What it really boils down to is the fact that historical hindsight is driving certain parts of the gameplay.
Those parts limit the "what if" factor in the game. Your last answer is fine- I know the history behind what is trying to be simulated- I just don't like that an attackers strategy can be based on a certain percentage that the defender will just up and quit.
I have never seen any WW II game that I have played ever exactly play out as the real war played out.
As such, having outcomes that occur in the game based on the historical events, even though the game played out totally different from the way the real war did, strikes me as a bit false.
I think that you can understand what I am talking about from how I handled my play of the Japanese in the game that I played at Origins. I didn't have a total handle on the rules at that time, but I also didn't understand why the US just gets to come into the war at that time.
Any of these major moments in the game should have reasons for happening based on what is actually going on in the game, not arbitrary set dates based on what historically happened.
What historically happened was always based on what was going on at that time. If some action/event doesn't happen in the course of the game
and that action/event is a basis for another action/event to occur, why should the second action/event still come into being simply based on a predetermined timetable?
I know, I know! Keep it simple stupid!
It just is frustrating to want to do things differently and to keep being channeled back into certain historical choices that may have nothing to do with what I have planned for my country.
Craig