weakness is that it likes to fly into flak traps too often and it is not very good at handling production. If those two aspects are cleaned up then the AI will be a very worth opponent.

[Anthropoid]

Not that it would make me not buy it, but . . . sounds like there is pretty much zilch on the twitch-gamer, action-animations front?

[Hard Sarge]

sorry, not sure how you mean that ?

yes, it is not a reaction, type game (helps with the defender some though)

basicly, the Off player plots there turn, and then sits back and watches what happens, most times screaming when something don't work as they thought it would, the defender waits and tries to defend, sending out patrols and interceptions

defending can be very hectic

(if you mean, he reacts, then you react, then he reacts, then yes, it does not have that, but at times, that is half the fun, really sweet when you can outfox the defender)

[Fallschirmjager]

Good memory and very good instincts are needed to play as the Axis side. As HS said, it is extremly hectic playing as the Axis. You have to judge when to send up your fighters, where too and how many. You have to judge which raids are diversionary, which are serious and you have to make the heart wrenching choice of which parts of the homeland are to be left undefended. It also pains me when I have to send up the same tired fighter group day after day after day and they take 50% casulties in 10 turns.

On the Allied side you need very good planning skills and very good judgement skills to know if your bombing is having an effect and should continue or should be stopped and another group of targets be bombed.
You also have to contend with how many losses you deem to be acceptable and which targets are off limits due to them being just too dangerous to deal with until you get closer airbases or better planes with more range.