Ok the UK part of the french is done. Need to matt varnish them and take picture... weather permitting. Plan for home are the last 2 B1Bis and finished the infantry with the 25mm APX guns. Depending on my christmas guest I will do that before the end of the year or early in 2011... Gosh, completeted project sounds so weird!
Now some thoughts on wargame designing. Yesterday I attened a roundtable at my college on that and, a designer who shall be not names, massively disappointed me displaying a lack of understanding of what he was advising the student to do, and when I pointed out the problem he simply brushed off a simulation I was quiting as a good example as "nazi". The simlpke fact was that he had no idea of the terrain he was talking about. I draw general land pointed lessons from the overall bulge operation and then shoehorned it in Bastogne in particular without understanding the terrain in the area was different. To me his "advice" was pretty much wrong and ev en deterimental for the student wanting to design that simulation.
That made me thinking twice on the art of wargame designing. How much often we have games not supported by historical research? How often people just draw conclusion from an operation and export wholesale to another completely unrelated one?
Ok, that person was a friend of my second supervisor and he is generally a good chap, so I restrained myself from the comment "Ok, have you read anything or are you just making up stuff right now?".
But I have it is not the first time I see stuff like that. I cannot comment in depth on a game on the ECW or the WSS. But I can comment in depth on ancient warfare, WW2 and postwar conflicts. Tha person pretended to have ideas for everything from Caesar to Petraeus, and sadly some of his comments betrayed a lack of knowledge.
Sadly this is a often common trait, in a previous post I complained on the lack of sound historical research in wargaming... it is a trend who is becoming more and more evident?
Ok end of my rant.
That made me thinking twice on the art of wargame designing. How much often we have games not supported by historical research? How often people just draw conclusion from an operation and export wholesale to another completely unrelated one?
Ok, that person was a friend of my second supervisor and he is generally a good chap, so I restrained myself from the comment "Ok, have you read anything or are you just making up stuff right now?".
But I have it is not the first time I see stuff like that. I cannot comment in depth on a game on the ECW or the WSS. But I can comment in depth on ancient warfare, WW2 and postwar conflicts. Tha person pretended to have ideas for everything from Caesar to Petraeus, and sadly some of his comments betrayed a lack of knowledge.
Sadly this is a often common trait, in a previous post I complained on the lack of sound historical research in wargaming... it is a trend who is becoming more and more evident?
Ok end of my rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment