RangerJoe
Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
The Allied player should know that he is going to take a beating but can still come back. Even the Japanese player, after being stymied, can come back if the Allies try too much too soon.
I agree, but it can be a psychological pit for the Allies in the early war.
If there's not an appropriate (or realistic) frame of reference for what success looks like (either for the Allies in the early game or Japan in the late game) then a player is always going to be disappointed.
A player needs to define what success is at the beginning, such as not losing India or Australia. That can change as the war progresses but the player needs to be realistic. The game has been played by many people, there are many AARs out there which show excellent play by both sides. Sometimes you learn more when you are losing than when you are winning.
Just like investing. If you invest in a company with growth potential, define what you want and if it is a 30% return and you sell it for that price, then don't complain if you would have held a little bit longer and got a 40% return before the stock price dropped.
I was meaning defining success at the operational level, rather than the strategic.
The game spells out what success looks like at the strategic level quite clearly via the VP system and victory levels.
The problem in my view is that there's a general lack of insight into how the game plays out over time. The majority of games will end in the first 365 turns, one way or another.
I don't think the comparison to investing holds up, as the victory levels are very much a zero sum game.
The comparison to investing hold up if you decide what you want to get out of something and are satisfied when you get it. A player might lose by VPs but go to the end of the game to do so. A player might decide that lasting longer than the Japanese actually did but still lose and can claim that as a victory. A Japanese player might lose 3 major carriers at the beginning of the game, yet still play a tough fight into 1946 while not losing by VPs until 1946 and I would call that a victory.
_____________________________
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
|
Printable Version
RE: Empire of the Sun - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread