HansBolter
Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical.
"the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time."
Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game.
Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured?
Replacing "Allies" with "Japanese" would mean that in the first 18 months of the game, the Allies exhaust their means for offering resistance and have no chance to inflict lossses and to hit back from time to time.
Despite the 1945-level supply and fuel production they get from Day 1 which is virtually untouchable for the Japanese, despite the never-ending and ever-increasing amount of reinforcements the Allies receive?
I find this hard to believe - maybe if an inexperienced or over-agressive or extremely unlucky Allied player squanders his assets. But even if the entire pre-war US Navy gets sunk in the first 18 months - the Allied player can still make a comeback.
That the Allied player has to endure a tough time in 1942 is in the nature of things and can't be held against the Japanese player - the Allied player has to endure if the game is to continue to the point when he can hit back. If the Allied player doesn't want to endure "Japanese hammer blows" in 1942, then he can play the Marianas or Downfall scenarios instead of the grand campaign.
What is comical is to compare what the Allies have to endure in 1942 with what the Japanese have to endure in 1944 - apples and oranges, I wonder if you you have ever played a PBEM on the Japanese side into the late war?
If you start a grand campaign as Allied player, you know that you will suffer in 1942, but also that you can come back with a vengance and an unstoppable steamroller - that helps to endure the tough start.
As Japanese player in 1944 you know the situation is bad - and can get only worse.
I agree though that the Japanese player should continue to fight as long as he has some fighting assets left. But when the fleet is sunk, the airforce impotent and the industries gutted, then it should be ok to call it quits?
You fail once again to grasp the point I have always and will continue to make:
The Allied player has to pay up front for his heyday by first enduring the Japanese heyday.
The Japanese player has his heyday handed to him on a silver platter and only has to pay the piper after the fact.
This places on Japanese players a debt of obligation to stick it out and weather the Allied heyday.
In my one and only, sour taste in my mouth experience, with PBEM, in an Uncommon Valor game, my low life scum Japanese opponent, who duped this newbie into agreeing to play the UV equivalent of an Ironman game because he would need a beefed up force to be able to go the distance, promptly quit when his early bid for autovictory failed.
My observations see quitting as soon as your heyday ends continues to be a prominent trend amongst those who play the Japanese side.
I have the utmost respect for the few Japanese side players who actually go the distance.
You happen to be among that group.
_____________________________
Hans
|
Printable Version
RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? - 
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