|
Revthought -> RE: Allied Damage Control Option (3/23/2016 4:32:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I'm always amazed that JFBs never seem to be satisfied with the myriad number of ahistorical advantages given to them to the degree that whenever they spot the most minute ahistorical advantage given to the Allies they parley for a house rule to counter it.
Hows about you counter with a demand for a lack of coordination between the IJA and the IJN.
Hows about you counter with a demand for the Japanese to evidence a real victory disease.
Hows about you counter with a demand that.......
Never mind,
I'm sure you get the point.
The Japanese side has been handed HUGE ahistorical benefits on a silver platter just to make the side desirable to play.
Why is it that so many JFBs want to make the Allied side undesirable to play?
Damn! I need to learn form Steve and just walk away when I encounter this kind of b_ll s__t.
I'm not sure if you are always correct Hans. But you are right enough about many of the JFB's , some of the time, to cause an awful lot of heartache . Here's what I think. A good , competent JFB will not only accept the reality of the odds with a "I can do better than the Japanese did!" Attitude. Or even a "make it suck some more!" attitude. Those are the JFB's to treasure and admire. Those are in my simple and humble mind some of the best players out there. The ones who can only win by playing "lawfare" (as currently referred to by the US Military) , that is attempting to unbalance reality with a over abundance of "House rules". What some of those players who practice "lawfare" are really saying is "I'm not that good at this game , and I don't want to learn to play it competently , so let's invent a lot of ridiculous justifications so I can rig the game so I can win". As I said "SOME" of those players. I have the greatest respect for JFB's who competently play their side well. They learned to play the hard way, learning lesson after lesson , game after game , learning from defeat and disappointment. I respect them so much that at present, I still won't play as Japan in a GC. (I regularly play them in smaller campaigns). Because , despite playing continuously since the game came out , studying hard and reading as much as I can, I still don't feel competent to play as Japan. Playing as Japan in the full grand campaign is to me the ultimate graduation of this game. If you can successfully master production (which appears no where else in the game) as well as all forms of combat , to aggressively fight the allies right up to the end is the toughest , most professional achievement this game can offer. And I bow my head and salute those who do it! [&o] [&o][&o]
But those players who buy the game , then immediately want a partner so they can play scenario 2 with a bunch of dubious house rules simply so they can win have my absolute scorn. Frankly, I think I'll just completely ignore such people and maybe you should too.
So to all those JFB's who've slowly, carefully and doggedly built up your skill, please except my admiration and thanks.[&o][&o][&o] You are truly great achievers in this game. And to those who achieve "Grandmaster" status (don't be shy, you know who you are) , thank you very much, and please keep tutoring and teaching those of us who have not reached a "Competent" JFB status. [&o][:D]
quote:
ose players. I have the greatest respect for JFB's who competently play their side well. They learned to play the hard way, learning lesson after lesson , game after game , learning from defeat and disappointment. I respect them so much that
Let me start by saying I have never played the Japanese. I think that's important to the context of my post below!
I don't think either of you are really being fair. It's a matter of perspective I think. Some people are more inclined to treat this game as an attempt to model the historical war in the Pacific in game form. Frankly, I am one of those people, because for me, part of the "fun" of the game is the historical element where you are seeing how your input could make things "turn out differently."
Some of this group are more serious about this than others... for example, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that this is a game and not a simulation, and having made games before in my life, I understand the concept of balancing and recognize some deviation from "pure simulation" is necessary to make the game fun, while others lament the fact that French HQs can arm British warplanes.
Other people are more inclined to treat the game as only a game, with the historical backdrop of World War 2 in the Pacific. For these people the idea of "balance" becomes even more important, so they like to introduce house rules that help even the field so that, all things considered, either side has an equal (or close to it) chance to win. The idea here is that the ultimate "win" then comes down solely to skill and not to advantages conferred to one side by the game engine.
And let me be clear... there is nothing wrong with this style of play. Just because I want something different out of the game, it does not follow that what I want is better, because this is, after all, a game.
The easiest solution then is to just not play people who have incompatible play styles; the solution is not to insist that the other person is "wrong."
|
|
|
|
