CSW Robert Leonhard's post
Coming in on the end of this conversation, so I probably lack context. In my view, CC is a fabulous game, and it is one that I would use for training small unit leaders in the infantry. When I read criticisms that a game is "unrealistic", I often wonder whether the critics have spent time under fire in real war. Or been responsible for training soldiers for war.
ASL took a very 20th century approach to simulation by engineering into the massive rules conglomeration every conceivable nuance of the battlefield. The result was a game system few could get into, with consequent effects for the game's production line.
CC takes a 21st century design approach. In my view, it achieves a reasonable amount of simulation without endless complexity. The example of an enemy unit moving right up to a machinegun position is spot on. Is that unrealistic? Not when you understand that it is simulating the many factors of "friction" that commanders have to deal with in battle--e.g., the undetected dead space that the enemy maneuvers into; a crew that is unalert for a few critical minutes; ammunition running low; etc. By designing those kind of effects into the game, you get the right feel of how battle in the modern age really unfolds.
Adam Ruzzo's post
Everything in CC is an abstraction and representation of something in aWWII battlefield. Fire cards do not represent the ONLY shots beingfired in the combat. They represent the shots with the best chance ofbreaking/supressing/killing your opponents.
看完这些还不能接受，那我只能说这不是你的茶。
回去玩你所定义的『军事』战棋就好。这年头一堆人老爱在那边定义这个定义那个，还自以为专业。
