|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paint it Pink  writes: |
It comes down to what is the reason you are playing the game? If it is for a fun evening and socialising, then play balance is a good thing. For a campaign game, then unbalanced games occur as a result of earlier decisions. In real life the attacker always tries to have a local superiority, because war is not about being fair. However, we are playing games of war, not prosecuting a real war. So it will depend on the personalities of the players whether or not one can enjoy a seriously unbalanced game. To do this requires that the weaker player is motivated by the adverse situation that they face, and can gain enjoyment from playing the game. If the weaker player feels that there is little enjoyment to be had, then this will lead to disappointment. YMMV |
Back to the Homepage
884 hits since 3 Oct 2009
©1994-2009 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| VOTING RESULTS | |||
| Answer | Votes | % | Chart |
Yes | 216 | 74% |  |
|---|---|---|---|
No | 44 | 15% | |
abstain | 30 | 10% | |
| POLL IS CLOSED |
| POLL DESCRIPTION | |
In the Letters column of Slingshot magazine, Phil Halewood remarks: ...the most interesting engagements were never those with 'balanced' forces. How the outnumbered, outmaneuvered, demoralised army fought against the odds and won despite these disadvantages makes for a stirring battle and written account. Are unbalanced games more interesting? |
