
Originally Posted by
Foz
Even if this could be accomplished, I wouldn't want it to be: It doesn't represent what happens historically in such situations. Consider World War II for example. While it's true that much of the outside world ended up banding together to oppose Nazi Germany and its allies, to represent the situation as a giant pivotal battle would be completely incorrect. Battles continued to be fought primarily at the borders of the German-controlled territory, beginning in the West with the D-Day invasion of Normandy of course - the primary point being to capture territory. Russia in the East didn't somehow magically end up in D-Day to help with the push there. So from that standpoint, I'd have to say that suggesting some huge battle should happen that involves all the remaining countries at any given point is just ridiculous, as there's no way it would happen like that. And that's not even taking into account that forcing you to fight on many fronts due to the expanded nature of your empire is in fact a better decision for any group of opposing allies to make than it would be to try to mass a huge force to attack one place. Without other distractions you will quickly and easily turn all resources against that one large army, where if you have to defend 15 points from constant danger, odds are you can't allocate the same resources nearly as effectively and are much more likely to end up in a compromised position due to the intense micro-management required in such multi-front situations. In fact it is commonly suggested that Germany's involvement in a 2-front war is the primary reason they in fact lost - that their inability to focus on a given opponent compromised their entire empire.
Bookmarks