I think you overstate the affinity between the PzC and NAP engine a bit. Sure, the UI looks similiar but so do the ones for Squad Battles and the Naval games, at least at first blush.
That said, there's a great deal more "under the hood" in terms of difference. It's not just some "Napoleonic Legacy Code" or the like thrown in. Consider:
1) Formation (T mode in PzC doesn't compare, because the formations here have meaningful combat roles)
2) Skirmishers
3) Ranged DF Artillery fire in the defensive phase
4) Cavalry Charge
5) Leadership (an entirely different mechanic than HQ)
6) Rout/Rally
There are others, but those are the big ones that come to mind. That's a fair bit of the core of the system. My "programming" days are long, long behind (and a few HS classes in PASCAL doesn't exactly compare) but interchanging bits from the ACW or PzC engines into this are much harder than "adding some hooks"
Consider the original question, bridges. Bill's "putting 0 strength bridges in" thing is a bit of a workaround and an abstraction, yes, but consider.
Otherwise, every river hex would have to be rated for "pontoon suitability". That could be as simple as the steepness of the banks (on both sides), the exact details of the current at that point in the river, the depth of the river, and so forth. More realistic? Yes, but there does need to be some level of limit in all things.
Do I wish that all the engines were better? Of course, every last one of us could name out 5 "necessary" changes off the top of our head (and most of us would come up with very different lists.) Sadly though, the programming is not that easy, and with John's military work being his real bread and butter, there are limits.
|
