From: Vienna, Austria
Right, but it seems like EVERYONE wants to play that way, which puzzles me.
I guess I come from games where people are incredibly concerned with game balance, and with WINNING.
In this game, the historical matchup has its entertainment value to me, but I don't understand how that is the way everyone plays this game. It seems pretty masochistic to play Japan when the inevitable outcome is ruin, sooner or later.
Sure a lot of people play scenario #2, but that doesn't really even begin to approach balance.
I think it would be really cool read an AAR where Japan gets an enhanced Navy, manages to conquer China and invades India, there is a big continental war for Australia and the Allies only really begin to advance in late 43 / early 44, and there is a race to secure the most VP by the end of the scenario in 1946. THAT would be cool. But the vibe I get from reading AARs is that if Japan can SURVIVE through 1944, that is considered an accomplishment. I don't really see the fun of celebrating christmas '44 holding on to a few burnt out bases on Honshu with 98% of my navy collecting reef, but hey maybe I just don't have the historical imagination that you guys do :P
Welcome to the historical wargame. What did you expect?
Every miniscule detail in this game was modelled to reflect historical capabilities, positions, initial options, restrictions,...
Thats the BASIC of this game.
There are fantasy scenarios to even the balance more than Scen #2 (RA, Ironman,...) but the underlying mechanic needs to be the most accurate depiction of the historical
setup before WWII and the possibilities emerging from there.
You will find out that many here use this game to test historical capabilities against their skills. Which as Japan means to survive longer than historical without
using ahistorical mechanics (this is unavoidable, but you can limit yourself.)