ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009 From: Rear Area training facility Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta quote:
ORIGINAL: ckammp What's to stop someone from resizing a number of squadrons and then transferring them to different bases? It was pointed out above, this gives them an unfair advantage for coordination. And what stops someone from thereby creating huge training squadrons for the IJN? With a 72-plane squadron, you could assign 95 pilots. A few such squadrons would allow the japanese player to train far more pilots than the US. Even a JFB would have to admit that the US pilot training infrastructure was far superior to that of the Japanese. Are you then implying that the training model of WitP:AE is broken? Its' just a question. Nowhere did I imply that the training model of WitP:AE is broken; it is not. I did state, and will continue to do so, that using the ability to re-size a squadron to 72 planes is gamey, and can be easily abused; using these 72 plane squadrons as training squadrons is but one example. quote:
I don't believe in what-if fantasy nonsense. Ideas thought up with 65 years of hindsight shouldn't apply to a historically accurate, realistic wargame. And how much ego can a man have, who thinks he knows better than all the professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries? I guess it's awful easy to be an armchair quarterback. True: as everybody knows, NO ONE plays wargames to see how things could have been different given a different operational choice. We ALL play by following a 1:1 corrispondence with history. And the "professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries" NEVER made a mistake. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. And if they did, it's only unfair for us to play a wargame to see if/how a different tactic could have worked. Down with us, bad cheaters! There is a huge difference between employing strategies that were not utilized in WWII and using gamey tactics. Players who use gamey tactics are cheaters. If you don't know the difference, perhaps you shouldn't play the game. quote:
In RL, the US was able to pull off the Doolittle Raid; the Japanese had no ability to do the same thing. Actually they had, and did, using their own tactics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II Um...what? Sorry, I never knew that the Japanese put 2E LBA on a carrier, sailed to the West Coast, and bombed LA or San Francisco. Let me guess: Their pilots then landed in Argentina? quote:
In AE, you are able to use the editor to simulate the raid; should the Japanese be given the same ability? Beside the strange fact that to re-create something which happened in RL one has to use the editor, what about letting Japan try some stunt in the US of the kind they actually tried? Having used the editor to re-create the Doolittle Raid, I can see where there is potential for it to become a gamey tactic, unless HRs are used. It was a good call by the devs to limit it to mods only. As for the Japanese, what "stunts" are you advocating? Tying bombs to balloons in the vain hope it would work? Or giving Japanese subs the ability to destroy US baseball fields? quote:
In RL, the US developed the Atom Bomb; the Japanese tried, didn't come close. True, basically because they had neither the tech or the means (now, if we talk about the Germans...) But they *had* the means to create fighter-only carriers - the choice not to do so being a doctrinal one. In WitP: AE I'm told I'm the ubercommander. As such, can I give around some orders and see how it goes? Thank you. Yes, even you can claim to be an "ubercommander" in WitP:AE. Give as many orders as you please, just don't cheat. Simple, no? And you're welcome. quote:
Please cite a RL example of a WWII Japanese carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons. Please, cite a real life example of the US winning at Kasserine. Again: Um...what? Sorry, but how does what happened at Kasserine have anything to do with WitP:AE? Or whether or not the Japanese ever put only fighters on their carriers? quote:
Please cite a RL example of an WWII US carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons. Please, cite a RL esample of Singapore resisting against all odds and becoming a thorn in the Japanese side. Getting rather repetitious, but: Um...what? Once more, how does what happened at Singapore have anything to do with whether or not the US ever put only fighters on their carriers? quote:
I thought the game was War in the Pacific 1941-1945:Admiral's Edition, not Revisionist History in the Pacific 2010: JFB Edition. But maybe that's just me. I understand your pain: I thought that the game put me in either Allied or Japanese theatre commander shoes, asking me to find a way to win the war given the available assets, and not a multimedia history book about what happened. But maybe that's just me. I truly understand your pain: asking you to find a way to win the game given the available assets is simply beyond your capabilities. You have to stoop to using gamey tactics. And sadly, it's not just you. quote:
Or maybe some people just have to cheat to win a game. Since we are in the "maybe" phase, maybe some people need for the losing side to behave exactly the way they behaved in RL if they want to have the faintest hope to win - every deviation from the script being whined up and hard as "cheating". Maybe, of course. Maybe, if some people understood the difference between using creative strategy and using gamey tactics, they would be able to enjoy the game without whining and trying to justify their cheating. Maybe, just maybe. But I doubt it.
|