骨灰玩家
是浪子，別泊岸
 
- 贡献度
- 738
- 金元
- 200606
- 积分
- 23023
- 精华
- 1
- 注册时间
- 2009-6-7
   
|
本帖最后由 chisuki 于 2022-2-11 02:22 编辑
没中就不翻了
DON'T BUY THIS GAME IF YOU WANT REALISTIC BATTLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back in the 60's and 70's, many board wargames were created (remember Avalon Hill's Tactics II anyone?) that created combat systems that, even though turn-based, had a certain realism in the way combat was handled. Games such as Field of Glory II appear to use a similar system, but being computer based, have the advantage of not having the player needing to precisely do all sorts of mathematical computations to determine battle odds and then refer to a chart to get battle results. Having a computer to do this would be a tremendous advantage, but for years now, developers have screwed it up by not taking into account a very important idea that is critical to having any sort of meaningful battle. It is very subtle and hard to appreciate unless you were an avid wargamer of past years, but it is significant nonetheless and I will do my best to describe it here:
In the classic board wargames of old, you would move ALL units into position and then assign how battles were to take place. If you moved, say, two units into the zone of control of a single enemy unit, you would total the attacking combat factors of BOTH attacking units together and divide that number by the defending combat factor of the defending unit to determine a ratio that would give you the odds of success. You would roll a die and determine the SINGLE battle result for all three units in that battle.
This is not the way combat is resolved here. Instead, when you move a unit into an attacking position, a combat is resolved for that single attacker immediately based on the odds of that single unit against the defender. Once that is resolved, you then move the second attacker into position and resolve that combat as a separate battle. Thus, two battles occurred, rather than one.
And therein lies the problem: Pretend that both attackers have a strength value of "5" and the defender have a strength of "8". When the first unit attacks, it will be attacking with odds of 5-to-8, meaning it will likely lose that battle. Even if we account for some losses to the defender, when the second unit attacks, it will now be attacking at odds that are again less than or slightly equal -- meaning that it too might very well lose the battle.
In the old wargaming systems, you would move both units up to the defender before resolving the battle. This means that the odds would be 10-to-8. This significantly changes the flow of the battle. Whereas in the Field of Glory system, the first of the two attacks would likely have resulted in the attacker being thrown backward a few squares, the older system would have the reverse outcome. In fact, in the older system, if one of the attackers had flanked the defender, the overall odds of the single battle would have been magnified from perhaps 10-to-8 to as much as 20-to-8 (or more!) -- essentially guaranteeing victory. Yes, a single unit, however weak, if attacking from the flank or rear, can result in a crushing outcome. (See the old board wargame, Alexander, for comparison.)
The result of the Field of Glory battle system is that units get thrown all over the place in retreats from unrealistic battle results. And attackers get unrealistically moved forward through defender's lines as they automatically pursue them. The implications of this nutty battle system on the flow of battle actually go way beyond what I am even describing here and I can't go into it because it would result in a massive treatise here. Units get scattered all over the board in ridiculous ways making any attempt to carry forth a "reasonable" tactic unworkable. Sure, one has to account for the uncertainty of battles and fog-of-war issues, but this goes way beyond that.
Sadly, there are many games that use this Field of Glory battle system, or ones similar to it. It is certainly much easier for the player to move a unit into a square and then tell it which unit to attack, rather than carefully allocate how units are to be used in an attack against a group of defenders AFTER ALL units have moved. It requires a separate interface to do that, but nobody seems to have done that (among those games I have played, anyway). And for me, the games result in such bizarre battles, it is a deal-breaker. And this craziness is magnified by the use of map squares rather than hexes, but I won't even start to go into that!
Of course, the best way to handle battles is to have real-time battles, such as in the Total War series. The downside to those games is that there are so few units on the board, they get wiped-out too quickly, and the games just turn into click-fests. I realize that is fun for some, but for those who want a chess-like, "thinking man's game" as in the old board wargames, over and over again, those games just doesn't work, either.
It is really too bad, because the developers tried so hard to incorporate all sorts of factors here, such as terrain types, unit types, unit facings, and morale -- and yet it is all lost just because the battles are handled in this ridiculous way. Providing an interface to allocate how attacks should be allocated after ALL units have been moved into position would certainly slow the whole thing down and I suspect the developers feel that the audience wouldn't be able to handle it. Let's face it, the attention span of gamers is close to zero nowadays. Here we have computers that can do so much to make for great wargames, and yet for serious wargamers, those games keep failing in significant ways because of the recognized limited attention span of the players.
I see that Byzantine Games and Slitherine appeal to many gamers, and for that I give them credit. But their games aren't for serious wargamers by any measure.
|
|
发表于 2022-2-10 23:20
收藏
![滑稽[永久版]](static/image/common/medal266.gif)