Clusterfudge? Not really. The Italian team figured out that if they went with the UK and France, they would be in a much better position to gain and retain territory than if they went with the Germans. The Germans went after Holland in conjunction with the Japanese team, as the Japanese team wanted to get the resources to build up to attack Russia, as we covered the disastrous Japanese defeat at Nomonhan. The World at War game, correctly I think, considers WW2 more of an Axis verses the Allies and Russia war. Stalin was about as great a butcher as Hitler, and Russia was the one Allied Power that increased it territory following the war. The German team did not expect the Italians to even get in the war that early.RyGuy wrote:Looks like you have some creative students Sounds like the first group really made a clusterfudge of things.
Hmm, while the acquisition of resources clearly was a major factor in the war, I would not say that food, except for Japan, was that big a factor. As for millions starving to death, I would like to see her sources for that. Aside from Leningrad, no major area affected by the war really faced a severe food shortage. Short rations, yes, but outright starvation, no. As for the health effects still being felt today, I have major problems with that. You do have a fair number of WW2 vets dealing with malaria from service in the South Pacific, but health problems from starvation, the lady is badly overstating her case.RyGuy wrote:Have you incorporated food supply into your game at all? I'm reading a book that just came out this year called 'The Taste of War' by Lizzie Collingham. Basically she's talking about how food dominated the way, and in many ways why, the war was fought. Pretty interesting so far. Really scaring considering the millions upon millions of people who died through starvation in WWII and how the health effects are still being felt today.