Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Likewise, the aim of the early Stronghold games (back when they worked) was also complex defense in depth. Likewise the sieges in 2011's Shogun II, built around multiple zones and choke-points (a design CA keeps trying; we'll see if Total Warhammer III finally nails it).
It seems really hard to get defense-in-depth to work in a game setting; the simple states of game units tend to incentivize focused firepower ('killboxes'). That's striking because (as we recently noted: https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/ …) in actual warfare, D-i-D is often the way to go.
Instead of designing games that can handle the complexity of simulating defense in depth situations, it seems like the design trend is towards using the greater horsepower computers offer to just ramp up the numbers of units massively.
That's not to say the They-Are-Billions style defense games are bad; they're not. I played TAB and it was fun. But it seems like the genre of fort/castle builders never simulated actual fort/castle design very well and now seem to be moving further away from basic principles.
Maybe I should add a primer on some of the principles of historical defense design to the to-do list for the blog at some point (though I'd probably keep it restricted to the European tradition for the sake of my sanity).
These sorts of games model C3I far too generously. Typically the player can see and issue orders at any time, down to the smallest modeled unit. "Making a fun game" seems to be in tension with "accurately modeling pre-1980s C3I"
I think the core problem is that DiD primarily acts against fatigue, morale and communication delays/lack of information. Games still haven't mastered the first two, and the last is a complete non factor in all but the most niche simulationist games.
Other factor is that, IMO, a hard shell defense is actually the right choice when massively outnumbered. In 1915, for example, the German line would have completely collapsed had they tried to fight a defense in depth.
The WW2 game Steel Division 2 is a great example of the difficulties of defense-in-depth in games, in my opinion. It undeniably feels more effective in terms of kills, but you hold less of the map, so you score less of a victory.
I get rewarding the defender for holding their forward positions effectively, but it discourages defense-in-depth as a tactic, so long as you can hold those forward positions. The result for me is that I only implement DiD if I expect to lose
Otoh, a game that models operational effectiveness as impacted by supply/fatigue/casualties (rather than simply is the subunit alive or is it dead?) and that models C3 can push the players to consider defense in depth by design or not. Especially if artillery is involved.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
