Reply To: Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[limburger 21707xp 0]

Long term tracking of games is even more time consuming and I’d argue we can sort of track that through projects on this site.
Granted it’s only the activity of the OTT community and it requires people willing to publish their experiences , but it is a rough indicator  of how a game is evolving/developing. You won’t see people doing stuff for games that suck, except when they canabalize them for parts.

We need to remind ourselves of the best thing this hobby has : we can adapt and improve the games and unlike videogames we aren’t dependent on the existence of publishers, except when we need to bring in new blood (which is kind of impossible if the game is out of print … ).

As for ‘Tanks:modern age’ being unbalanced … LOL.
Did anyone seriously think that a helicopter vs any tank would ever be balanced at that scale ?

You’re using a few tanks against a weapon system that’s designed to kill dozens without taking a single hit. There’s no way such a thing will be ‘balanced’ unless you nerf it at which point the Hind owner complains that he has a paper weight. In a ‘realistic’ scenario that tank wouldn’t even know there was a tank killer hovering nearby until it got hit …
And that’s based on my experience playing simulator games (M1 Tankplatoon and Gunship 2000!).
Does one really need an  in-depth review to extrapolate that ?

it’s like those endless arguments in RPG forums about why wizards would win/lose in against a fighter class where no one appears to consider terrain and circumstances.

There is only so much any review / demo can do. You need to be able to extrapolate your own thoughts from the information given. There’s always situations that reviews will miss and it’s the same reason the designers didn’t catch those errors : too many combinations and not enough time to test them all.