Realism (mapping and scenarios)

[DanOppenheim]

I've got a bunch of questions about realism, particularly with regards maps and scenarios.

Do people prefer absolute realism in their maps? Would a map that is entirely synthetic be OK? Is an intrusion of synthetic qualities into historical maps OK if it adds some new interesting possibility or objective? Would realistic maps based on places that never saw any WWII action be OK, perhaps North America?

What about battles/forces? I know there were the Sealion scenarios for CotA, but how about even more theoretical scenarios? Extending the NA mapping idea above, how about a scenario such as a German invasion of the US? Rather ridiculous, but would that actually be too far down the fantasy road for it to be enjoyable? How about forces that feature weapons and units that might have occurred if the war had lasted for ten more years? Alternative histories, in other words. Based on the progress made, so not entirely fantastical, but extrapolated so to add new, better units into the mix.

Quite simply, I want to know how far from geographical and historical reality things can get before players throw up their hands and run screaming from the weirdness. [:)]

[ElchDivision]

Hi Mate,

for me at least anything as hypothetical as a german invasion of the US belongs into the fantasy realm and personaly i would not play it. If recreating historical battles I prefer absolute realism concerning maps and forces.
Just my two cents though...

Bis später

Rob

[henri51]

I am not particularly interested in a German invasion of the US, but I am interested in scenarios that depict hypothetical situations, especially if they are fun and instructive.

Henri

[DanOppenheim]

Thanks for the feedback.

Would people play red vs blue scenarios, i.e. without any historical context, as long as they contained an interesting balance of forces in an interesting scenario on an interesting map? I find that I get most enjoyment from the act of command, rather than the historical setting, although I do enjoy the flavour a bit of history gives.

I'm asking because, although I've read my history and I could do reasonably on an intermediate WWII (pub) quiz, I doubt very much that I could create scenarios that would be to a sufficient level of historical detail that they wouldn't annoy the more fastidious grognards amongst us! I could go and find a battle and read up on it and develop the estabs and write the scenario, but frankly, between a wife and a full-time job that often demands long hours from me, I could never do it justice. I'd rather just sit down and make something up for fun. However, I do what to try to create some scenarios that others might like, hence my questions.

[bairdlander2]

It doesnt matter what others think,if you want to create "fantasy" scenario's have at it.Im sure someone will create a "zombie" mod,possibly me.But i am considering a Vietnam mod at the moment if that is possible.

[Bamilus]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

It doesnt matter what others think,if you want to create "fantasy" scenario's have at it.Im sure someone will create a "zombie" mod,possibly me.But i am considering a Vietnam mod at the moment if that is possible.

A World War Z mod would be funny [:D]

[DanOppenheim]

You're correct of course, bairdlander, but I'd rather put the effort into something that people will enjoy than just something only I'll play.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: ElchDivision

Hi Mate,

for me at least anything as hypothetical as a german invasion of the US belongs into the fantasy realm and personaly i would not play it. If recreating historical battles I prefer absolute realism concerning maps and forces.
Just my two cents though...

Bis später

Rob

I agree...after all its a wargame designed on the basis of WW2 combat..it also prides itself in realism....why alter the fundamental selling point.

I feel possibley WW1 to Veitnam would be OK. However Jungle warfare I feel would require additional programming to work properly.

[DanOppenheim]

I can see your point, wodin, but, as I said above, the main selling point for me is the command system and the AI. It's these that I'd like to play about with and, as someone who has neither the knowledge nor time to do realism properly, I'd rather concentrate on maps, scenarios and force composition, even if they don't match something realistic.

I wouldn't be going away from the WWII doctrine, however, as it's built into the engine and doesn't appear configurable.

[Redmarkus5]

East Front, please.  Total Realism also or I won't play it

[FredSanford3]

One thing about strictly hypothetical scenarios that is more realistic is the greater uncertainty about what you're facing. Despite all the orders delay modifications, no one is truly "surprised" that there's lots of Germans attacking when playing a historical Dec. 16th scenario as the US.

A completely hypothetical scenario will tend to make people more conservative in their play I'll wager. I'm for entertainment. The tutorial got a lot of play time for the fun of it apparently, and it's hypothetical.

[wodin]

Tell you what might work well....

Patton vs Zuchov......Western Allies joins forces with Germany to stop Russian Steamroller threat....

As its hypothetical East Front doctrine etc wouldn't matter anymore...

[OlegHasky]

Patton vs Zuchov......Western Allies joins forces with Germany to stop Russian Steamroller threat

Isnt that the case that was reflected in one of the DB series?
The hypothetical value of such conflict was close enough, that it was a pleasure to take a part in this.

And thats where it hits for me.. The hypothetical distance meassure.
There are some boarders.
And two worlds acceptable.
Scenarios with close hypothetical probability. Or pure, hardcore fantasy rising in the outskirts of imagination (human-android warfare [:D]). All in-between will just not exist for me.