Einar Fridgeirs
Posts: 90
Joined: 1/21/2006 Status: offline
|
As we know, the long WWII campaign takes your forces through the entire war, but follows the historical course. Even if you thoroughly trounce the enemy at locations where in history you would have been supposed to lose, you still wind up fighting him in other locations that, if you were to judge by history you shouldn´t be supposed to be at... I haven´t played any of the Megacampaigns so they might be diffrent, but I was just wondering how people´s feelings on this are. SP is a tactical level wargame, and I was just curious whether you feel that this is all good and proper, that success and failure at the tactical level is always trumped by happenings at the grander strategic level, by decisions made outside the scope of SP? Although it´s easy to say that overall victory or defeat were inevitable due to non-frontline elements such as economics, supply, geography etc.....should or shouldn´t SP be able to adress the issue of a tactical engagement changing the course of history? Is a company or battalion commander, no matter how brilliant his leadership may be unable to affect the course of the war? Is he simply doing the best while the real key events take place in loftier places, where government men make logistical decision that REALLY matter? And which SP:WaW engagements do you think would have changed the outcome of the war? Normandy comes first to mind, of course, and definently if Germany had been able to secure Moscow before being stopped by the winter(they were SO close), but what do you think? Should SP be able to allow you to take certain strategic decisions? Or just stick to doing what your superiors tell you and fight your battles to the best of your abilities....
|