ORIGINAL: tevans6220
The thing is I didn't lose most of my army. They were pretty beat up but no units actually were destroyed. I just had higher casualties than the Allies had historically. Apparently it was enough to give the Axis a points victory even though they lost the whole island. I see what you're saying about context and I did put my victory into context with the rest of the war. Even in a complete war scenario, I can replace my losses and the Axis can't. The Allies can afford a war of attrition. The only thing they would have to worry about are the political repercussions of sustaining high casualty rates. As I said, any American commander throwing away American lives would have been replaced.ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Welp I wish I had some comfort for you. It seems like you are saying Hey I took Sicily despite losing most of my army! I win!! But it doesn't look like you are putting that victory in the context of the rest of the war where all of those guys that got thrown away for the "victory" in sicily were needed to fight in france and Germany etc.
'Just had higher casualties...'
So, capturing and holding ground is the only thing that is important? Have you even read accounts of WW2? You do know that by Aug/Sept 1944, the British army was disbanding units to provide replacements? That Hitler would have done a whole lot better if he had allowed a more flexible defence (trading land for troops)? Based on your remarks, I do not see how you can relate to any wargame that isn't an even, fair fight. I was going to cite a couple of RL even fights (at army level), but I am struggling. North Africa 1941 (post-Rommel's arrival) to Late 1942 might be viewed as fair/even. But in reality it was anything but. It might have looked as if it swung evenly to and fro, but it was Allied all the way. Rommel did well when other factors weakened the British (diversion to Greece etc, with only Tobruk as a real exception). Once he did well, the Allies just increased strength again. Logistically Germany never had a chance in the Eastern Med, unless they had taken Malta, and even then they would have just extended the war. Ultimately the Torch landings would have sorted whatever was happening in Egypt (or Syria or where ever they had got to by then)
Thus I think you are over simplifying things. WW2 was an economic war. The armies (and Airforces) were just the point of application. Once Hitler invaded USSR (a vaste sink into which the entire resources of the USA could probably have been sunk without decisive result), he was never going to win (even just against UK - that was quite nicely stalemating by 1942, thanks to Uncle Joe). The only variable was would it take more or less time, more or less casualties than history.
By some measures, Russia won the second world war - yes they suffered hugely, but look where they ended up by 1947-8. In control of all of eastern Europe and large areas of the rest of the world (influence in Vietnam, Korea, China etc). They had reached the height of their power and influence, and were much better positioned than at any time in their history. USA second, UK third, Axis last. Now, it is rather lucky for us all that the USA (and allies) then comprehensively won the cold war but thats a different topic...
WitW gives the chance to alter that (as Allies), or delay/alter it as Axis. The war could easily have gone on a couple of years longer. It could possibly have been shorter. The Allies really got Italy wrong, and defeating Kesselring rather than dancing to his tune is probably the best way. All of this makes for a good game in my book.
However if its not your boat, bad luck. However I do not think WitW is anything other than we were promised, and does not suffer (IMHO) from not covering 1940-1943)
