What's wrong with being more open-ended?

[Badbonez]

Hello all, I'm new to the boards but I've been a fan of Gary Grigsby's games since playing War in Russia back in the 80's. So I pledge my allegiance to the man and his games.[&o]

Having said that, what's wrong with adding more a-historical components to a strategy game like World at War? I know some dislike "what-ifs" scenarios, but if the game were setup to mimic the historical outcome every time, we already know how it ends. The only way to make a WWII game re-playable is to allow some flexibility in how the outcome is determined. In other words, give the Axis a chance.

I've been reading the 2nd AAR and it is very interesting. But some of the criticisms of the evnts in the game have been over the a-historical outcomes (Germany invading and taking England). But so what? That's what makes these games fun. If we were forced to play a game that just replayed history, how many times would you play it? I think that game replayability is directly proportional to how much variation there is in game setups and outcomes. If you don't agree with the addition of more "what-if" possibilities, I'd sure like to hear why.

And again, this is certainly no criticism of this game, I'm just asking if there aren't more variants that could be added (or will be added). And if you're against these variants, why?

'bonez

[MButtazoni]

I think that game replayability is directly proportional to how much variation there is in game setups and outcomes.

in my notebook on my desk i have about 4 different GE strategies i'd like to try yet, at LEAST 7 WA strategic variations i'd like to try, JA has 5 to try, and i haven't even looked at the SU yet. that's enough variation to keep me busy for the next 5 years.

And again, this is certainly no criticism of this game, I'm just asking if there aren't more variants that could be added (or will be added). And if you're against these variants, why?

when do want the game to ship?

[Badbonez]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

when do want the game to ship?

Yeah, I get that these variants may be outside the scope of the game. Really this question is about historical play vs. a-historical play. I just finished the 2nd AAR and although the outcome was the same (GE is defeated) I the path you took to do it was, too put it mildly, a-historical. I think some people would be less inclined to play the game because of that. However, for me, I am MORE inclined to play because variety = replayability.

So what do you think? Was the wild way the game ended satisfactory? Or are you one of those that feel for this game to be a WWII game, the allies MUST invade Normandy because that's how it was done in '44?

I think some people are like that and I am curious to know why.

[MButtazoni]

Was the wild way the game ended satisfactory?

the begining, middle, end, and all points in between was a blast to play. "satisfactory" is not a word that comes to mind when i play this game. i honestly admit this is the best computer wargame i've ever played.

[Badbonez]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

Was the wild way the game ended satisfactory?

the begining, middle, end, and all points in between was a blast to play. "satisfactory" is not a word that comes to mind when i play this game. i honestly admit this is the best computer wargame i've ever played.

I do not believe you had a good time! If there were only some way to prove to me how fun the game is to play...hmmm, how could you do that...<think><think><think> [;)]

Actually what I meant is are you satisfied even though you ended the game in a way that was not historically accurate? Or if somehow (for whatever reason) Germany invaded South America, would you find that too a-historical? To me, whatever works to get the job done should be allowed and accepted. But there are those that would disagree.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

To me the point is not non-historical endings, but non-historical tactics working. For instance, I find fine German Player disembarking in southern England, I don´t like Germans disembarking in Scotland and from there invading the rest of Britain, but I think that was possible because advanced supply rules were off. To sum up, I like non-historical results achieved with historical resources[:)]