@Harry:
I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.
Well, they do seem among the most prolific and willing to “mix it up,” that’s for sure, but hopefully without any serious rancor involved. Since the game is inherently trying to straddle the fence between balance and historicity without becoming TOO too complicated, the debates here are nearly inevitable. My teaching schedule doesn’t allow me to be able to keep up as regularly as I’d like with these threads, but I do enjoy going back and following them when I can. I personally tend to side with Flash but I realize that this is only a personal preference, mostly, and also a result of how I typically use these games: as a tool to teach kids history tempered with a little logic/ strategy. I’m thus much less concerned with such things as game balance, because I don’t really care who wins, but what everyone learns. I also like them to think about “what-ifs” though, which is why I do like Flash’s basic rule that those who realistically COULD have produced something can in the game. The rest of the argument strikes me as mostly a debate between those who love the game primarily as an HISTORICAL wargame and those who love it as a historical WARGAME. Since we all love the game for our own reasons, the answer is to make the game flexible enough to be “all things to all people” without it becoming too expensive for anybody… admittedly another difficult balance.
The passion in the arguments is really a reflection of how much we all love the game and want it to be EVEN better. With that in mind, I really hope the second edition fixes some of those bone-headed color choices: IL’s upcoming game looks like a big improvement to me in this respect as in many others. Piece-wise, it looks like it might be fairly close to ideal for me! Here’s hoping that IL’s game sells out in no time and that the HasBorg apparatus takes note of its success and uses some of its better ideas in their 2nd ed.!