|
Jeremy Pritchard -> (12/12/2002 9:58:52 AM)
|
The problem with "what if", is precisely that "what if"?
What should be an appropriate "what if" scenario? The extent of a change in a possibility of what happened can affect many different things. Plus, if you change one aspect of history, who says that 1000 other facets of history should change in response to this particular change.
It would be GREAT if we could get some solid "what if" scenarios, or options, but the real impact on history is difficult to say (especially with a theatre wargame like WitP). "What if's" are good for single scenario's (i.e., the game Operation Crusader), as the "what if's" are plausible, and beyond the individual scope of the game (i.e., what if Malta was invaded, then German supply increases).
Here are some problems:
"What if" there was no Washington Treaty: Japan, US and UK build many warships
HOWEVER: What would the result of the Stock Market Crash on navy spending be per nation? Would this just result in Japan being even more outnumbered? Will this really mean that battleships will be more important then Cariers? Will this affect more then naval production, but also aircraft production as much of this development was done in lieu of limited numbers of battleships requiring larger airforces to cover seazones? Will this change anything? You can really see the problems that "what if" scenarios raise up.
I see the most practical "what if" scenario for WitP would be "what if the Japanese won at Midway". This was probably the most plausible alternate scenario, as the battle was more then a tossup favouring Japan. This would keep the initiative in the hands of Japan for at least a few more months. Something like this will really only change the immediate scenario, as Japan will eventually get outnumbered, but could possibly be worse for Japan in the long run, as there would not be an immediate call for massive construction to replace the ships lost!
|
|
|
|
