[CB..]

shucks i don't mind particulaly as long as it doesn't detract from the threads creative flow- you did after all provide some usefull info
but the old realism donkey gets dragged out of the stall far too often,
as we cannot recreate the emotional realism required to back up the historical and technical realism so valued by hard-core players- i personally find the arguments some what lacking in credibility --
as long as the game is enjoyable and flexible enough to take these modifications and as - if the game actually was real- we would not have the benifit of hindsight nor years of historical records to study- very little of the information we use to guage wether the game is real of not would actually be available--because we would be in 1942 (et al bear with me on this lol) and little of this purely hisotrical research would actually have taken place--so if you follow any of this at all and especailly within the context of a game -- realism is limited to the purely personal experience of playing-- and in the end that is about enjoyment---and it is a difficult subject-- or should be even if it is not--to gain enjoyment from the simulated reconstruction of events that were very rarely - in terms we could apply to a game perhaps--enjoyable--

i prefer to view realism within the context of a game with the suspicion one might normally reserve for a double glazing salesman!

realism is allways -and allways should be- a difficult and far from straight forward subject when applied to computer gaming : the feelings and contradictions it arouses are often the non scripted- purely personal- elements of the game that help to fuel the gameplay

AFAIK!!!