ORIGINAL: Michael T
People play games for many reasons. Personally, I just don't get why people who are 100% historical sticklers play these games. They are never going to be happy. I don't even know what they are trying to achieve. Because it seems unless the exact same historical result is reached they claim 'the game is broken'.
I think you misread people there. It is not about getting the same results out, that would be a reproduction or reenactment. It is about have different options and different courses, but have them within the realms of the realistically possible. The issue is that within the 3 days the 1st turn represents, the defender only sits idle, while the Axis can bypass and cause havoc. And we all know that particularly AGS found a somewhat prepared, and fiercely fighting opponent that delayed progress a lot. No way the defender should be watching with not at least a single unit moved into the path, or a counterattack here or there. If it would not be for the huge implications that Lvov has, it would probably not worth a discussion, but it is as much a game changer as two or three random mud turns would be for Axis.
However, some of the other points are surely one I'd also hope to see evolve in the next titles. The ZOC thing I find particularly funny. The issue with the static defender and all that derives from that just ranks higher in my list. There is a lot of potential to develop the future titles, and with some luck we may still get some retrofits.



