byron13 -> (5/29/2003 6:50:13 AM)
|
Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says. You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this. Since the game balance will probably shift as particular tactics or strategies become well-known that "game" the system, players can select different level of difficulties that will force the Allies to "win" the game in shorter or longer periods of time to adjust the game balance back to close to 50:50. The Allies may kick the living you-know-what out of the Japanese, but if they don't do it quicker and better than some established standard, they still lose. Hence, the Japanese player can get waxed, but if he isn't waxed quite as bad as some standard, he wins. The Japanese player doesn't have to hold Los Angeles to win; he can win even as the Allies march into Tokyo by attriting or delaying the Allies sufficiently. I don't believe that sacrifices reality for gameplay. Does it? Alternatively, changing the difficulty level could alter the capabilities of the B17. On a historical setting, the B17 can average one hit on a sampan or DE size vessel per attack and suffers one point of damage for each fifty zeros that attack it. Carriers attacked by B17s are automatically sunk. Adjusting the difficulty all the way to favor the Japanese results in the B17 only hitting a sampan once for every two missions and one plane is destroyed for each fifty zeros that attack it. Carriers attacked by B17s have a one-in-three chance of not being sunk immediately.
|
|
|
|