[SPAM] - RE: [SPAM] - [WarInEur] Severe Weather Effects - Email found in subject - Email found in subject

[sgminfo]

John Pace wrote:
> Sadly, I can imagine there will be a lot of good stuff in the computer 
> game that cannot be translated into any board game, such as the 
> Fog-Of-War rules.  Likewise there is a lot of good stuff in the 
> original board game that cannot be realistically translated into the 
> computer.  For me, the computer game and the board game will similar, 
> but sadly they can never be seamless.
>
> */Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org>/* wrote:
>
>     But how do you implement this in the board game? The change needs
>     to be easily moving to the board game so that the transition to
>     and from the computer is seamless or you will have moved CWIE into
>     the realm of a new game.
>
 Yes one of the watching briefs it to ensure that the computer game can 
mimic the board game closely.

But when you think about it, that does not preclude elaborations, 
_provided_ that such elaborations are optional. The link stays pure, but...

and this is thewhole point, such a device as the computer allows a finer 
grain to be aplied if we so choose...i.e. automatic calculation of 
supply issues, legal and illegal moves checking,, automatic stacking 
checks, then as you go slightly further, air interdiction effects and 
hidden movement, automatic crt selection etc etc, one graduates into the 
other.

 Things can be classified as 'acceptable' as long as we ensure that such 
gloss and chrome does not fatally undermine the pure board game should 
it be wished to be played.

It is then a matter of taste as to what variants and ehancements you 
wish to play, subject to open and even negoriation between the parties 
to allow them to set the playing field of their choice...

Liken it rather to a fine jewel, with many facets looking into the 
crystal, one may, with skill and ingenuity, carve another facet into the 
crystal to enable a differing view into thestone, but not if this means 
removing permanently a facet that is already there....

Attrition , for example, allows you to see what effects wear and tear 
might have on the standard runaway defense, and oos Aex, but does not 
permanently destroy any of what goes before, merely offers you an option 
ro compare and contrast the effects.

Mathematically speaking you can simulate this with a lot of die 
rolling...i.e. units that are attrited Can be recycled FOC if the die 
roll comes up, on unit in the hex is removed and put foc on as a rebuild 
to emerge in prodfuction automatically at the due date, etc etc. There 
are several ways to achieve the same effect, some much more cumbersome 
than others. That a mathematical variant can bre employed by 
entrepeisining board game players is clear For example  Or you could put 
a chit on top saying somrething like 'disrupted' and 1/2the vauleof the 
unit...to be undisrupted at a later date and condition....


Backwards compatibility is important, but not necessarily to the 
exclusion of everything. As long as such a facet is reversible it is 
fine, for in terms of the game you have 'done no harm', if an idea is 
successful then most players will elect to adopt it, but no one can be 
faulted for eschewing the 'innovation' if they so choose..

Many options are easily replicatable, such as, an early Allied bomber 
campaign, or changing unit strengths, or a differing CAP limit, as will 
using a 10 sided die for the airwar instead of a six sided die.

Many quite elaborate variants have been implemented over the basic 
gaming system in the board game, the ones you may see here, are the 
parallel in computer simulation terms...

My logic says to me...it is OK to offer you an optional counter set, it 
is quite another to forcably take away your old counter set.

-|steve|-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080317/88583221/attachment.html