From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
You can also look at the sheer massive amount of material, money, time and effort placed into programs between 1880-1914 under England, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Russia and the United States and even nations like Greece, Turkey and Brazil.
There were naval races happening all over the world and massive progressions in technology and massive build ups in navies in terms of numbers of ships.
Nobody could have stand against the UK royal navy. World wars in Europe were all about land warfare and that's why we won't see anything on a strategic/operational level, but featuring single battles like Jutland. A WW1 naval game with chances to win for both sides, which is crucial for multiplayer, would be pure fantasy and hence not fun.
The Naval war was closer in August 1914 than at the time of Jutland in terms of numbers of ships. The Royal Navy added many times more ships during the war than did the Germans and outright stole two ships from the Turks to give them even greater numbers.
And the German strategy of the time was to pare down the RN's strength through the use of the naval mine and the submarine. It also came close a few times to isolating parts of the Grand Fleet and engaging it.
A game based on this would be extremely fun. The strategy itself if played out a few hundred times could realistically work enough times for it to make a fun and historically plausible game.
And WITP is in no way balanced. The Allies after 12 months have an overwhelming advantage but there are still hundreds of PBEMs played. So I don't think many people share your sentiments or opinions.
Finally there could be some alternate scenarios that did not devolve into pure fantasy that would also be fun.
The game would be a commercial success. Of that I have no doubt as long as the game was done well and properly marketed.
< Message edited by Fallschirmjager -- 9/2/2010 12:56:21 AM >