|
JPD49 -> RE: SC3 - Will it be a Global game or just Europe? (4/7/2015 2:09:45 AM)
|
Great Thread!
My own two cents:
From what I've seen of the global approach in other games, it isn't worth the effort for reasons so well stated here by AZ Bung Ho, solipsismMatrix, and Nyku. I think the purpose is served equally well in off map rules, unless of course there would be actual combat potential on every continent and ocean, which seems very unlikely, or some sort of situation where the European Axis and Japan can somehow link up, maybe in India (included Pakistan and Bangladesh back then) or Persia, but I think in that case the scale of the game would become unwieldy. I had WWII publications in the 50s when I was a child and a lot of them had great propaganda maps of the Rising Sun and Swatstika meeting at the Mississippi River from east and west, often tearing through all of Africa and South America as well, later reminded me of some sort of Risk game. In reality there were some plans for the two Axis partners to split bases on Madagascar, but I think that was about it. It's worth remembering that Germany didn't tell Japan about it's attack on the Soviet Union, and Japan didn't tell Germany about it's attack on America and afterwards didn't reciprocate to Germany's DoW on the US by doing the same with the USSR. They didn't cooperate to any great extent; not much in the way of a joint global strategy. Which I think is another point against a global approach: one player controlling both parts of the Axis would give the game a false aspect of combined operations.
-- My own wish list:
Have an option to start sometime in the mid-30s, or in the Spring of '39, after Anschluss and the Munich Conferences but and Germany not committed to an attacked on Poland nor obligated to start the war on any specific date. Hitler told Mussolini to be ready in 1941, which is when I believe he thought it would begin, probably with an invasion of either Denmark/Norway, or the Low Countries. His 1939 invasion of Poland was based on the assumption the British and French would prefer negotiations to battle, especially with the USSR gobbling Eastern Poland, ending the country's existence. He thought the West would then see Germany as the barrier to Bolshevism. -- What I've never understood is why the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement didn't have Stalin invading first with Germany coming over a week or so later (with the excuse of protecting Western Poland. Probably Stalin and Molotov wouldn't have risked the war with Britain and France that Hitler so clumsily stumbled into.
|
|
|
|
