Quote:
Originally Posted by Furio
Looks like my previous post killed the debate!
|
Not quite, I did follow the discussion, but I had the impression that we were talking without an end and sometimes without proper responses, therefore I didn't respond either...
It's a game. It has to be playable to be called a game properly. If you recreate historical circumstances, sometimes it will be playable easily (white), sometimes hardly (grey), and sometimes not at all (black). Black does not make sense, like a late-war Japanese torpedo bomber campaign according to history. You either avoid it at all or brutally cheat history in order to make it playable. So simple.
As to grey, here come the many shades. Even with good survival chances, you'll have to hit the 'refly' button from time to time. How frequently, depends on your skills and on scenario design. There are many ways to improve your chances and your playing experience, even if you stick to history. This is what we call 'balancing': it's cheating in a historically legitimate way. On the tactical level, you only enter combat when you have the advantage, right? Now you can do the same on the strategic level too: even outnumbered forces can achieve local superiority, and you are at liberties at recreating those situations with preference.
Or think of the G.50. It has such a low speed that it is theroretically unable to intercept most contemporary allied planes, including the Blenheim -- unless it dives on it from a higher altitude. So assign the Fiats a higher patrolling altitude in your campaign, and you're basically done.
And this is exacly what makes your (our) dream of a supreme generator of campaigns impossible to be realized (apart from the technical hindrances): only human discretion can make history 'playable'.