[DRG]

I used to have a lovely essay on the conflict in wargames between "realism" and gameplay. Unfortunately it's trapped in a defunct HD but , as I recall, the bottom line is it is impossible to create a game that is both 100% historically accurate and 100% playable and more importantly it is impossible to keep everyone happy who leans one way or the other. This is the stage we are at right now with both these games and have been for awhile.

"Bunker's and "fortifications" are just generic terms for dug in emplacements and they are given "armour" to ensure they are aren't easily destroyed and we use pre existing Icons to represent them. When we create them there are no "intelligence" reports detailing their construction or what they contain. Oddly enough armies go to great length to NOT give out info like that so these are simply suppositions of what an army might do with the weapons they have at hand. One could call these " educated guesses " or WAG's or anything in-between. It really depend on where any one particular player stands in the " realism" and "gameplay" issue.

Marcello, IDK which time period you are referring to but I find it more than a bit difficult to believe that at one time or another, especially in it's war with Iran, that Iraq didn't dig ATG's into fortified positions. The bottom line here is I have NO intention of researching the engineering habits of 92 nations. I'm sure SOMEBODY will take this to mean we don't care about "realism" and frankly both Andy and I are beyond caring. That's life. It's impossible to make everyone happy. I'm not going to try.

In this case the balance between "realism" and gameplay falls on the side of gameplay and the bunkers stay the way they are.

Don