In a message dated 2/26/01 8:12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< >In chess, knights are meant to leap of castles! How unrealistic! 
Sure but if very simple games were eternally satisfying to all, then
we'd all be playing chess, all of the time, and more complex rule
systems would never have evolved
> >>
Right. But as a general rule, the more complex a game is, the fewer people
will play it. At Yahoo Games, there is always a couple thousand people
playing chess, 24 hours a day, and that is just one of the sites where you
can play chess. I couldn't guess how many different people that amounts to,
but has to be an order of magnitude more than the 600 I have seen mentioned
as MEPBM players. Realism -- and who is to say what is "realistic" about
elves and trolls? -- is less important in a simulation game than "game
atmosphere".
The game company will increase complexity only if it thinks it will attract
additional players to the game by improving game atmosphere. It is true that
Light Infantry and Light Cavalry are rarely recruited but do comprise a large
part of the initial nation setups in 2950, the only version that I have
played. Many of the suggestions I have seen may eliminate real or imagined
"absurdities", e.g. ignoring the option that an army may have to choose an
orderly, or perhaps somewhat disorderly, retreat rather than allow itself to
be destroyed, but would not improve game atmosphere to any great extent.
This is not to deride the suggestions themselves but merely to offer a
rationale as to why there have not been more rules "improvements" over the
years. Introduction of the Fourth Age scenario did offer players additional
options. The preceding messages indicate that while some like it, some
don't. Most computer applications are continually upgraded, but the software
companies make money by selling licenses for direct use of the programs.
MEPBM is not a program you can use directly -- players only buy the right to
input to and receive output from its program -- so its business model is
different.
Ed