IMHO reality is overrated

[Greyshaft]

I'm much impressed by the effort that players put into their modding <tips hat to Storm mod and others>. In addition, I think we have all enjoyed the animated conversations about the hïstorical "accuracy" (or otherwise) of this fine game and at this point I want to add some simple comments.

I don't care if Sealion should be impossible - I just want to try it and have a chance of winning it.
I don't care that in reality it is impossible for Generals to know the precise odds before a battle - I like that I can do that.
I completely agree that it is unrealistic to "level up" combat units in a week just by spending enough PP - but IMHO it makes the game flow better.

Therefore I doubt that I will install the Storm mod and thereby deprive myself of the God-like ability to know the odds before an attack. For those who like that sort of stuff then I say good luck to you - enjoy the reality. So call me a philistine - I don't care. I play the game just to to have fun and I daresay that the majority of purchasers have the same motivation. The game is big enough for all of us to play it in our own way.

I just ask the developers to keep reality as an optional rule.

[doomtrader]

Don't worry. We want to improve gaming experience and will hear your voice ( I think this is visible in the patch ), but still keep the game pretty simple and accessible for average player.

[JLPOWELL]

Good point FUN is the primary objective here. I like most of us (IMO) like the 'feel' of at least plausable historical accuracy. True accuracy is a very abstract and practically unatainable thing.

Historical pontification is part of the fun of the forums where the game basis for some beer & pretsel conversations, we can't take these too seriously either.

[Romdanzer]

GOOD POINT! - I agree as well - and actually though the games made by Wastelands Interactive are always very well moddable so that it makes them very easy to cater to both types of players. Ones like you with the un-modded original with the main point being playability and then have players create things like the "Storm" mod for those who like extreme realism. That's the beauty of making games so "moddable".

Romdanzer

[freeboy]

Good point, are you German? Saw you are in Germany,
My family, at least part of my ancestors , imegrated from the Baden Baden area..&nbsp;

[Wolfe1759]

Agree with the Greyshaft.

What I like about ToF is that it is a great simulation of a WW2 ETO board war game, rather than that it is a great simulation of WW2 ETO.

[freeboy]

yep, this is a super fun game... and now I even think the ai may be hard to beat as the USSR! lol
I don't want to see things that are silly, but this is fun...
ie no 25 cv groups in 41.. but so far I am not seeingthese excesses in my server or ai games...
and yes.. I played all the serious games too, GGwite.. taow3... etc etc.. there is a reason why games are popular that are easy to use.. think about it

[aspqrz02]

I understand entirely ... you prefer a fantasy wargame with WW2 elements (and, seriously, I'm not dissing you or your choice) ... its a valid option.

On the other hand, understand that those of us who prefer reality would like equal opportunity to enjoy a game that does closely resemble reality ... and allow as how that, to, is a valid option.

Phil

[Razz1]

I wouldn't call TOF a fantasy game.

That's going over board.

I can easily call War in The East a fantasy game. It's all how you view it and where you draw a line.

[aspqrz02]

You're right, ToF isn't a fantasy game ... however, scenarios that allow impossible things to happen are.

Sealion is impossible, at least with a start date of 3 SEP 39. And, really, even with an earlier start date the Germans simply haven't got the capacity to do all they did historically and also do Sealion ... or, at least, a Sealion that has an actual chance of success that makes attempting it worthwile in geopolitical and economic terms.

Ergo, a Scenario that allows players to "just try it" is a fantasy.

I have no problem with such scenarios, but they are fantasy, and I'm really not interested in playing them. Just as those who like such fantasies will not be interested in playing the sort of historically parametered scenarios I would like.

Knives cut both ways [;)]

Phil

[doomtrader]

Could we use the word fiction instead of fantasy?

Fiction is much closer to 'what if', and when I read fantasy, I always see dragons, wizards and dwarfs, etc.

