RE: What's wrong with SF?

The other factors that this type of player blatantly ignores are:

1) you know how the battle is going to turn out - it's written in the
history books.	Along with that, you know what factors influenced the
outcome.  If you alter those factors (the uncertainty of reinforcements,
not knowing a river was fordable, mistaking enemy for friendlies etc)
then you have deviated from the "historical" version, it then starts to
become "fantasy" or "alternative".

2) Modern players are more educated, have greater access to knowledge,
analyses, treaties than any other "generals" from any other time period.
 Does anyone ever factor the fact that the player's inherent knowledge
compared to historical generals is vastly superior and obviously
"non-historical"?

3) Most games are not double-blind referee moderated.  The "Fog of War"
has decided many a battle, and yet most "historical" games do not have
this factor.  Usually both sides know exactly the force composition,
position, strength (morale, ammo etc) of the opposing force.  There is
no "surprise".	
In a real battle, when your skirmishers encounter the enemy, it could be
a screen, a skirmish or the beginning of a massive assault.  Until you
gather enough intel, there is a huge range of possibilities.  In most
historical games, you know the opposing force is going to be roughly
equal in force or position (defensive) to your own - as few people enjoy
getting run over by 10 to 1 odds.

It's interesting to note that when playing against "die-hard" historical
gamers in computer moderated or online RTS "historical" games, their
abilities and enthusiasm suddenly drop, as their omniscient abilities
disappear.  They are constantly getting flanked, over powered or under
supplied, especially in real-time or time-limited turn conditions.

You could also factor in real generals are tired, hungry, cold, stressed
and have a fear of getting blown up that most armchair generals never
have to face. (ok, maybe hungry and tired)

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsarith@io.com [mailto:tsarith@io.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:24 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: What's wrong with SF?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Richard Kirke wrote:
> 
> > >The third store caters to the areas
> > >historical gamers, who were "horrified" at the mere 
> thought of playing a SF
> > >or fantasy based game.
> > 
> > I have to say that I come across this a lot. I just don't 
> get it... what do 
> > people see as the problem with SF?
> 
> According to the local Historical group, its because the purpose of 
> wargaming is to exactly recreate the battle and the rules are 
> supposed to 
> give teh exact factors that influenced teh battle (I'm sorry, 
> but your 
> general had a cold taht day so we're going to impose special 
> cold rules on 
> you :).  They don't play because its fun, they play because 
> its historical 
> reasearch.  Of course they don't like it when I point out 
> that if they 
> excactly capture the battle, its going to turn out the same 
> as it did in 
> history and they could just read the Osprey book...
> 
> I think its fear that they might have to think for themselves 
> instead of 
> using a script.
> 
> -- 
> Peter Engebos 			T'sarith Degaalth
> tsarith@io.com				
http://www.io.com/~tsarith