15.09.2010, 01:59
I wanted to get some opinions from the other gamers as to what they think a flight combat simulation game actually is? I find the basic problem with playing a game of any sort is that there must be rules and that the people involved must first clearly say or write what they are trying to do. In other words before creating those rules it seems to me the participants must agree on what is being attempted or the result will be a set of rules that reflects a confused agenda.
For me I have decided that a combat flight simulation game should first and foremost attempt to simulate the known laws a physics in order for things like the flight characteristics of the modeled aircraft to be simulated. It's come to my attention that many of the players oddly enough don't seem to care about maintaining the integrity of the game because they are intentionally going about a process of corrupting the foundation of the game as a simulation by making it so that the physics can no longer be modeled properly. As an example when maps are used in the game that are made to the wrong scale it would seem to me that a warpage in space and time by default is being created. For example there would no longer be any way to tell on a half scale map if an aircraft's ground speed and maximum range has been doubled or if the surface of the earth has somehow magically supposed to have shrunk.
My question then would be if one is saying that the earth's surface somehow shrunk how can someone possibly still claim they are still playing a "combat simulation game" since there is no such geological condition that could possibly account for something like that happening? Or if one is saying that the Aircraft's ground speed and maximum range are now doubled how can they claim that they have not created bogus characteristics for each and every aircraft used in the game all in one foul swoop?
Also there is the problem on a half scale map of the mountain ranges also being reduced to half their true height so there is no way to tell if a plane should be considered to have crashed if it was not taken to a higher altitude that would have been needed to cross over the range.
For myself I have decided that a combat flight simulation game which is based on any historical era should make an attempt to recreate the laws of physics and chemistry and also present situations that could have happened hypothetically in that historical situation had things gone a bit differently.
For example placing a Japanese aircraft carrier a bit closer to Hawaii in an attempt to have a mission in the game that is similar to the Pearl Harbor attack than the ship actually sailed to historically would be an example of something that hypothetically could have happened had the war gone differently. On the other hand to me claiming that the surface of the earth might have somehow shrunk to half it's size would not be something that hypothetically could have happened had the war gone differently and so therefore a mission that does this would no longer fit a logical definition of what is a combat flight simulation game . In other words to me a "combat flight sim does not need to and actually can not be historically accurate in order for it to be called a "combat flight simulation game". The actual point of the game is to place the players in hypothetical situations had the war gone a bit differently using modeled aircraft that are intended to have almost the same or similar characteristics in the simulated virtual environment of the sim.
In my opinion there is also no need to have missions that cover huge areas of the earth since the game is a tactical one and was never intended to be strategic level. If I wanted to play a strategic game that covers a huge area of the pacific theater I would simply pick a game that was intended for that purpose from onset where I could also control movements of the armies and navel units.
If the goal of the game is mainly to be historically accurate as many players seem to be saying then it seems to me that a game based on a map that is made intentionally out of scale is not historically accurate since there is no historical proof that portions of the surface of the earth were ever reduced to 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of it's size.
A number of people have claimed that my argument "does not make sense" and my response to them is what part of saying that the earth surface does not tent to shrink to other scales is so difficult to understand? It seems like a very simple concept that should be easily understood to anyone who is an adult.
For me I have decided that a combat flight simulation game should first and foremost attempt to simulate the known laws a physics in order for things like the flight characteristics of the modeled aircraft to be simulated. It's come to my attention that many of the players oddly enough don't seem to care about maintaining the integrity of the game because they are intentionally going about a process of corrupting the foundation of the game as a simulation by making it so that the physics can no longer be modeled properly. As an example when maps are used in the game that are made to the wrong scale it would seem to me that a warpage in space and time by default is being created. For example there would no longer be any way to tell on a half scale map if an aircraft's ground speed and maximum range has been doubled or if the surface of the earth has somehow magically supposed to have shrunk.
My question then would be if one is saying that the earth's surface somehow shrunk how can someone possibly still claim they are still playing a "combat simulation game" since there is no such geological condition that could possibly account for something like that happening? Or if one is saying that the Aircraft's ground speed and maximum range are now doubled how can they claim that they have not created bogus characteristics for each and every aircraft used in the game all in one foul swoop?
Also there is the problem on a half scale map of the mountain ranges also being reduced to half their true height so there is no way to tell if a plane should be considered to have crashed if it was not taken to a higher altitude that would have been needed to cross over the range.
For myself I have decided that a combat flight simulation game which is based on any historical era should make an attempt to recreate the laws of physics and chemistry and also present situations that could have happened hypothetically in that historical situation had things gone a bit differently.
For example placing a Japanese aircraft carrier a bit closer to Hawaii in an attempt to have a mission in the game that is similar to the Pearl Harbor attack than the ship actually sailed to historically would be an example of something that hypothetically could have happened had the war gone differently. On the other hand to me claiming that the surface of the earth might have somehow shrunk to half it's size would not be something that hypothetically could have happened had the war gone differently and so therefore a mission that does this would no longer fit a logical definition of what is a combat flight simulation game . In other words to me a "combat flight sim does not need to and actually can not be historically accurate in order for it to be called a "combat flight simulation game". The actual point of the game is to place the players in hypothetical situations had the war gone a bit differently using modeled aircraft that are intended to have almost the same or similar characteristics in the simulated virtual environment of the sim.
In my opinion there is also no need to have missions that cover huge areas of the earth since the game is a tactical one and was never intended to be strategic level. If I wanted to play a strategic game that covers a huge area of the pacific theater I would simply pick a game that was intended for that purpose from onset where I could also control movements of the armies and navel units.
If the goal of the game is mainly to be historically accurate as many players seem to be saying then it seems to me that a game based on a map that is made intentionally out of scale is not historically accurate since there is no historical proof that portions of the surface of the earth were ever reduced to 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of it's size.
A number of people have claimed that my argument "does not make sense" and my response to them is what part of saying that the earth surface does not tent to shrink to other scales is so difficult to understand? It seems like a very simple concept that should be easily understood to anyone who is an adult.