[aspqrz02]

All campaigns for any wargame are, of course, fictional ... even the ones that closely emulate reality ... for the simple reason that the players have perfect 29:20 hindsight and, generally anyway [:)] avoid making the same mistakes the original parties did ...

I use "Fantasy" for those things that simply couldn't have happened even with 20:20 hindsight because the preconditions made ... whatever ... impossible.

It's not used with any intention to be a pejorative, but perhaps we could call them "Gamey Campaigns" vs "Historical Campaigns", I guess. [;)]

Phil

[Wolfe1759]

I don't disagree with the view that in hindsight some things were (in almost all probabilities) impossible, Sealion is probably a good example of this.

However at the time an invasion of the UK was a very strongly perceived threat/possibility (from both sides) that had to be countered, what other reason (excepting Nazi hubris etc.) could there have been for the Battle of Britain given current historical interpretation.

Thus making Sealion impossible though (most probably)realistic would therefore allow for an unrealistic (or Gamey) British stance (i.e. diverting greater strength to the defence of France knowing that fortress Britain was invulnerable or diversion of the RAF to Norway or Egypt for the same reason)

Having said that aspqrz/Phil makes equally valid comments.

P.S. I still remember rolling up my first Space Opera character and deciding Traveller to be unrealistic in comparison [:)]

[Numdydar]

Fiction Fantasy TO-moto to-MOTO [:)]

No county in the world in 1940 could produce enough sea lift to carry 3 CORPS (2 inf and 1 ARM) anywhere at once. Yet as Germany in 1940 I could accomplish that in three weeks (and still wipe out Russia by 1943). So while there are not any dwarian or elvish units in the game there must be magical items present that the Germans located somewhere to be able to do this. If not fantasy how about Si Fi as Hilter was looking for aliens lol.

Any time a game is started it becomes a non-historical simulation. While it is nice to throw all reality to the wind and see what happens, it does ruin the game (at least for me) when there seems to be no historical restriction on a countries capability on what they could or could not do. This is where the issue lies imho. Belive it or not restricting a country to what they could build/supply/effect/etc. does NOT mean that the game has to be made more complex. The computer version of Decision Games War in The East (which has no AI so must be played by two or more people) is a good example of how a game can balance historcal constraints versus playablity.

Also, surprisingly enough to me at least, is that the Hearts of Iron III series can also be pretty simple IF you assign Army Group HQ's to objectives and do not try and micro manage every unit or corp. This also has the effect of not having to worry about difficultly levels so much as if you play this way the game is more balanced as the AI is fighting itself using the same routines just with the overall objectives set by the player. Of course many of us here LIKE the idea of controlling evey unit, ship, and plane so obviously doing that makes HoI MUCH more complex than ToF [:D]

The bottom line is that without some kind of historical 'brake' on the player, there is no way to judge how well you would do versus the historical record. In that regard ToF does not succeed. But if you want magical (or Si Fi) things to happen, then ToF is fantastic. Just depends on what type of game you are looking for.

[Wolfe1759]

Agree with you historically

BUT

During WW2 a lot of things that were perceived as impossible were achieved and a lot of things that were planed for / attempted were impossible.

To absolutely limit what are in hindsight impossible is no more "realistic" than allowing it to be a possibility.

Should Sealion be very very hard to do - YES, should it be impossible - NO (even though it almost certainly was) because then you alter historical "realism" more by the certainty of it not happening.

My general argument being that being "historical" is potentially less realistic, however what happens should be in the realms of "perceived" possibility.

To me TOF is no less realistic (or more to the point fun) than Third Reich, World in Flames or Totaller Krieg to name some respected if not classic board war games.

[battlevonwar]

It is very boring to play the same strategies over and over and over. The whole point to this is to add variation. A game has it's extreme limitations and is set in a Fictional World of PC 0s and 1s... They only allow so much to be possible anyway. A hard coded rigid strategy like you would have in Gary Grigby's War Between the States gets dull after 5-6 Plays, as does say Guns of August. Both offer several options(more historically accurate).

