Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Nutcase
The thing about strictly historical thinking is that the fact that the events that occurred were not what was 'meant to be'. They were not written in stone as what had to happen. The events that transpired and decisions that were made, big and small, could have been different.
A dynamic campaign that can offer variability based on a different set of events and decisions seems pretty reasonable, in addition of course to more strictly historical campaigns. These events and decisions would largely be completely independent of the player's actions, although the players actions would be part of the input, like successfully destroying radar stations or whatever.
For those of you with a more strictly historical mindset, what do you think about that? I'm kind of curious.
|
Nicely put, that sounds about right. It is on the lines that would be ideal for me. Some actions / attacks happening like they were planned, but not having big enough impact on the Battle outcome. Making out actions and input count for something.
On the other hand - total reenactment of the Battle with every single plane downed as it was would also be boring and impossible to do.
