Are you seriously comparing your games to WOT, XCOM, Angry Birds and Walking Dead?
Sure. This is a successful games, it is with them I compare at games _in general_. Which makes sense to compare with outsiders?
APOS and the tank simulations are worlds apart in detail and complexity from those games, and your games appeal to a more niche audience.
Yes, but that should not mean the same crooked interface and difficulties with the game without reading the manual. I understand that usually means, but in general should not be - it is also the games too
As a counterexample, give the game Close Combat series. This is not less complicated game with a nontrivial game mechanics, but somehow do without large manuals. I would venture to suggest that largely because of thoughtful interface.
Surely you are aware of Command Ops, The Operational Art of War (TOAW), and Combat Mission I and II? I think they are the most comparable to your present games.
We can see now bad time for wargames, what's the point in comparison to the games that led to this? Obviously in this games are not chosen the most successful solutions in terms of games. There is no sense to copy them, especially since there are a number more successful examples.
They all have complete manuals.
...and have a very confusing and complex interfaces, without manual can not tell. But again, we can go the other way, for example to make a more intuitive interface, etc
. And we see in practice that the games have gone this way have a wider audience.
They would have been much less of a rewarding experience without them. It would be impossible to gather all the details of those games without a manual.
On your turns that aircraft pilots and operators of military vehicles must read books instead of using interactive training complexes, or what?
This is contrary to the world around us, reading one of the most primitive way to learn something.
