Warning, verbosity man attack...
"It is possible to have a perfectly historically accurate simulation that is unrealistic simply because the player has prior information that was never available those who did the fighting back then."
Unlike WWI and WWII where we have definitive documented historical stats on the effectiveness of various weapons platforms against each other, the cold war was not a naval shooting war where submarines were sinking in numbers as a result of unlimited combat. As such we really don't have deciding proof of the use of these systems verses attrition/survival rates. As a theoretical game, development will reasonably lean toward game play balance vs reality (since "reality" is guesswork theory based on unclassified-safe anecdotal stories and analysis.) As WWII demonstrated many times, superior technology on both sides can get nulled by a complex combination of battle field, environmental, social, political, leadership, resource, failure rates, training, motivation, force composition, error, chance and a nearly endless list of other factors.
Ultimately, the game becomes what the developers believe is a fantasy theme inspired by fictional publications based on known technology during politically sensitive historical settings in a "what if" game of cat and mouse.
As such, technology can be debated endlessly because there would be contradictory information from experts and analysts supporting just about every scenario war planners tried to prepare for.
In order for the game to be immersive, the devs will have what they consider a reasonably researched base line of realism expectations. To be playable over time, they'll have what they believe is a balance between threat and dominance.
Personally, I keep looking at the stated expectations for the game when released as a medium skill Red Storm Rising inspiration. It's been so long since I played RSR, portions of it has faded into dusty memory considering the hundreds of games I've played since, but I do remember having a lot of fun with it, but also it was contemporary with the popularity of the book release with few if any comparable games on the market and graphically far simpler capability compared to now.
Games now days must focus either on very broad popular markets or niche markets where there is no competition to be successful in a world where computer games have been common for over 25 years and some player bases have enormous experience and expectations while some players are just now entering the war game market.
I try to keep looking at the original un-modded game the devs designed and test to determine if I'm entertained, challenged, with lasting play value.
Can I still win sometimes over what seems like overwhelming odds? Are there fine points in the game when learned through experience which give me an edge I didn't have when I first started playing the game? Or, is the game stacked against me, frustrating me, making the time spent seem lost?
Is it too predictable where once I have understood the scenario composition, is either success or failure already determined beyond doubt resulting in closing the game.
There are games I've had for years I and return to every time KNOWING I will have a fun time with it. Every game I play gets compared to that experience. Does the game draw me back when I have other entertaining games I know I will enjoy every time?
Right now, I view CW as a playable late beta where its full potential is not yet cemented. Because of my life's interests, the theme of the game keeps me interested in the possibilities careful design may yet reveal.
Eventually, as the game matures, mod skills stabilize, if I'm still playing the game by then, I'll branch out into new territory to experience other "what if" scenarios.
-Pv-
|