Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
It only matters if you look at the logic of the game - and frankly a lot of US military and government officials had very little logic
if you want to design a game at least make it one where the US doesnt behave stupidly in order to have the scenario occur
|
Ah, I think you misunderstand me. The part that doesn't matter was whether the US 7th Fleet was on its way to the Adriatic or to Turkey when it was destroyed by the Italians.
In either case, sending a resupply through a small area (Tyrrhenian Sea/Sicily Strait) where an enemy has significant air and sea assets is idiotic.
The supply issue is another good case of stupidity. Since WW2, most modern militaries (including the US) has been well aware of the importance of logistics, especially for force projection. Troops that cannot be supplied with food, ammo, and fuel are wasted, as they will soon be unable to defend themselves. If they cannot be supported, the troops are NOT sent. At least in Germany, ammo is plentiful since NATO standardized ammo, and it was stockpiled. Not much NATO ammo available in Yugoslavia; deployment requires a supply route, and there is not a secure route available.
(But logistics also leads to my problems with the Mexican/Texican affair - after its initial attack, the Soviets will run low on ammo that cannot be supplied by the Mexicans or US sources.)
Similarly, the Soviet invasion of Alaska, while producing an interesting gaming environment (perhaps), is a pointless waste of Soviet strength. More sensible would have been to assault the North Slope (only) to seize the oil production facilities. Let the Americans stretch their logistics lines to counter attack. What else in Alaska has easily gathered resources immediately useful to the Soviet war effort?
Now, T2K reminds me of Game of Thrones. By the time I got halfway through the third book, I was getting a little annoyed of every character in a leadership position
always selecting a path that would lead to the most self-destructive result!
Uncle Ted