|
Lucky1 -> Heresy! (12/29/2008 2:44:37 AM)
|
I am feeling a bit stroppy, so I will fire off a little heresy in the hope of provoking some discussion on the current implementation of the A-bomb. For various reasons, I feel that it is easier to win as Axis. I feel that this is, in large measure, the result of how the A-bomb works (and does not work). Leaving aside the issue of whether the bomb implementation favours the Axis, it does force a certain measure of uniformity of strategy.
First off, the USSR must be at war with Japan. WHY? This means that unless Japan declares war against the USSR, or gets in range of Soviet bombers in the central partition, the WA and Russia must target Germany first. Yes, it is possible for the WA to take Japan amphibiously, but this can really only occur if only if the Japanese player has been extraordinarily sloppy allowing for the home islands to be be cut off and un-garrisoned. Transport restrictions and air unit costs, as well as long-range air unit penalties simply make this almost impossible if the Japanese player retreats even a fraction of the IJA to Honshu and Kyushu. So, with roughly evenly matched opponents this means that the WA must really rely on the A-bomb to win. Ok. Fine. But this means that almost every game played follows a Europe-first strategy (and the Axis player knows this). So much for choice.
Too, I am curious about the presumption that only Japan would surrender after an A-bomb (ironic, given the Japanese predisposition to not surrender). In fact, Germany was contemplating surrender without an A-bomb and probably would have if the coup against Hitler had been successful (admittedly, this may not have been the un-conditional surrender sought by the Allies). Certainly, by autumn 1944 the writing was on the wall for Germany and, if an A-bomb or two happened to drop from the skies (difficult to obtain by 1944, in any event), I find it plausible that Germany might have thrown in the towel. Why can it not be possible to consider the A-bomb for situations where Germany has retreated into her historical borders and falls below a certain PP threshold? Of course, one might consider that Russia or the WA would also surrender after an A-bomb, but the resources necessary for development obviate the need to consider this further.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
