dawnchorus wrote:My bugbear with a lot of strategy games is that armies don't need to be resupplied and have infinite ammo, and that damaged or injured units generally have the same capabilities as healthy ones. This usually favours endless streams of expendable soldiers, and strategy goes out of the window. It's a battle of hitpoints versus damage points.
The thing is, resupplying units is boring. In my opinion, fun > realism. I worked on a military command and control simulation (military-speak for "wargame") for 2 years. Sending a wave of M1A1's against a wave of T90's? Fun. Setting up supply routes for food, fuel and ammo trucks? Booooring. Mircoing the repair of damaged equipment and the medical care of injured dudes (and I really mean micro, as in "does this maintenance unit have the parts on hand to repair this HMMWV", and "does this hospital's highest level of care accomodate this soldier's injuries")? Booooooring. But it was very realistic. Now, I don't claim to be the ultimate arbiter of fun, but based on the lack of this kind of stuff in commercial games, I get the feeling that I'm in the majority here.
But sirlin hates scrubs because he isn't one and doesn't understand that for most people winning a game of Street Fighter isn't the answer to one's insufficiencies. Remember Competitive Dad on the Fast Show? He was the butt of the joke, I'm afraid, not the hero. Also, if you think everyone is fine with the state of football you mustn't have watched a single post-match analysis or read a newspaper in the past few years. Cheating is rife, and every time a loophole is closed another opens.
Sirlin uses Street Fighter as an allegory. It's a game that he's familiar with, and it's one that he can effectively use to illustrate his points. I don't know that one needs to be intimately familiar with the game to understand the articles (in fact, in part 2 he mentions how he gets lots of emails basically saying "I don't play Street Fighter but I do play Game X. What you described about Street Fighter is exactly the same for Game X that I play.") As for football, I don't watch it at all (you can blame part of that on me being American, but I don't watch many sports in the first place), but I know that while the World Cup was going on, it was all the rage, even here in the "soccer-disliking" States. And, at least here in the States, sports that have the impression of foul play lose their popularity pretty quick. Boxing was very popular here in the era of Muhammad Ali, but now, with all the accusations of corruption surrounding it, it's lost a lot of its popularity. Major League Baseball has never been the same since the players' strike of 1994, and the steroid issue of today certainly isn't helping it. And, as Sirlin says in Part 1:
The point is that if a game becomes “no fun” at high levels of play, then it’s the game’s fault, not the player’s. Unfortunately, a game becoming less fun because it’s poorly designed and you just losing because you’re a scrub kind of look alike. You’ll have to play some top players and do some soul searching to decide which is which. But if it really is the game’s fault, there are plenty of other games that are excellent at a high level of play. For games that truly aren’t good at a high level, the only winning move is not to play.
It doesn't matter if this tactic can be cracked; the fact is europe and russia have an advantage on other players.
In fact, all that matters is that it can be cracked. If it can be cracked, that means that Europe and Russia now have to defend against that crack, which in itself will probably open up other cracks, which good players will exploit, and so on. Good players will find and exploit cracks, and good players will defend against those cracks.