|
Jutland13 -> RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production (1/14/2008 11:24:27 PM)
|
I agree with both points made. The Japanese system "can" become more than historical. However, poor/unlucky play by an allied player can create new unhistorical results, which everyone seems to want to ignore, but which have far reaching downstream consequences, that while they never "did" occur, might have occured if events had been different. It is these things that a game captures, which makes it fun and frustrating at the same time.
For example, what if the Midway results never happen, or better yet are reversed or more? The Japanese fleet is capable of inflicting a majot defeat on the Allied Fleet early on. Many Allied players are overly aggressive. If this happens, there is no Gaudalcanal, or at least not for another 12-16 months. In that time an unchallenged Japanese fleet and air arm can escort many invasions and followup damage to allied forces without this counter threat. Not having to commit massive troops to counter Island invasions frees up many troops for Ops in China, Noumea, New Zealand etc. What if the Allied player also performs poorly in China and elsewhere? Troops pulled from there can impact Burma, India etc. The Japanese have an extra 12-16 months unchallenged at sea to reinforce, build bases, control supply lines and logistics. Build industry in Japan under less pressure. These situations favour Japanese forces on the ground, at sea and in the air. It is the compound affect. Significant Allied defeats early in the war can have and could have had very signifcant compounded consequences.
Since this did not occur, we do not know. It often seems the Allied player wants a war without consequences for poor play and no or very limited reward for a very well played Japanese game.
I do think that some multiplier for Allied reinforcement (aircraft, pilots etc) could be instituted if the Japanese player is out performing history and the allies.
The game does over emphasize Japanese production, especially if the Japanese can istitute an inproved convoy system, improve aircraft construction, improve logistics. These all could have been improved dramatically historically. So the game is not so far off in this respect. The fact they were not done historically does not negate the fact that it could have been done.
One commander, with historical insight of all Japanese forces further facilitates the potential of Japanese arms. Both sides IJN & IJa working together, sharing resources and goals. Unhistorical, in that it did not happen. Not unhistorical, in that it could not have happened. If argued so, is it any less historical than a completely unified Allied command from Dec 8, 1941 onward? China, india, Aus, US, UK, DEI all sharing military resources without question and sacrificing themselves for the long term victory from day 1 of the war? Coordinating all of these for one goal, without ego, culture, politics etc was completely unhistoric and also nearly impossible under any ideal situation that could have existed.
Despite all of this occurring the Allied player should still win every time! It might take longer, it might involve a great deal more work and combat in unhistorical areas, but it is still a certainty.
Given this, I greatly enjoy the extra capacity of Japan and its potential for more. I also find it makes for a better game for the Allied player. Without it, the game become a mindless cakewalk after 1942 if the Allies perform historically or better. I will gladly assume the Allied player vs any Japanese opponent. I am certainly no genius, but I know I will eventually win, with much room for error.
Many players are indignant and blame the system, when they cannot repeat or improve on the historical result of the Allies. With both sides learning from history and not repeating historical blunders, but likely new blunders, the game will be different from history. Thank goodness for that. I have read extensively on the Pacific War, watched the documentaries, I know who won and how, why do I want to spend the next 18+mos recreating it? I want the game to give and create something new.
The game still so favours the allies, which is historical, that I find so much of this fussing over the PDU of Japan a waste. What is more, with all of the opinions, no one will ever agree what it should be, what it should do, when it should do it, Why is should do it etc.
The game works great for me, is great fun and has great historical feel and still rewards the best player and the best run forces with vicory using historical units and planning decisions and activities in a historical manner.
Neither this game or any that follows it can be all things to everyone.
|
|
|
|
