Well this thread continues and has not been locked so I'll venture my GBP£0.02.
I don't really get the whole civilian deaths thing when playing a strategic level game of WWII. For the avoidance of doubt I am NOT talking about the holocaust and similar acts. I am talking purely about the deaths of civilians as a result of the fact there was a war on and there was collateral damage.
Of course to an extent civilians have always been in the way and there have always been civilian casualties in wars down the ages. But it is the sheer scale of WWII, the scope of operations and the military technological advancements, that made WWII so destructive for the civilian population of many countries. WWII took this to another level, partly due to strategic bombing, but also because WWII was total war and not all civilians could remove themselves from the areas fought over.
But if we are to be squeamish over civilian deaths to the point that nuclear weapons are not playable, then what about strategic bombing? And if that is not acceptable then what about the very act of going to war in the first place? How many civilians are estimated to have been killed as a result of the Normandy invasion as just one example? 20,000 is a number I've seen. Some the result of tactical bombing, some the result of shore bombardment, and many because they were unlucky enough to be in the firing line when the war came to their city, town, village or farm.
I don't really see how 'manpower hits' is an unacceptable concept in a strategic war game. I know that manpower pools was a concept that the World In Flames designers were thinking about for when the game came to computer. I don't know to what extent this was really considered, how it would be calculated, and why it was dropped - but it would actually be an excellent addition to a strategic game. The reasoning is simple. Playing World In Flames with oil is a different game to playing without. Oil is simply vital and it can't be squandered (particularly by the Axis) and so moves can be limited by the oil situation. This is totally realistic and greatly adds to the WWII feel of the game.
By the same token, manpower restrictions would add hugely to the game experience. Manpower by the end of the war was becoming an issue for all participants and was certainly a major issue for the Commonwealth which had to dismantle divisions to keep manpower to the required levels in others. As with oil limiting movements, so the need to conserve fighting strength would perhaps make for more realistic appraisals when launching attacks and campaigns - and unrealistically sacrificing whole armies to delay an opponent. Manpower available for fighting was affected by losses in the field, PoW taken, home territory captured by the enemy and the effects of strategic bombing. Manpower available for the army would be effected by the size of the navy and air force. Hell, one could even have a resource output effect - depending upon the size of the armed forces (and the subsequent knock-on effect of those available for industry). Loads of possibilities.
But I guess everyone has a line they, personally, don't want to cross. The use of the bomb in WWII is not a line for me. Terrible as they were, they brought this most destructive of wars to an end and, in my view, they are what have kept the major powers at peace (localised conflicts aside) since 1945.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/16/2019 7:21:45 AM >
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805