|
Mr.Frag -> (6/1/2003 12:10:29 AM)
|
Over the last year, many things have been patched and changed that affected overall balance between the two sides.
Now we have come pretty much full circle where the original scenario 17 is fairly balanced (from a reality standpoint).
Since PBEM games last a fairly long time, large numbers of the ones you are seeing AARs for started long before this latest 2.30 patch came along.
Increasing Naval Commitment to Japan was one of the simpler player options to give Japan a better chance. Playing Scenario 19 instead of 17 was Matrix's attempt to offer up a more challenging game to the Allied player.
As we sit now, scenario 17 is pretty close to balanced (assuming folks fly land based bombers at their standard height of 6000 feet). By increasing naval commitment levels, you are basically adding more ships into play and a quicker rate. How dramatically this actually affects balance is a function of what ships enter play. If it is a CV being released, it becomes a fairly large shift, if a few extra light cruisers show up instead, it is a minor shift.
Now, when I say balanced, I do not mean Japan is going to win. I mean the game should play out realistically to where Japan has the chance to make serious inroads and hurt the Allies deeply enough that it takes a long time for the Allies to push them back and eventually win. Japan can win if the Allies play poorly, but equally matched players should play a balanced game out where Japan looses, but it takes the Allies a long time to make this a certain fact.
None of the scenarios are *balanced* from a standpoint of both sides having a equal chance of winning, as this is a wargame. Japan has to play agressively to stand a chance, the Allies have to play defensively until later in the game. Either side not playing with the right strategy can result in a complete disaster.
|
|
|
|
