Ambassador
Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ambassador
quote:
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Suggest anyone really interested in this discussion search for the last 5 or 6 of these and read them, they go back 10 years easily.
The ability to get Frank a in Q3Y43 and then subsequently Frank -r in mid 44 or even better. Frank -b with the same focus is Q2 '44 at best. Very few players would ever choose the latter over the former.
Frank -a in Q3Y43 is a game changer. Frank -b in Q2Y44 just maintains status quo. Getting Frank -r about the same time eliminates the Frank -b model from discussion. Whether b is better than r is moot, its that you want a in 43 period. to give that up to get the b model only makes sense if that is what the game player wishes to do, but in a competitive game it will be a poorer choice.
I find such an abuse of the industrial engine to be one of the most gamey, if not the most gamey, move in the game. Completely rips apart the balance the gamers tried to achieve, and is more disruptive than any gamey move the Allied could even do, even basing 4E bombers in China to commence strat bomb early.
Or moving restricted units across borders without paying PP. Sure, you can do it, but it’s neither historical nor balanced.
To quote mind_messing in another thread : if you want to play fantasy, play HoI.
Your game, your choice.
The game allows it, so if you wanna play ostrich, again your choice.
If you play waiting for the AC to arrive historical dates, then what is there to discuss? When Frank-b arrives 3/45 build to your hearts content. When Frank -r arrives 9/45, don't build it, or do. whatever. There isn't an either/or to discuss in your scenario. There is rarely a clear cut "this is the better AC" in any case. It is all about, in this scenario, this aircraft would be better, but in this scenario it would be this one. Then it is about which scenario you as a player feels is more commonplace, that's opinion, rarely fact. And in either case, in any game, the frequency of occurrence of either scenario can vary wildly game to game.
You wanna get up on your high horse, saddle up. But, don't bring it here. Keep your "fantasy" thoughts to yourself, and don't denigrate that which you don't know or are not capable of understanding. Oh and stop quoting others out of context.
The game allows basing 4E bombers from China ; allows 4E on naval strikes at 100ft ; on night bombing. All this without limits. How come JFB always insist on restrictions on that, because it’s way more effective than bombing from higher, or would not have been done large-scale IRL ?
The problem I have is hypocrisy. The game already gives a far better situation to Japan than real life. Between the possibility to tinker with production (abandoning construction of things less useful), the over-abundance of xAK (and TK after conversions) in regards to their actual requirements, the reduction of value of the SigInt, the ease of conquest of China without a big reinforcement by the Allies before the road closes, the ability to deplete Manchukuo of lots of troops and support (from Artillery to Armor, Base forces, Squadrons... as long as you keep that magic number of AV). Performances of the IJN/IJA planes being based on the tests by the US with better fuel. Lack of IJN/IJA cooperation problems. Better air ASW available, and setting up adequate convoys (let alone the infamous Singapore-Fusan magic highway).
The fact is, on top of all that, the Japanese industry in the game can be tinkered with in an unrealistic way. Could they magically retool the factory producing Ki-27 to produce Ki-84 ? Could they just decide to halt production in half the merchant shipyards to free more HI for aircraft & engine production ? Could they hasten the development of a plane up to a year, or even more ? Nope. Plus, as Alfred points, diverting research from the other models doesn’t push them back.
Consolidating that advantage, the IJ player may also, and many do, as I read the AARs and advices, resize squadrons to institute large training squadrons on map. Historically, IJNAF/IJAAF lacked a good training process, on the opposite of the US (and the whole Commonwealth in Canada). Elite IJ pilots were not sent back to train the future pilots, it was the veteran US ones who were rotated back.
In short, hindsight helps the IJ player much more than the Allied player, in that a lot of the historical Japan weaknesses may be covered for. Plus, avoiding mistakes which led to Midway. Yet, anytime someone comes calling that, JFB come to deride the critic and call for a « historical play ».
So, don’t come calling me on wishes for a « fantasy » when an analysis of the game shows it’s already in favor of Japan. It is a design choice by the devs, in order to still have players for that side, ok. But they balanced everything carefully, and pushing the enveloppe on some things leads to big imbalances.
And to be clear, I’ve played at least 4-5 campaigns as Japan - against the AI, yes, but I know the production system. That’s why I don’t like it - the results you can get are ahistorical and unbalanced, and there’s very little countermeasures available to the Allied player, as damaging Japan’s industry before deploying B-29 is next to impossible (unless the IJ player is grossly incompetent at managing convoys) and attrition warfare in ‘42-‘43-‘44 may in fact turn in favor of Japan.
|
Printable Version
Frank r VS Frank b - 
RE: Frank r VS Frank b - 
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