Lowpe
Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred The better question is with the latest changes, does scenario 2 remain playable for two human players or should it now be considered to be played only by a human Allied player v a Japanese AI. Alfred Hopefully we will find out. Rusty, Scenario 2 usually forces the Allies to figure out a way to generate VP to stave off AV earlier than Scenario 1. So there is a constant conflict of interest save resources for later when it is much easier to earn VP with the resources (due to better training, leader, and technology) or expend them for VP in a favorable manner or to reduce overall VP gains (by buying time). It has been a long time since I played scenario 2 style game. The biggest changes past the economic & r&d strength of Japan, which is very significant, is more Tank units and changing the Shinano that I recall easily. There is a post somewhere on the forum detailing the differences, but I am not looking for it. I always was of the opinion that Scenario 2 was too slanted towards Japan for pbem. Between players of different skill levels you need to figure out the reason for the skill difference...strategy, tactics, game mechanics, oob knowledge. Some of these can be radically improved upon very quickly while others not so much. It does give a Japanese player a buffer to make some mistakes especially with respect to the economy, and if the Allies can avoid AV then it also usually offers a longer game. My biggest fear is a 1944 Japanese AV. If Japan plays for that, rather than swinging for the fences during the amphibious invasion bonus period and seeking a 1943 AV -- well, that could prove very difficult to stop in this game. Perhaps the 2 day turns will prove to be my best friend in staving off AV...as I feel it favors the defender if used correctly.
< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/30/2020 11:56:28 AM >
|