Author: Karl Paananen (---.mich.net)
Date: 09-09-2002 18:37
The comments Bryan makes in the section of this article on strategic level games (Bryan mentions Risk, Civilisation, and Axis & Allies) really miss the point. Designers of these types of games are well aware of all the tiny things that can affect combat at this level. They are also aware that it is pointless to put all the rules that would be necessary to simulate every level of combat from the individual soldier to the strategic. So they compromise by coming up with rules that will usually give the victory to the player who makes "balanced decisions", but have enough of a random element to make it realistic. So the player can calculate the odds, and move General Cornwallis to Yorktown, but then roll really badly so that the Yanks still are able to land.
Strategic-level games also depend on the skill of the players. The U.S. administration during Vietnam were obviously "bad wargamers". (I have read military historians that say that during the Vietnam era there was very little wargaming going on in the Pentagon, but since that time wargaming, or "simulations", have been used much more). I know that when I used to play Risk with my little brother when we were kids, we would certainly develop policy in ad hoc spurts from turn to turn, without any long range strategy, just as Bryan describes the Vietnam-era U.S. Government. And I have played wargames with adult players who do the same thing--and I am sure I am also still sometimes guilty of this!
|
|
