[WarInEur] in re: Games with a Game

[Hansen]

From: Wardall Clark 

Unfortunately, should any of these non-historical outcomes come to pass,
then WIE is going to completely fail as simulation of WWII. 

From: John Hansen

There in lies the rub. Is a non-historical outcome a failure as a simulation
or a depiction of an alternate reality based on a stack of "what ifs"?

To my mind, the optimal situation is a baseline set of rules that given the
same choices made in the real world will result in something similar to what
happened in the real world (WiE isn't really there on this, but it is
somewhat close). Then have a series of options that would make victory for
one side or the other to be more or less likely. One set of options would
make the outcome be a 50-50 chance between two equally skilled opponents. 

Thus, you could have a historical simulation, a balanced game, a game
stacked towards the axis, a game stacked towards the soviets, a game stacked
towards the wallies, etc. How much you put the thumb on the scales towards
one end or the other is a matter of preference. You can handicap for skill
differences, try to play against the more challenging position or just want
a steamroller effect.

Steve seems to have a problem with any idea that would in any way be
pro-axis. My gaming experience has the soviets/wallies winning about 90% of
the time, so the game is very unbalanced (or alternatively is a pretty good
simulation). So from a game balance perspective, some options that better
balance out the game would be a good thing. 

Then you have the difference between war in the east and war in Europe. Both
great games, but some very definite differences. I haven't played WitE
enough to know if your 50-50 comment is real, but it sounds like a balanced
game (as opposed to an accurate simulation). So pulling some of the
mechanisms from there that helped balance the game makes a lot of sense.