Why not merely create a Scenario if you're so big on History called, "Fairly Historical Scenario."

This game I have played 4 games so far and won 3 out of 4(1 pending) strategy has been a bit different each time. Invasion of England, Invasion of Russia through The MiddleEast, 2nd Invasion of Russia through Europe.

Much of this wasn't possible, but the Leaders of WW2 played out the Scenario of WW2 100 Xs. What type of variation would you see?

[aspqrz02]

Putting historical constraints in place does not force you to follow "the same old strategies" over and over ... whatever gave you that idea?

The only thing that putting historical constraints in place does do is limit you to realistic strategies ... I've even suggested lot of possible variants that can, or could be, modelled in ToF that were possible, or at least attemptable, and which could be allowed even though probably couldn't have worked ...

For example, if the Germans don't waste time and resources on a Sealion bluff (and the Kriegsmarine knew it was impossible, and pretty much said so ... even the Heer did their planning on the basis that the required resources could be assumed to exist, and carefully never addressed whether they thought that that could ever come to pass or not) then they could, for example, take Malta ... possibly even make an attempted coup de main against Gibraltar (which should at least have a low order probability of success ... a the cost of gutting the U-Boat campaign as the Allies take bases in Portugese and Spanish possessions in retaliation) ... or they could take on Switzerland (at the cost of gutting the Italian Economy for at least a year, if not longer, for a whole slew of reasons) ... or possibly invade Sweden, except, of course, for the massive Von Gamey Redoubtland in the northern forests where the Swedish Army will hide for the rest of the war ... all of which, while risky, and with probable adverse consequences that cannot easily be avoided, were more realistic than Sealion.

YMMV.

Phil

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

Agree with you historically

BUT

During WW2 a lot of things that were perceived as impossible were achieved and a lot of things that were planed for / attempted were impossible.

To absolutely limit what are in hindsight impossible is no more "realistic" than allowing it to be a possibility.

Should Sealion be very very hard to do - YES, should it be impossible - NO (even though it almost certainly was) because then you alter historical "realism" more by the certainty of it not happening.

My general argument being that being "historical" is potentially less realistic, however what happens should be in the realms of "perceived" possibility.

To me TOF is no less realistic (or more to the point fun) than Third Reich, World in Flames or Totaller Krieg to name some respected if not classic board war games.

You are missing the point I was attempting to make. It IS IMPOSSIBLE to build enough sea lift for THREE CORPS in THREE WEEKS in 1940. By anyone. PERIOD. It does not matter what was or was not done historically (or even the extreame range of what was really possible). THIS is the type of things in the game that makes the game beyond the bounds of this world's reality. However in the alternative universe where ToF exists, this can be done.

So if you want to play in a different dimension of time and space, that is all well and good. Just do not expect that what you can accomplish in ToF will bear any resimblance to anything close to what the nations actually involved in this universe's reality could really do with the limiatations they had to work under.

[battlevonwar]

Well, there is an alternative... Add these possibilities. With a good knowledge of history not only can people learn as they play but add in Tactical/Strategic aspects to the game that are missing. I already see so much that could be added for realism and for strategic evolution. Which this debate is good for... I can see where tweaking the events scripts heavily to cause many more things could add in so much.

P.S. In one of my many strategic games we all discussed realism vs fun. Sea Lion, primarily was a focal point... They agreed in the end it was likely impossible .. of course the house rule of no Sea Lion often lead to some nasty abuse of sending 99% of the British Forces to Egypt! [:-]

[aspqrz02]

Yes, I agree entirely ... the use of scripted event choice "trees" could make players carefully consider alternative strategies ... or, at least, the consequences of alternative strategies.

But, as others have noted, the scripts for events are ... not very transparent [X(] ... which makes it hard for modders to, well, mod them [;)]

Phil