[PhilD]

Hullu said:
I'm not really against that. I'm just against the fact that some people (probably not too many) would use it excessively in multiplayer games.

Actually, this is all possible right now, by scripting a map and playing two nations. Anyone who wants to do it, can do it - and it's probably possible to actually script a map where almost any two armies could be recruited and sent to fight each other in a few turns (you wouldn't be able to easily control dominion or things like that, but most of the rest would be doable). People are probably not doing it right now, because getting reliable information for large battles would require a huge number of runs and trials ("what if I move this squad two squares forward?"), and this will always be tedious to do.

As it is now, the lack of integrated tools makes scripting a map as a learning tool, just as tedious as scripting a map to do some powergaming testing. I'm pretty sure that a reasonable tool would make the learning tool usable without taking the boring part out of the powergaming testing.

I'm personally against all 'unfair advantages' in all games, very heavily against. As you might see since I consider this one.

There is no unfair advantage in a widely available simulator, other than that some people have more free time to use it than others. But that's already true - some have more free time to play games than other.

I have zero problems doing that kind of analysis just for fun for yourself or perfecting your strategies. I however have a problem with it if you are pitting your army against what you know about my army, and win because of that. It's a problem of principle, nothing else.

Yeah, but you cannot prevent me from writing down what I know about your army, and scripting a map with that, and doing some testing - if I have the time and inclination to do so. So the game's all ruined up for you, already. Now what?