I do like the variations to gameplay that offers
I would imagine IRL the Germans never counted on the Italians to declare war on the French
I do not agree, there should be certainty in key events, or the spread should be minimal +/- one move, since this greatly affects strategic plans
I do not agree with you. The best war plans are always subject to surprises. Where is the fun in knowing that events will absolutely/definitely happen at a certain date? I think it's good the game does blur this a bit. Wish it would do it more.
I guess this depends on what you are looking for in this game. If it's for a fun historical simulation, especially when playing against the AI, then the randomness is definitely a plus. But if it's a competitive game of strategy and tactics between 2 very serious players, you wouldn't want the randomness of the game to determine the outcome, would you?
You may wonder why Italy mobilization is so important here. Well, my opponent has planned to invade and capture Algiers before the fall of France, thus taking the whole France instead of just Vichy. If this happens, there would be too great of an advantage to Axis, and Russia would almost be guaranteed to fall later. He has set a significant force aside for this invasion, only waiting for Italy to join war. But Italy wouldn't... and this could bear huge impact on the outcome of this game.
The charm is both of us knew what is coming and what is at stake, for things 2 years down, without ever seeing it or talking about it. It dismays me too, when he couldn't execute his plan due to the randomness of the game.
So I think the best solution may be to create a separate version of the campaign for competitive MP play only, with randomness greatly reduced.
On a separate note, there is no way for Allies to effectively defend Algiers before Vichy. I wonder if there can be something done about it, or if we need a no attack on Algiers house rule for ELO games.
< Message edited by Cpuncher -- 6/24/2021 4:16:17 PM >