warspite1 -> RE: Simulating historical stupidity (12/7/2014 7:56:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer Warspite, red vs blue, I'm surprised that reference confounded you :) The old board game Blitzkrieg was essentially a red vs blue design. The sides were not identical, but there was no biased based on crazy human history. The game Victory the blocks of War from Columbia Games is another great example of the feel of WW2, yet not history straight jacket. I think over all, Gary's two games could be incredible, if they had been designed into a WW2 like setting, but not the actual WW2 setting. All the detail of the design, yet none of the aspects of history that confound the simulation. One of the nicer aspects of tactical I suppose, is you can get it accurate, and yet, the history of the time isn't quite the straight jacket. My main reason for liking ASL, is it doesn't matter who wins (ok everyone likes to win admittedly :) ), but the thing is, the game is mainly cool for all the outrageous extreme end of the scale results that can happen. I get that from Battle Academy as well. I've been hacking away at a project to make myself bonus materials for PanzerBlitz and Panzer Leader, mainly as the history of the time isn't as vital. Often the reason I play operational of the scale of Gary's games, is I like to see what was actually involved with challenges that had to be overcome. But it gets frustrating knowing that some events happened the way they happened, only because of some human angle that was preposterous. It was likely a good thing that Patton got in trouble in Sicily. It kept him out of Italy. And his big mouth kept him out of Bradley's job, which meant he ended up with 3rd army and his drive across France which put him in a position to counter the Bulge fighting. It would be interesting to know, what might have happened, if the Panzer divisions had been freed the moment the Allies hit the beaches. Falaise might never have happened, if the Allies had not known in advance of the German attack at Mortain. It is possible the Germans should never have fought the battle of the Bulge. So many of our wargames, are the result of human failings being made into games. As for Malta, well, we will never know. Rommel was often denied supplies he would not have failed to get. The war in the desert, the British almost lost that eh, and Rommel almost did it with what he had. To think the Germans would have failed to take the canal if Rommel had gotten most of his supplies, sounds a bit too much like a failed understanding of the situations of the times. Hitler though never took the theatre seriously. warspite1 quote:
Warspite, red vs blue, I'm surprised that reference confounded you :) I'm not the sharpest tool in the box so that fact something confounded me should come as no surprise. However, now you've explained things...I'm still none the wiser So if we take WITW - what biased crazy human history have the designers modelled in? quote:
It would be interesting to know, what might have happened, if the Panzer divisions had been freed the moment the Allies hit the beaches. Agreed. That would be interesting. But then again so would Case Yellow without Manstein's plan (that Hitler authorised). Without that you have a full frontal slog through Belgium. Good luck with that. quote:
As for Malta, well, we will never know. Rommel was often denied supplies he would not have failed to get. The war in the desert, the British almost lost that eh, and Rommel almost did it with what he had. To think the Germans would have failed to take the canal if Rommel had gotten most of his supplies,, sounds a bit too much like a failed understanding of the situations of the times. Hitler though never took the theatre seriously. So what % of his supplies did he not get? I think you over estimate this. The problem for Rommel was more to do with the fact that a) Hitler could not spare him the reinforcements his ego required, and b) it is arguable how much more the North African theatre (with its logistical problems) could support anyway. Which of course is why he was ordered on the defensive in support of the Italians in the first place. quote:
Hitler though never took the theatre seriously. But this is to completely fail to understand what the war was about, what Hitler was about [&:] WWII was fought for Lebensraum. End of. Hitler found himself fighting the Western Allies because they refused him a free hand in the East. But the war was all about the East. Hitler did not take North Africa seriously for the same reason he did not take Sealion seriously (aside from the fact the latter was impossible). Because he needed to beat the Soviet Union and, like Napoleon before him, he decided to turn East before he had dealt with those pesky islanders. So sure, take Hitler out of the equation and put in a leader that does not have a hard-on for the East. Guess what? You suddenly don't have a Second World War. BTW did we really come close to losing Egypt? I don't think so. Auchinleck beat Rommel and as a result, Rommel was a busted flush come the time of El-Alamein (albeit still an incredibly tough nut to crack on the defensive).
|
|
|
|