From: Vienna, Austria
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Historically the Allies made these landings in 42 and 43:
Goodenough Island 1942
Russell Island 1943
Woodlark Island 1943
Kiriwima Islands 1943
Nassau Bay 1943
New Georgia 1943
Vella Lavella 1943
Treasury Island 1943
Gilbet Island 1943
Cape Gloucester 1943
In game if an allied opponent attempted to be that active that early he would probably be wiped from the map and people would call it bad play. Even if he managed to pull a few of the landings off, he'd lose so many amphibious ships it would set his main counter-attack back by a year or more due to amphibious losses, so most Allied players opt to sit on their hands and wait. The ones who do try to be adventurous usually get hammered and end up focusing on a land campaign in Burma because they lost too many ships too early with no way to make up for the shortfall given the historical OOB limits.
This discussion is as boring as it is old, and the above has been proven incorrect by hundreds of grand-campaigns played since game release.
Like the Moose said, go and read some AAR´s and compare the situation to the scenario chosen. You will be unable to find a scen 1 AAR where the Japanese player
is not struggling to hold the historical timeline in ´43/´44. Your historical list of amphib invasion is met or surpassed in 90% of the scen 1 AARs easily.
Complaining about the Allies being unable to achieve strategic goals as they did historical, in a game of scen 2 with PDU on, is making no sense at all.
Scen 2, and PDU on, is a SciFi scenario. If you dislike SciFi don´t play it.
Just to recap what the scenario selection is and what ramifications the selection has on the game:
Scen1 PDU off:
This is the historical scenario. And it is the only historical scenario. The Japanese still get a bit more flexibility than they had in the real war (with all their
traditions and internal bickering), but even so, as both sides benefit from 20/20 hinsight, when players are equally matched the Japanese player will
unable to survive to historical VJ day with a very high probability.
Scen1 PDU on:
Same as above from a setup perspective, but both sides get to chose their own upgrade paths and so concentrate quality airframes in a way that was
impossible in WWII.
As Allied player you are allowed to upgrade units to P-47s that really were flying second rate airframes until wars´ end, you can spam 4eng heavy bomber
units that in the real war wer stuck with tactical bombers, and you can simply change every squadrons airframe on demand. The Allies massively benefit from that!
The only reason why the bosst slightly favors the Japanese side is because for Allies the production numbers remain the same, and the Japanese can vary
them and shift them to their personal preferences.
Even so the Japanese player will struggle to hold VJ day against a decent Allied player, and will be unable to maintain tactical air superiority if the Allied player
choses to deny it.
Scen 2 PDU on (never seen combined with PDU off...):
Hello, welcome to the world of "what if". The Japanese get a unit and production boost. This makes the game entirely different, but not always by favouring Japan.
With the higher production and unit count comes a higher demand for ressources. A Japanese plaer who fails to provide those will break down even faster than
in scen 1. Only a good Japanese player will adapt his play to the new demands and postpone defeat further than usually possible in scen 1. Rader for example is a
very experienced Japanese player with the skill required to reach that goal.
To sum it up: All beyond Scen 1 is SciFi. Scen 2, Ironman and all its derivates are ahistorical. Using a list of bases captured in WWII and comparing to such a scenario
does not prove anything you´d like to prove, and does not point out anything beyond that those scenarios boost the Japanese capabilies, which is kinda unsurprising,
even when only reading the official scenario description.
Furthermore, I don´t understand how a discussion about a production gap leads to a game balance discussion. It is unrelated.
Noone ever said that an Allied player is not required to think ahead in, and balance, his use of airframes. The Japanese player does that all the time, its one of the basic needs
to extend his survival.
Noone forces the Allied player to empty his pools and force all airframes into battle (and then start the usual whining when the pools run dry), just because they are there.
Using airframes in more units than they were used historical is a feature of PDU on, and this feature has to be used with thought.
You can build up a safe pool to overcome a production gap or low production numbers, you can simply downgrade to older airframes when your pool runs dry, you can balance
the ammount of attrition you expose your different airframes to depending on your reserves and your future planned attrition, and so on.
Gentlemen thats not a balance issue, and nothing of all this is weakening the Allied player. Its pure and simple planning ahead. A standard behavour needed to successfully play WitP.
PS: I do not want to leave the impression of adressing Q-Ball with this post. He is a great Japanese player (one of the best from what I have seen), and he adapts to the
new limitiations posed by the Allied setup - which obviousely raises some questions - and he does so extremely well.
But if you get the impression that I have difficulties to take the ensueing discussion about game balance serious, well your impression is correct.