Validation team recrutiment

[Skanvak]

Well all those rantings on the game is tiring me BUT I do reckon something should be true. I don't have much time to make what I think should be done to make a correct report about the game, so I would like to see if I can find a couple of voluntary people to try the following things :

Play the game following the strategy and detail moves chosen historically by both side.

Then do an AAR which compare to the historical battle.
Of course this would lead to a lot of research as the movment of each division would have to be research, which could lead to surprising result, I am sure.

This way we could see the flaw in the game compare to the design. (ranting about the design is out of the subject and both thing should be kept separated).

[56ajax]

I understand what your aiming to find out but I would have thought it would be impossible to do...what do you do when the game throws up a result that historically did not happen...no matter what you do the game differs from history the moment you say Yes to End T1

[Skanvak]

Normally it should even out. The point is to see how far it will diverge. Of course you cannot follow the move exactly at the division level, but it is quite possible to not move the russian Army from Kiev or to chose to divert the 3rd panzer army or keep assaulting Leningrad for a given number of turn. If both side does the same strategy and operational move they did historically, the game shouldn't diverge notably. At least on the average.

[SgtKachalin]

Interesting idea. May I suggest whoever does this agree on using only one or two sources, heavy on maps, for use in determining what is "historic". Otherwise it may degenerate into arguing what happened in history before it ever gets translated into game moves.

[color]

I would suggest to rather try to replicate movements at the corps or army level, division level sounds just too complicated.

[Skanvak]

Baker and Color, that sounds good ideas to start.