>Handful of British soldiers and sepoy mercenaries defeat

>handful

It was a whole modern army.

>>2617402
At most, the British had something like 3000 soldiers against tens of thousands of Indian troops. To be fair, Mir Jafar's forces didn't participate in the battle but even then Siraj ud-Daulah had more soldiers and artillery (including French gunners).

>>2617402
>modern army
But hundreds of thousands of young men did not die that day for nothing

>>2617455
Yeah only about 500 Indians were killed or wounded while the British only had 72 wounded or dead.

>>2617470
Why has no game been able to simulate war properly

>>2617610

Games can't really simulate anything complex properly. Computers just aren't powerful enough, and neither is our understanding of reality. War has many psychological factors that are hard to model, but even the "simple" stuff like weapons is tricky.

Also, a realistic war game would be a first-person game in which you spend most of your time sitting in a headquarters talking to people and looking at pieces of paper or screens. I'd play such a game, but I think most game makers are afraid that it would have a limited audience, and that people would rather play games where you have a god's eye view and can issue commands that are guaranteed to be followed.

There have been war games that attempted to bring in a more realistic dynamic... three that come to mind are:

1) American Civil War: From Sumter to Appomatox (Interactive Magic, 1996)

2) Sid Meier's Gettysburg (Electronic Arts, 1997)

3) the Close Combat series (Microsoft, 1996-)

These are all top-down god's eye view games, but they attempt to model morale and orders realistically, in that orders are not necessarily followed.

I'm sure there have been others.

>>2617889
Close Combat Series was amazing.

>>2617610
Because war isn't a game

>>2617918
>he thinks the 9 years war wasn't just a game of hot potato

File: Screenshot 2017-04-05 18.59.34.png (428KB, 665x483px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 665x483px

mfw