sIg3b -> RE: Italian Surrender (12/16/2018 9:19:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx quote:
ORIGINAL: Leadwieght I have to agree with CapitaineHaddock. A "game" where one side can't win is not much of game. Nor is it necessarily a particularly good history lesson. In SC3, I think that between two human players of roughly equal ability The Allied player will have a slight advantage (maybe 60/40) and I'm fine with that, because the Axis player always has the chance to "steal" a victory if he moves quickly enough in the early years, before Russian and US production overwhelms the Axis. And, IMHO, that describes pretty well the "historicity" of the period 1939-1941, if not the actual course of events. I think history is fluid and there are seldom, if ever pre-determined outcomes, especially in something as complex and chancy as a world war. Sorry for the sermon, but I'm a bit passionate about the subject of freewill vs. determinism. I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism. A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene. Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be. You are undermining your own case. Assuming German defeat was inevitable means downplaying any Alied heroism and/or sound strategic decisions. If the 3rd Reich was fated to lose, then why did the Allies try so hard? According to you, they must have been stupid, because they should have been pretty relaxed about Hitler and not breaking a sweat. [;)]
|
|
|
|