Which is ahistorical, Germany was in no position to start the war in 38.
These critics miss the point, I think.
This scenario, as I understand it, is not meant mainly to reflect historical situation. It starts with a more or less historical setting, but offers a lot of ways to go. There are different victory conditions to choose. Dependend on this the game might develop in quite different directions.
If you want to play close to the historical situation, there would be some changes necessary. First, strip off the different victory conditions and allow only the historical ones. Second, strip off the possibility of diplomatic influence and make minors only join those majors they historically joined, at the time they historically did. So instead of cards for diplomatic influence, just trigger that by date.
Ernieschwitz has implemented more options for diplomatic influence and implemented different victory conditions to make it more difficult to determine what the other players intend to do. You would just go back to previous versions by stripping off these implementations in order to link the game to historical situation. You might do so by setting house rules. But this would not be the game I like to play.
To blame this scenario being ahistorical is same as to blame HoI or EU for being ahistorical. HoI or EU allow players to choose a start time and sets the game historical situation of that date. And does this in a very detailed and accurate way. But once you hit the start button the game develops due to game mechanics and not along a historical path. For example, I started a game of HoI III playing Axis. At the beginning of 1940 I had taken France. Just when last French province fell, Spain joined an alliance with Britain. British and Spanish forces attacked the southwest French provinces I had just taken. What to do? Quit and send a message to the developers of HoI to blame the game for not being historically accurate? Or take the challenge, start a campaign in Spain and wait to attack SU?
There is a pint that is often forgotten when complaining that a game is ahistorical. The only way to play a game close to historical path would be to play sides as they were historically, have some success for Axis in the beginning and change to slow but steady defeat of Axis til the game ends in 1945. So why play a game when the outcome is already clear and in between it should not develop in a way that’s quite different from historical situation?
I had played a game that was very close to historical situation. Not by intention, but by the way we proceeded. Played Axis in ETO. My opponent took Berlin at beginning of May 1945. Was a great game. We played more than 200 turns. But I like to have the possibility to play a game in different ways. And this scenario offers this in a great way.
I would have to say that i agree wholeheartedly with Rufus on this. I wanted as much flexibility as possible for everyone, while having it be a similar setup as world war 2. I think me and Bombur have succeeded in creating something special, although it did take alot of work, it was worth it.