Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu

External Since: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 445

> *Because* they happen to be developer / publishers.

> Politicians are allowed for vote for themselves because it's
> a tiny, symbolic act lost in the millions of votes cast. But
> Olympic skaters aren't allowed to participate in the judging,
> for reasons too obvious to enumerate here.

But, to give an opposite example, the Academy is (all?) composed by members
coming from the movie industry, who get to see the movies for free (*) - and
their votes are the only ones that count for... uhm... the Academy Awards.

(*) Full disclosure: I both get games for free to review *and* I buy them. I
generally buy the ones that I would have bought anyway, like I did this year
with AGEOD ACW and a bunch of other titles (AATF, BCT, JT's Campaign
Series...) However I must admit that I play, and thus I'm able to judge in
our little award, a lot of games I haven't paid for.

External Since: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 445

>> (*) Full disclosure: I both get games for free to review *and* I buy
>> them. I
>> generally buy the ones that I would have bought anyway
>
> Same here - bought both AGEod's games, in fact : bought 2 out of the 3
> games I voted for.

And same here: 2 out of 3. I bought AGEOD ACW and AATF. And I would have
bought Napoleon's Campaigns, too, but my chef editor was quicker than me in
obtaining a copy Surprised

)

I didn't include AGEOD NC, even if I liked it very much (for the nosy: my
final mark on my magazine was 8/10 Surprised

) ), because I feel that the period
really needs a complex diplomatic model - that the engine just now lacks -
thus not allowing for a full campaign "a-la" Europa Universalis. Also, I
like more the wide operational manuvres allowed by the nature of the ACW,
while the Euro theatre is more "cramped". The latter, however, is more
matter of a personal taste.