Unit abstraction?

[CarlG2]

Originally posted by licker:
Anyway, no one size (for armies or provinces) is going to satisfy everyone, and I don't think it really should matter that much anyway. But I'm a real proponent of looking at game mechanics first and reality second, which isn't always a popular view

and

Originally posted by licker:
I don't think many people will argue that the scales of armie sizes to populations to province sizes to time are 'realistic', but as far as how everything comes together to provide an entertaining game the devs should be applauded. Of course everyone will have a pet-peeve about this or that and how it isn't realistic, but you simply can't make it all realistic and still keep the same game mechanics as there are. I'd even argue that if you went for more 'realism' game play would suffer greatly.

Hi licker,

Thanks for the comments. I think that where you and I would differ here is that I like to find a closer relationship between realism and game mechanics. I really don't like it when game mechanics trump too many gestures to realistic relationships, as it really ruins my suspension of disbelief.

For example, take Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic. All of the AOW games have a scale where 1 turn = 1 day. This completely breaks every system in that game (population growth, training, spell progression, etc.) At that rate, every wizard in the world would be an archmage in 120 days... Also, in the first scenario you start as Julia, a "powerful" elven wizard queen who happens to be a level 1 apprentice...as a great South Park lawyer stated during the Chewbacca defense, "It does not make sense!"

Chess is a good example of my next point. It is basically a wargame, but abstracted to the ultimate level for the sake of gameplay. It is a great game, but completely uselss in its ability to recreate a historical conflict at a "simulation" level.

Which gets me to my other desire in a game system. My wargaming roots go back to the desire to simulate a conflict. In the case of historical wargaming, a game should simulate a conflict in such a way that it has the ability to exactly replicate history...but also with the ability to explore alternate results based on different strategies.

So, I guess that makes me a simulation gamer.

In fantasy games, I like to "simulate" a good fantasy novel in my mind, for each game played to create a new history...and, as such, I need to be able to find some level of reality in the "system" that a game uses (of course, we're talking about a subject that defies reality, as I don't recall the Last time I saw a dragon...but even in a fantasy world, I like to see the "systems" have a realistic relationship). When I look at a game design, I immediately evaluate things like, "Does the magic system have a 'believable' origin or reason for working?", "Does the back story hold up under scrutiny?", "Are the races interesting, or just weird/silly?", etc. If too many of the answers are no, then I am turned off to the game. If the answers are yes (as they are in so many cases for Dominions 2), I look at the game further to see if I'd like to play it (which is why I'm here!).

I do agree with you that taking realism to the ultimate end results in a bad game. Master of Orion III had a grand design plan with an intense amount of realism...but the implementation failed to make a good game (or, at the least, the publisher forced the developers to change the game design and then release it while it was a hybrid between the original design and modified plan...) I realize I'm looking for some kind of happy medium that might fit me, but also might be despised by others.

I'm not advocating that illwinter go and change their game design, because it is THEIR game design. I am, however, trying to see if I can reasonably abstract certain facets of their game (i.e. unit size, etc.) and still be able to "believe" in the "simulation" that I am playing.

Does that even remotely make sense? If you read this far...thanks and I hope it was at least interesting!

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[ January 15, 2004, 04:06: Message edited by: CarlG2 ]