[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jam3:
I wouldn't want to get into a realism debate about all this either after all its a strategic game and realism is best left to more tactically oriented games.

Why do i think serial would have been better? Because "corralling AI" so that we both move into the same province on the same turn is not my idea of strategy.

Too late about the debate when you go and make nonsensical statements like what I've quoted above.

First, "realism" in no way is limited to just "tactically-oriented" games. It's just easier to do the smaller the unit scale you go. The problem with "realism" in operational/strategic games is that it's much harder to model such things as economies and politics and other social structures than it is to model combat. Dom 2 has an economic and political (aka religious) system that works well enough for what it's trying to do. It doesn't pretend to be "realistic", nor should it, nor does it need to.

As for simultaneous execution of moves, that's the most realistic system for modelling conflict. After all, it's the very rare (and stupid) opponent that will give his enemies a clue as to what he's going to do so they can react to it. The idea is to keep the other fellow guessing. Simultaneous movement accurately models things such as Rommel's desert "adventures". He kept moving so that every time the Brits pounced he wasn't where they expected. If real life were "I Go, You Go", then the Brits would have said "Oh, that's where he's gone, now we get to smash him before he can run away". The strategy is to out-guess your opponent. If you are not very good at trying to predict what your opponent might do, then you won't do well at this type of game. You also won't do well at chess, either, despite chess being non-simultaneous.