ShermansWar
09-02-2005, 10:12 AM
SB is Kind of like a razzle, first it's a candy, then it's a gum.
Is it a game, or is it a sim?is it "wrong" to play it as a game?
Should you play to win, or to recreate what is done by active duty forces? Whose forces? What are "bad" tactics, what are "good"ones? Should one sacrifice a chance at victory and abandon tactics that win SB games to try and recreate what some army uses as it's doctrine?
Seems to me it depends on how you look at the game.
From my perspective, (a wargamers) I take the game on the face of it, study the game AS IT IS ( not how i wish it was), learn the strenghts and weaknesses of the various tactics that can be employed, as well as tactics that i think MIGHT work, and MIGHT give me an edge.
I once said( and i's been thrown in my face many times since), that I do whatever it takes to win.If the scenario gives me a shitload of arty, well then, I'll use it, and not concern myself as to whether or not such an amount of arty is realistic or not.(Frankly, with the effects arty has in a game, were I the secretary of defense, I'd buy more cannon so I COULD do in real life what I do in the game). I didnt mean that I would cross land bridges on map edges where rivers were meant to be, or that I'd employ every trick in the book like see through forests or other such nonsense, but that I would use all the assets at my disposal to the greatest effect I could within what the game allowed, irrespective of whether or not it could be done in real life.
I take what the game gives me, what the game is, and design my tactics, my system, around that. when the next version of SB comes out, then i will design what i do around what THAT game allows.
Other people wrestle with the game, constantly frustrated by it's shortcomings, it's failure to model or account for certain realities,it's inability to accurately recreate the effects of real world SOP in game.
i agree that the most accurate, most realistic sim is the best sim, and that is the reason i play SB, and no other PC game, yet, i dont find it necessary to drive myself nuts over it's shortfalls. maybe it's because i'm ignorant, Or maybe it's just because i like to play the game, and can enjoy it, and the competition, and the excercise of tactics, and the journey of developing a set of tactics, even if it doesnt coincuide with real world tactics.
The principles are the same, however, I beleive.Real worl tankers mass their tanks, I dont( not unti i am trying to either acheive or exploit a breakthrough, anyway). is it because i dont beleive in massed firepower? of course not. it's because the way the game plays out( be it because of terrain model, communications model, mobility model, the AI, take your pick), i find i am not rewarded, for doing so, but rather, i am rewarded for multiple convergent lines of sight.If the game rewarded me for massing my units, I would.But it doesnt.
What i am trying to say is, although the model may be messed up, the tactics are sound. so, lets say,. for arguments sake, you couldnt GET to half the good BPs in real life that you could in an SB map. that doesnt change the fact that in real life, the BP with the best LOS that you COULD get to is probably the best BO where your fires would be the most effective from.Maybe in real life, you couldnt pass over half the terrain you could in SB.But the most unlikely avenue of approach you COULD pass over would still probably be the safest.
fFr reasons like this, i choose not to drive myself crazy with frustration over what the game doesnt model right, for whatever reason, because i think the same principles apply either way.the scale and scope may be different, but cetain universal truths about war, tactics, mobility and movement never do.It's just about how far a particular game/sim lets us go with it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I want to see a game that is modeled as accurately and realistically can be,, but i deal with what the game/Sim at hand is, and can find both enjoyment and a journey of tactical experimentation and discovery within whatever is at hand, although if it's unrealistic, it doent hold my interest.I go out for the most realistic games out there, and while iIawait eagerly succesive games that are even more realistic, I can have fun with what is at hand. It would be nice if there where some way to reconcile the playstyle of those who play this as a game, and those who play this as a sim. any ideas? Myself I find my approach a synthesis,otherwise I too would lose interst in the game, either becaue it has no basis in reality and is just a game, or because I cant play competitively, because it's tied to someone elses set of tactics that I think iIcan improve on left a free hand within what the system will allow.
Is it a game, or is it a sim?is it "wrong" to play it as a game?
Should you play to win, or to recreate what is done by active duty forces? Whose forces? What are "bad" tactics, what are "good"ones? Should one sacrifice a chance at victory and abandon tactics that win SB games to try and recreate what some army uses as it's doctrine?
Seems to me it depends on how you look at the game.
From my perspective, (a wargamers) I take the game on the face of it, study the game AS IT IS ( not how i wish it was), learn the strenghts and weaknesses of the various tactics that can be employed, as well as tactics that i think MIGHT work, and MIGHT give me an edge.
I once said( and i's been thrown in my face many times since), that I do whatever it takes to win.If the scenario gives me a shitload of arty, well then, I'll use it, and not concern myself as to whether or not such an amount of arty is realistic or not.(Frankly, with the effects arty has in a game, were I the secretary of defense, I'd buy more cannon so I COULD do in real life what I do in the game). I didnt mean that I would cross land bridges on map edges where rivers were meant to be, or that I'd employ every trick in the book like see through forests or other such nonsense, but that I would use all the assets at my disposal to the greatest effect I could within what the game allowed, irrespective of whether or not it could be done in real life.
I take what the game gives me, what the game is, and design my tactics, my system, around that. when the next version of SB comes out, then i will design what i do around what THAT game allows.
Other people wrestle with the game, constantly frustrated by it's shortcomings, it's failure to model or account for certain realities,it's inability to accurately recreate the effects of real world SOP in game.
i agree that the most accurate, most realistic sim is the best sim, and that is the reason i play SB, and no other PC game, yet, i dont find it necessary to drive myself nuts over it's shortfalls. maybe it's because i'm ignorant, Or maybe it's just because i like to play the game, and can enjoy it, and the competition, and the excercise of tactics, and the journey of developing a set of tactics, even if it doesnt coincuide with real world tactics.
The principles are the same, however, I beleive.Real worl tankers mass their tanks, I dont( not unti i am trying to either acheive or exploit a breakthrough, anyway). is it because i dont beleive in massed firepower? of course not. it's because the way the game plays out( be it because of terrain model, communications model, mobility model, the AI, take your pick), i find i am not rewarded, for doing so, but rather, i am rewarded for multiple convergent lines of sight.If the game rewarded me for massing my units, I would.But it doesnt.
What i am trying to say is, although the model may be messed up, the tactics are sound. so, lets say,. for arguments sake, you couldnt GET to half the good BPs in real life that you could in an SB map. that doesnt change the fact that in real life, the BP with the best LOS that you COULD get to is probably the best BO where your fires would be the most effective from.Maybe in real life, you couldnt pass over half the terrain you could in SB.But the most unlikely avenue of approach you COULD pass over would still probably be the safest.
fFr reasons like this, i choose not to drive myself crazy with frustration over what the game doesnt model right, for whatever reason, because i think the same principles apply either way.the scale and scope may be different, but cetain universal truths about war, tactics, mobility and movement never do.It's just about how far a particular game/sim lets us go with it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I want to see a game that is modeled as accurately and realistically can be,, but i deal with what the game/Sim at hand is, and can find both enjoyment and a journey of tactical experimentation and discovery within whatever is at hand, although if it's unrealistic, it doent hold my interest.I go out for the most realistic games out there, and while iIawait eagerly succesive games that are even more realistic, I can have fun with what is at hand. It would be nice if there where some way to reconcile the playstyle of those who play this as a game, and those who play this as a sim. any ideas? Myself I find my approach a synthesis,otherwise I too would lose interst in the game, either becaue it has no basis in reality and is just a game, or because I cant play competitively, because it's tied to someone elses set of tactics that I think iIcan improve on left a free hand within what the system will allow.