HP3000-L Archives

April 1999, Week 5

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tracy Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tracy Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:26:18 +0000
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (19 lines)
Regarding Tom Henige's reply to my thoughts about Strategic and
Operational games and his Russian Campaign example:

That's why I went to a dictionary for the definition.  You'll probably
find the same idea about resources and materiel expounded in an
encyclopedia regarding "strategy".

Yes!  A game like "Russian Campaign" does take into account the Russian
side of resources with the worker units, and on the German side with rail
and oil.  The game is limited in scope only to corps and army sized units,
so the resources agree with themselves, and don't go off into items that
were not critical.  Note the optional units that are available based on
strategic decisions, yet the esoteric corps artillery or Fliegerkorps are
just a yes or no option not based on such considerations. Therefore I
think Russian Campaign fits my opinion of the model.

Tracy Johnson
"Trust No One" - Semper Gumby

ATOM RSS1 RSS2