Well, I guess I am more lenient here. Maybe that's just because I qualify as a patzer myself. Maybe it's because of other reasons as well. Old age ? Don't think so. But this:
First of all, bear in mind that in this game the ratio of Allied quitters to IJ quitters is 2:1. 2 Allied players quit on him, so he can quit on me if he likes. I think I read somewhere in the context of the first quit that he offered to play on with swapped roles when the first opponent wanted to quit, but I may be wrong here.
Next, part of the reason is that I was having fun playing this game, so all is well for me. I personally do not feel (like one frequently hears) like I made an investment that I expect to pay off later and am now deprived of my dividend. Possibly this is because "winning" in the classical sense is not what I am most interested in. Doing what I can do with inferior assets (or assets which are percieved to be inferior because the proper use/approach has not been discovered), trying to deal with difficult situations, trying to make the opponent deviate from his plans, all of these are fascinating tasks IMO. And did I not do better than all those professional generals in real life by achieving IJ surrender in Mid 42? That's a real boost to my armchair general ego .
Of course, warning Allied players who really like "winning" themselves and therefore feel different in this respect before they start a PBEM game is appropriate in this case.
Last not least, I do not think that we would have learned more about the feasibility of the WC invasion strategy in this game, because potentially it may not represent adequately what IJ can achieve if played in a more optimized/experienced way. My personal view is that my opponent had strategic visions that went beyond his technical AE skills.That's why I said if one wants to explore this, one has to go back to the turn after Portland has been taken.
Just the views of a potential patzer.
edited to add text in italics
< Message edited by modrow -- 10/8/2018 9:12:37 PM >