morganbj
Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline
|
To me, any game of the period that allows for Japan to have a significant chance to "win" in military or geopolitical terms is too biased for me to spend 10 cents on. The fact is that Japan had virtually NO chance for a military victory, and I would argue a political victory (e.g., negotiated end to the war) was almost nil and depended exclusively on Germany having more than historical success in the European Theatre. If Europe progresses hitorically in the game, then, to me, Japan should be toast, perhaps almost 100% of the time.
So, how do the developers "balance" the game? Through the victory conditions. To "win" the game, as opposed to "winning" the war, the Allied player should be required to outperform the historical commanders. So, too, the Japanese player. If the game ends up close to what actually happened, then it's a draw. I think the developers might have been a little too generous with victory to the Allied side (at least against the AI), and I play the Allied side almost exclusively. From what I read, playing against another person opens up entirely new possibilities for game "victory."
I also think there's too much interest in "winning" the game. Perhaps this is just my perspective, since I play against the AI to explore historical possibilites and to learn more about the period. I like WITP an AE because they ARE so close to being simulations. The play seems to be quite good, especially with AE. I think so many have played WITP so long that they've "figured out" all the developers' secrets and can beat the AI like a drum. I know I did. The same will happen with AE, I assure you. But, if winning is not the most important goal, but inquiry using AE as a vehicle is, then the game can live forever, well, almost. I quit playing board games against other people, because I encountered the fanatical opponent far too often. You know, the guy who would read every nuance in the rules and found a "gamey" way to do all kinds of (to me at least) historically silly things, just to get a game advantage. I remember playing a Barbarossa game of some sort against a guy who "won" the game, but had decimated his own forces in doing so (I was playing the Germans). He almost got voilent when I said "Well, you won the game, but the Germans won the war." He had no interest in worrying about the historicity of his play style. Winning is all he was interested in. And, as we all know, the degree of historicity depends exclusively on the sophistication of the modelling in the game. Thos old board games had a lot of systems that were poor models of reality.
So, I guess the bottom line is that if AE was not designed to almost guarantee total Allied dominance by the end of the game, wouldn't it be less credible as a simulation? Shouldn't JFBs be trying to keep the Allies out of PI, or invade India (and not get thrown out), or completely take China, or take PH, or Australia, or any myriad things that the real men from Nippon did not do? To me, regardless of what the game rule says, that would be a Japanese "victory" in game terms.
|
Printable Version
RE: AE is for AFBs - 
This needs to be patched!
Obviously many of you are in no mood for jokes today... So, I'll request more visually balanced game in a few days when you calm down.... 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread