|
ckammp -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/24/2010 1:36:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta
quote:
ORIGINAL: ckammp
I belive the tactic of resizing a squadron to 72 planes is gamey (cheating).
IMHO, it is too easy to abuse this tactic, and I believe it would result in skewed combat results.
Have you a practical example for this or it is only guessing?
What's to stop someone from resizing a number of squadrons and then transferring them to different bases? It was pointed out above, this gives them an unfair advantage for coordination. And what stops someone from thereby creating huge training squadrons for the IJN? With a 72-plane squadron, you could assign 95 pilots. A few such squadrons would allow the japanese player to train far more pilots than the US. Even a JFB would have to admit that the US pilot training infrastructure was far superior to that of the Japanese.
quote:
I do not accept the justification of 'creative' tactics by using the claims:
"Well, they could have!"
"The other side did it, my side could too!"
"They just didn't think of it!"
To sum it up: you don't accept justifications showing how it could have happened very well in real life too.
I don't believe in what-if fantasy nonsense. Ideas thought up with 65 years of hindsight shouldn't apply to a historically accurate, realistic wargame. And how much ego can a man have, who thinks he knows better than all the professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries? I guess it's awful easy to be an armchair quarterback.
quote:
The fact that one side was historically able to use certain strategies/tactics/technologies should not be used as a reason to allow the other side access to those same strategies/tactics/technologies.
Sure: this because the other side was stupid - any side except "the one who was bright enough to do it".
In RL, the US was able to pull off the Doolittle Raid; the Japanese had no ability to do the same thing.
In AE, you are able to use the editor to simulate the raid; should the Japanese be given the same ability?
In RL, the US developed the Atom Bomb; the Japanese tried, didn't come close.
In AE, you can use the editor to let both sides have use of the Atom Bomb; would this be fair?
Neither side was "stupid", but that doesn't mean both sides were even.
quote:
Nor should the AE game engine be manipulated to allow such ahistorical practices.
I still fail to see why they are "a-historical" - if not in the sense that it would be a-historical *not* to try to invade Midway given a situation in-game similar to the strategic one in 1942. But maybe that's just me.
Please cite a RL example of a WWII Japanese carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons.
Please cite a RL example of an WWII US carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons.
I thought the game was War in the Pacific 1941-1945:Admiral's Edition, not Revisionist History in the Pacific 2010: JFB Edition.
But maybe that's just me.
Or maybe some people have problems accepting that a game is not a slide-show re-enacting operations and tactics 1:1 - like a dude I played agaist who whined hard, after losing with the Germans at Kasserine, about how "I hadn't done what the Americans historically did". [8|]
Or maybe some people just have to cheat to win a game.[8|]
|
|
|
|
