HansBolter -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/10/2011 9:55:45 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history). The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether. Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking... Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early. I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)]
|
|
|
|