Andy is absolutely correct, the variables in testing penetration levels and or protection against penetration are numerous and would drive the ordinary person "nuts" with mind bending overwhelming data with which I would be happy to provide to make the point, however, I believe one or two people out here would rather I didn't knowing my penchant for data collection going back to the ERA issue we had out here a year or two ago.
I can say all the usual things "We do the best we can." We have game limitations" "We will never really know all the true data results." etc. etc.
And
unfortunately we'll never satisfy every developer, campaign/or scenario designer or player it just won't happen. We're from different countries, cultures, sexes and personal backgrounds/life experiences and up bringing. But that doesn't matter as we welcome
everyone that comes along-regardless.
What we have all in common is generally we love to play wargames and to a lesser degree many of us have/had a military background. Some I suspect even had actual game design backgrounds either professionally or in consulting.
So my point takes me back to my Middle School/High School years to probably the most advanced game of it's time related somewhat to our current game(s). This game is the one that got me in my "research mode" as it had around 50 or so blank counters to update equipment with or add new ones, like most all games from this company had at the time using the existing counters as a rough baselines.
What's important is the issues were about the same to vary degrees the game would be designed by one of the best in the industry at the time. The year is
1972 and I'll start with a direct quote from the designer...
"
The reason for this rather negative attitude lies in the fact that tactical games are extremely difficult to design with a large degree of realism. This was readily apparent while designing PanzerBlitz. We went through a good half dozen approaches. The one we finally arrived at was not, in our opinion, the best one. In other words, the research and development on tactical game designs could not stop with PanzerBlitz...The Tac3 approach was ultimately a blind alley. It could really go nowhere. In order to
add any more realism to a game using this approach required enormous sacrifices in playability. A breakthrough, we feel, came with the
development of a workable simultaneous movement system.
...The most important thing needed for the redesign of Red Star/White Star is the use of a simultaneous movement system...Of course...we could not merely be 'adding' simultaneous movement. Many other changes will be made also. This is, of course, because
no game is ever finished as far as its design goes. Not only does the state of the art change and improve, but the historical data becomes more abundant, more insightful, and more useful, the longer the game is out.
A game, after all, is a research tool...4"
Now I can really relate to those last couple of sentences. It almost even sounds like me-scary!
So there you have it
SPI's Red Star/White Star the lessons from 1972 are essentially the same as we're dealing with
44 years later with our games the challenges remain the same and the hard work continues.
I hope you'll take the time to read the following it's worth the
perspective it might hopefully give and reading the previous posts my mind immediately jumped back to this game of my youth.
http://tacticalwargamer.com/boardgam...rwhitestar.htm
For further insight you could go back to my first wargame and still one of my favorites for ease of play and just plain fun!
http://tacticalwargamer.com/boardgam...z/tacgame3.htm
Regards,
Pat
