FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pat.casey
Nemo,
I think the fundamental difference between the game engine and 'real life' though is that in the historical Mariana's turkey shoot, the strikes you listed above more or less shot the Japanese bolt. There were no more airframes to resume the attacks the next game.
First this is Scen 2. Japan being stronger in the "stronger Japan" scenario is sort of logical, isn't it?
Second, to be honest, Canoerebel's approach is waaay less careful that one employed by Allies in RL. More than once - including right now - he launched high-risk deep invasions in the territory surrounded by unsuppressed Japanese airbases and out of range of Allied land-based air cover. Exacerbating obvious consequences of this approach, not only Allies failed to score an early decisive carrier victory in this game (unlike RL), but, in fact, suffered some major defeats, that significantly reduced their ability to project carrier power in the mid-game, so even if he tried to follow the historical approach and engage in carrier attacks on key enemy airfields in the area before the invasion, this wouldn't have been nearly as effective as it was in RL, due to weaker carrier strength. So, really, even in Scen 1 asking for the same sort of air superiority that Allied enjoyed in RL at the same date would have been ridiculous.
As about Japanese reserves, what is the total number of Japanese planes lost down to date? Do remember, that in 1939-45, Japan produced about 67 thousands of military aircraft of all types. Even assuming that 1/3 of that were trainer aircraft, that's still 38k aircraft to shot down (ops losses not caused by damage in combat operations are very slight in AE, compared to RL, so the Japanese player is not going to crash many of these aircraft - this is not an advantage for Japan, as it applies equally to both sides). Do note, that if Allies fail to make serious progress in 1942-early 1943, this number should be higher, due to lesser pressure on Japanese war machine and economy. And of course, this is the stronger Japan scenario, so the number should be even higher, barring extraordinary Allied successes early in the game.
quote:
ORIGINAL: pat.casey
From a game balance perspective, many players, including me, think that one of three things ought to happen:
This is not "a game balance perspective", this is "me not doing as well as Allies did in RL on a given date, even if I my performance up to this point was significantly worse, is unfair" perspective (sorry if that offends you, Canoerebel, but the greatest of your setbacks resulted from the decisions like "let's make a huge jump to Curiles at the time when IRL Allies were making small steps under LBA cover at Solomons, despite not being nearly as successful with carrier battles in 1942, and not taking sufficient measures to seriosuly tie Japanese elsewhere", rather than any of code issues). Hopefully, devs won't listen to it, because ending the war by summer of 1944 or earlier in every game, instead of a significant percentage of them (as recorded by AARs) would suck.
< Message edited by FatR -- 7/11/2010 7:50:24 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: She Does - 
. I merely contend that they don't always NOT get through. 
) and some more improvement would be sweet. 
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