Re: Does this animal exist?

From: gbenage@aol.com (G Benage)

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Bob,

I feared I might get this kind of response from you.  There is a
distinction between an opinion and an analysis.  I was under the
impression that your review was offered as a serious analysis of the
mechanics and game-play of WWIV.  If it was offered as such an analysis,
it was inaccurate, wrong, ill-considered, and irresponsible (as even you
allow that an inaccurate review is an irresponsible one). If it was
offered as a beginner's first impression or opinion of the game, it was
just fine.  Hell, I can form an opinion about a game that I've never even
played, so ten turns is plenty!  As such, if the review was just an
opinion, I'm a bit surprised Flagship bothered to print, that is, I would
think they would much prefer a serious analysis of a game by someone
qualified to present one.

As an analysis of WWIV's combat system, the review was inaccurate,
basically for the reasons presented by Doug in the previous post.  WWIV is
played at the "grand-strategic" level:  A great number of crucial factors
are abstracted, including troop training, morale, supply, command,
terrain, tactics, etc.  The *structured* random elements in the game
(i.e., the Combat Resolution Tables and associated mechanics) are meant to
*simulate* these abstracted factors.  Some simulation of these factors has
to be included, regardless of which *300 square mile* hex the units are
moving to or from.  Sorry, Bob, that's not my opinion, that's a simple
fact, so long as you want *any* kind of vaguely realistic simulation of
warfare.

Regards,
Greg

References

Does this animal exist?
BFLYNN.UNCSON@mhs.unc.edu (Brian Flynn)
Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0000