TheWombat_matrixforum
Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003 Status: offline
|
Few wars, if any, are "balanced." People go to war for a lot of reasons, most of which don't include getting a fair fight. Either you try to overmatch the other guy (ideal) or you are forced (by your own ideology, by circumstances, or whatever) into an asymmetrical fight. So unless you pick tactical engagements where the outcome doesn't affect the grand scheme of things, most wargames are unbalanced in the sense that even if you win the victory point calculations, nope, the Germans still ain't taking Antwerp or whatever, and even if they did, Hitler still dies in the bunker a few months either side of the historical date. Some folks might feel differently, but I've never cared much whether the side I'm playing could win in the big picture. I just play for the specific challenges of the game and its simulated scale. For grand strategy games, it's mostly about exceeding history. For operational games, it's that plus maybe getting a "win" that, while not changing the course of the war, might at least prove a point about what decisions were made or not made at the time. For tactical battles, it matters even less, as it's all about small unit actions which in the grand scheme of things mattered not a whit to the Roosevelts, Stalins, Churchills, et al. There, it's about the specifics of taking this bit of ground or destroying that force, and doing it well. I agree that pretty much all Pacific War stuff is tough to make "balanced," because there's no way in hell the Japanese can "win" in a traditional sense, unless everyone else just packs up and goes home. But the battles themselves are still interesting and there is plenty of room I'd imagine for screw ups and bad decisions, enough to make it interesting. For me at least; YMMV.
|