Quote:
|
Unfortunately the game sometimes dictates unrealistic behavior to get the best results.
|
I was suspecting that this idea would come out sooner or later
I have yet to write a long and throughout essay on the "realism" matter, and I really wish I will some day be able to, but suffice for now saying that essentially no game can be perfect and complete in terms of simulation. Humans have an ability to find "weak spots" in everything and using them to their advantage. That's unavoidable. So when you play in the constraints of a computer simulation it is a given that sooner or later you or other will find how to trick it and get better results with unrealistic tactics (i.e. tactics that in the simulated "real life" would not have paid off ) . Thus the question is not if you can do unrealistic things to get better results, but instead what results do you get when playing realistically. I have to laugh when I see posts like "Look, I engaged a Battleship in a gun battle and won! Bug! Unrealistic!". That's nonesense. Why on earth would a submarine commander in real life engage a BB on a surface duel? And there you have dozens of modders now worried in changing that and ensuring that the next kid who has the idea of doing an unrealistic action is inmediately blown off by the BB
.
Game code is limited, simulations have severe constraints. The only thing we can aim at, is to getting rewarding results and experiences from using historical tactics, but as soon as you step aside and say "I'm going the wild goose chase route. I get better results", you are obviously the first element in an unrealistic gameplay. And the most important one, to be more precise. Voluntarily abandoning historic tactics might give you better results, but don't claim then that they are irrelastic. Sure they are, as was the gameplay input that made the game code generate the results you received.
