|
The Apologist
|
|
Wellington, New Zealand
Aug 1999
time: 17:27
|
|
I can't think of any. Most WWII scenarios are unsatisfying as the Western Allies - the key problems for global scenarios being panzer obsession and an inconsistent approach to alliances. Theatre scenarios are alright, but, IMO, fail to capture the, well, global nature of the war.
Panzer obsession is, I suppose, just my own problem, but in most scenarios it seems very odd to have a dozen different tanks and, perhaps, four infantry units and two artillery units (for Germany - other nations tend to just get plain less). This doesn't reflect the way the war was fought on the strategic level - units were in the most part integrated, combined-arms formations.
There's a similar problem with airforces.
As for alliances, it's astonishing that Germany, Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and (generally in Global Scenarios) Vichy France can be grouped as one Civ, while the United States and British Empire are split. It's (barely) excusable to do this in a scenario starting in 1939 (or '36), but there's a pronounced tendency to use Pearl Harbor as the start date.
More minor problems include:
- no good lend-lease mechanism. Trade units are a very poor simulation ("We'll send aid to the Russians and get heaps of cash!").
- no incentive (at all) to conduct a strategic bomber campaign. Even granting Overy, a lot of dumb axis decisions are encouraged in WWII scenarios, so surely some rationale could be put on the big birds?
- a worrying tendency to misplace the 8th army. It's somewhat depressing to find that Rommel achieved numerical superiority and took Cyrenaica in exactly no time (for those supposedly historical scenarios starting in December 1941 at Alamein).
|
08-04-2003 05:37
|
|