Request another honest answer

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

My 3 cents worth…

I think I'll take my realistic vacuum and clean my surrealistic rug.

Then, I'm going over to Billy Baby's mother's place and stick my land buggy in her after Billy Baby goes to bed (Billy Bob stuck his pro-phaser into a minor and is now doing time in Attica):

"What time is it?" asked the judge of Billy Bob when they met.
"Five to ten," said Billy Bob.
Said the judge, "That's exactly what you get."

Then I'll play my EiA game - after it comes out - and I won't expect anything but the game itself.

[TheGreek]

One thing to remember is that this is supposed to be a GAME. The purpose of a game is to create the feel of the situation without overly burdening the players. EiA as a boardgame did this very well. While some improvements can be made without fundamentally changing the game (such as what happened from the ADG version to the AH version), some changes would alter balance too much. It would take many playtesting sessions to reveal every possible repercussion of a rules change. Perhaps some modifications could be included as optional rules, with a warning that all possible outcomes of this rule have not been tested.

As for people that are worried about "realism", runaway realism can ruin a game. Those of us old enough to remember the heyday of boardgaming with SPI might remember a monster simulation called "Campaign For North Africa". In this one, you had to keep track of things like individual tanks, planes (even pilot ability), trucks, etc. for the entire North African campaign. A unit equipped with Panzer IIIJs had more combat ability than one with Panzer IIIFs. You also had to keep track of every ton of water, supplies, ammo, etc. and truck them from ports to the front lines. While I believe it was tounge-in-cheek, there was even an optional rule called the "Italian Pasta Rule" where Italian units needed an extra water supply point to take into account cooking pasta.

Almost every rule added to create "realism" hurts playability. It is the developer's job to balance the two and for a game of the scale and length of EiA, I feel that to error on the side of playability is the correct choice.

[Hanal]

Ah...the mention of SPI "Monster Games" brings a nostalgic tear to my eye....anyone who combined War in the West and War in the East will recall the amount of detail and difficulty in pulling off a playable WWII game....

[VicKevlar]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Pippin

My 3 cents worth…

I think I'll take my realistic vacuum and clean my surrealistic rug.

Then, I'm going over to Billy Baby's mother's place and stick my land buggy in her after Billy Baby goes to bed (Billy Bob stuck his pro-phaser into a minor and is now doing time in Attica):

"What time is it?" asked the judge of Billy Bob when they met.
"Five to ten," said Billy Bob.
Said the judge, "That's exactly what you get."

Then I'll play my EiA game - after it comes out - and I won't expect anything but the game itself.

You've been warned about this type of post before..........last chance.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar
You've been warned about this type of post before..........last chance.

WHAT? Did you read Pippin's original post? I thought us two boys were having a little harmless fun here.

[Marc von Martial]

No discussions.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Didz
True, but I think you are looking for a justification of your own arguement rather than historical fact.

No, I was looking at some real examples which would apply to the arguement

If we take the 1815 campaign for example the FOW aspect of that campaign which is relevent to a game of this scale is not the confusion over the location of the Prussian Army after Ligny but the mutual confusion over the location of the armies prior to the start of the campaign.

Why is that a more relevant FOW issue than the one previously mentioned?
Even if it is somehow more relevant, all you've done is taken an area roughly the same size as an EIA province, but spread it over two, the level of abstraction in the game will obviously have these issues because historic engagements might not have taken place squarely in one game province.

At that level some form of FOW is justified. Not hiding the armies completely but certainly disquising their level of readiness and displacing their location.

Isn't readiness already handled by not knowing strength? Again, could you explain why your example justifies FOW at this level.

[mrgodo]

We also know that Napoleon despite a quite extensive network of pro-French informers managed to convince himself that the Prussian Army was centred far further south than it actually was and that Charleroi was actually the weak point in the line where the Prussian and Allied armies met. In fact he hit the Prussian Army almost at the centre of its front driving its right flank back into the British rather than away from them and it was only Blucher decision to concentrate at Ligny that created the gap between the two armies. They actually marched away from each other in the opening stages of the campaign.

At that level some form of FOW is justified. Not hiding the armies completely but certainly disquising their level of readiness and displacing their location.

Exactly how many months did the actions of Quatre Bra, Wavre, Ligny and Waterloo last? [;)]

If you're going to present examples, present them by the campaign and in appropriate time scales. So the Brits and Prussians are in the vicinity of Charleroi. Move in, pull your chits!