I feel you`ve been a bit patronizing towards me in your post and in my opinion gratuitously. Perhaps you haven`t read my entire post or missed something. To address the points:
VPaulus wrote:
You're missing one thing. PzC does have some alternative scenarios. Those units were made thinking on those possibilities.
I don`t think anything out there suggests I am missing that part. My point was that even in such a case those units are still hardly used. Which contradicts the reason given to me for some other units not being created(i.e. their limited use in the existing game was not worth the trouble for the artist).
PzC was never meant to be 100% historical accuracy.
You`re not telling me anything new there or for that matter unpleasant. Games can`t be 100% historical anyway you put it and imo they`re not much worth playing if they don`t allow for "ahistorical" action. Otherwise I wouldn`t have bothered with the entire PG series and PzC too.
The game is to be played by different kind of people.
Understandable. It`s something I`ve always been aware of and I`m hoping that you can see others` perspective too. I`m actually for a broad satisfaction of as many people as possible with this game. Which ideally means everyone should make some compromise because, naturally, the developing manpower isn`t there to satisfy everyone. On my part, as you can read above, I`ve never miliated for a complete historical roster for the so called "minor" factions, but just for more attention given to them. I`ve used the "basic sketch" term above. That implies for example a fighter, a bomber and a couple of tanks to feel that those nations are real armies too.
And some, believe it or not, do like those alternative and prototype units. As the game it's now it's possible to be played by both type of players.
Now, why would I not believe that? For that matter, where have I said I`m for taking those out? I`m one of the people who`d like to see as many options as possible. The Maus is one of them for example. I`m quite happy that it`s in. I`d be happier still if Hungary for example would have the Turan and Romania the I.A.R 80. Not all their sub-types and prototypes, but the main base. Because, you see, my point was not that the Maus should be dropped for the Turan, but that the official line given(quoted above) is not consistent with the reality. Which is that even units that are only used once in game are a great addition to the gameplay. Like the Maus is. So I think(from an outside of development perspective obviously) that
a few(underlined) more units should be given to some other factions that currently are rather bare. Not immediately, not with priority, but eventually.
Everybody has his personal agenda and his own reasons, for which units and which scenarios should be included with the original PzC. Of course they could have added all WW2 units. But that's unrealistic has you might understand.
I obviously do. That`s why you can find above this part in my post:
Mark50 wrote:
I know I shouldn`t expect wall to wall cover of the event and I`ve never hoped to see complete (and completely historical) unit rosters for Hungary, Romania, Holland etc., but I was hopping to see at least a basic sketch of their most important/representative equipment even if some types would be skipped or substituted with more common types.
Now, aren`t we on the same line on this issue?
Btw, if you think this has gone off topic feel free to split the thread from my first reply so as not to clutter uho`s thread.