F 40 Gold question

[Sir John Cope]

When designing an historical campaign, the historical outcome is the benchmark the designer is obliged to shoot for.  If they don't then they have created a poor simulation.  

Agreed, when we're considering wargames as simulations. But we don't play simulations - we play simulation games. And particularly in the case of notably lopsided conflicts (such as this one), a faithful simulation designed to invariably produce the historical outcome may be worthwhile as a way to understand and study the campaign, but not terribly interesting as a game. The ideal, of course, is a happy balance between simulation and game.  

But regardless whether the simulation or game aspect is paramount in a design, players should not be constrained from actions which were historically possible, even if the historical counterpart was too confused, inept, or incompetent to take them. That is, an ideal wargame in my view accurately reflects the conditions within which the historical commanders made decisions, while leaving the decisions themselves to the player. Hence, my objection to "idiot rules".