WWII Grand Strategy

This was extremely playable, a credible enough reason was given for time travel, the items were well thought out and the story was well put together. Personally I would have preferred a bit more interaction with some historical characters (Churchill: "I want to give a speech, any ideas" for example) and possibly a sequel with a viewpoint from... the other side (a.k.a. the Axis Powers) would definitely be enjoyable.

endorse your favorite food

very very bad kis didc not like irnw it was very very very ebrys ebhrysna bas......................iw iwdis didotnrmliek it that much you nubf I don't siliekd it because dhrit was not edumacajtionaln cx ,ncsxm,/xcm /nmnjdcealmsdnfcdgewhkdg

It's an ok story. Good historical accuracy, but you could use another look at your grammar.

I got the ultimate victory!

Great!

Playing as the British? What? We should be playing as the Soviets and Chinese to stop Japan, Germany, and America.

As the title hints, this is more game than story, with descriptions often bordering to high-school book levels of monotony. I had to say, someone named Rommel writing a WWII Grand Strategy piqued my interest.

However, I wouldn't call it a Grand Strategy. I'd call it more remembering of a basic high-school history lesson, and clicking the option that sounds familiar to what history happened. The presented facts themselves also require suspension of disbelief, something easy to do with the introduction being some time travel shenanigans. As Booty Boy remarked, there are many mistakes found in the representation of the second world war, so I'll refrain from going autistic on that topic. I'd just hope that Rommel would know Rommel did not go through Switzerland in the Battle of France.

However, some choices did irk me. I couldn't fathom why dumping all equipment and running for Dunkirk was a more effective strategy over leaving a rearguard behind. I guess in history all the mentions of rearguards were just flukes. You should just outrun the enemy armoured forces. I also had a hard time believing a mix of sniperboys and anti-tankboys were more effective in holding out a city, over a mass of boots on the ground, entrenched among the rubble. Other choices were as tedious as choosing the high ground over walking into an ambush.

Overall I'd say I am disappointed, the overall quality is more akin to a middle school kid ramblings than some serious Wehraboo take on wargaming within an IF format.

I thought it would be bad when the author described the Germans attacking south of the "Manginot Line". This would have seen them attacking through Switzerland! As for spelling 'Maginot' incorrectly, it could have been worse. At least he didn't call it the Mangetout Line! He then detailed how the German attack plan was the opposite of the Schlieffen Plan. In reality it was a modified version of the same plan. His lack of research was made even more obvious when he stated that they chose to avoid attacking through Belgium, opting instead to attack through the Ardennes. Unfortunately for him, the Ardennes are in Belgium!

The whole story was littered with similar errors. The most glaring of which was describing 1943 as a quiet year! 1943 saw the Allied invasion of Italy as well as some of the biggest battles in history, on the Eastern Front. Including the largest tank battle in history at Kursk.

The point allocation appeared to be totally arbitrary too. Sensible tactical or strategic choices were frequently given fewer points than ridiculous ones. What writing there was, was poor and littered with errors. The main premise of the game was ill thought out and poorly constructed.
Overall, the game was a complete mess.

Amazing