Anyway, I think we're getting side-tracked from the original point being made my CHL: if the game is theatre-specific then the designers can layer on theatre-specific rules.
whatever you want, I just am having trouble seeing how a A&A med would be all that different from AAE40. The historical med theater from 1940 to 1945 certainly involved politics and economics/production.
These seem like contradictory statments to me. Stalingrad is a battle that lasted for several months and involved major forces in a theater that was the huge with battles that covered vast expanses with considerable economic backing. How is this any different from the grand srtatgey game you describe? Unless you talking about focusing on only the battle, confined to the city itself, but that wouldnt do it justice. Guadalcanal, for example, is a theater level game, it took place over several months (or maybe even a year) and involved major forces, and a considerable amount of economic resources.
I think a CBI or North African/Med. game would be in keeping with this trend just as much as a Stalingrad game would.
good point, there is alot of ways you could do A&A stalingrad and depending on what the focus was you could call it operational or strategic.
both stalingrad and guadacanal were fought in under a year and guadacanal was a campaign in the south pacific sub-theater of the pacific theater. The med sea or CBI is a whole order of magnitude above campaigns like stalindgrad and gaudacanal. Just look at the time frame, number of contries involved and the area covered.