From: La Salle, Colorado
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Right about that Yaab.
I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!
In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.
So you find it necessary to dial back the counterbalancing mechanism on the Allies side to more accurately reflect historic limitations, but on the flip side you also find it necessary to defend the outrageously overbalancing Japanese ability to out build the Allies in air frames.
Why is it only the Allies who should be hamstrung by historically accurate limitations.
I can't help but point to the inherent hypocrisy John.
Even if the bolded part were true (a claim I find dubious*), 500 mosquitoes instead of 300 mosquitoes are still just mosquitoes.
*It can be done, but at great cost. What is the Allied front line fighter production rate in 1944? In 1945? Something like 400, 500 per month - correct? Expanding Japanese production to those levels while maintaining pilot training to support that level of air operations, while maintaining production of strike aircraft, while maintaining the supplies at bases necessary to fly the planes, etc. - it adds up.
Just ask MM about his supply situation and how many planes he burned through. If you want an example of the Japanese "outrageously overbalancing" (whatever overbalancing means; I think you mean overmatching), it would be his production. It was simply a challenge to solve with the Allied OOB - just another strategy to counter, probably done at the expense of a different strategy (say, a defense in more depth instead of in front line strength).
Also, as it pertains to John's mods, he is quite clear that his Japan-strengthening mods are precisely that and are in no way any kind of reflection of history. They are fantasy what-if scenarios. You don't have to play them. The discussion in this thread should really be about stock scenarios only, or scenarios closed based on stock like DBB, where the same general calculus applies across them all. This general calculus does not apply to John's mods, and I think he would be the very first person to say so.
You have great technical insight Loka, but often miss the forest for the trees.
The general point I endeavor, apparently poorly, to make is that one side is given an ability to do way, way better than historical (even in stock where it is common for Japan to conquer all of China, or 3/4 of India or 3/4 of Australia) while the other side is consistently limited, both by game engine AND player induced mods and house rules to no better than a historical performance.
If it is fair for japan to have a chance to knock the Allies out by the end of '43, shouldn't it be just as fair for the other side to do the same?
The constant litany of rationalization from JFBs is that the Allies are destined to win no matter what so they shouldn't get any opportunity to do better than historical.
The Allies are hard pressed to achieve the autovictory by the historical date, let alone achieving it a year early.
Why is it only one side gets to improve on history?
Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944.
The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth.
The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education.
Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it.
We're now on the 5th page of Re-Sizing. My thoughts are that it is an OK practice if one does not abuse it (super-sized air groups) but can support it with airframes and pilots. Do it. It is a GAME and have fun. Just try to be understanding of abusing the system AND offending your opponent. If you are not sure as to yes or no then ask your opponent for their opinion.