Erik, thank you for your explanation, even if I don´t like what you are saying.
The reason why I don´t like it:
I admit, I am an AI player . Someday, I might jump into a PBEM, but as of now, I won´t.
So I am playing a strategy game against the AI.
This means to me, the challenge is in formulating a strategy to beat the AI.
In order to do this, I simply _have_ to know the rules.
Can an AI-Japan get resources/Oil... without the use of frighters or an AI-Allies get supplies teleported to island garrisons?
If yes, a blockade strategy goes out the window.
Does the AI get lots and lots of planes for free?
If yes, there is no sense to initiat an attrition air war strategy
A strategy game, where the AI not only does not abide by the rules, but I, as a player, don´t even know which rules applay to the AI and which not, is not a game at all (well, ok, it´s a guessing game)
There were a whole lot of things the allies/japan lacked knowledge of during the real thing, but the basics were very clear:
If you want to get ammo from the factory to the front, you better organize some form of transport.
If you want to replace a shot down plane, a new one has to be build, using various resources.
If you lost the pilot too, you have to have a trained one ready or better start training new pilots pronto!
Without those rules, what´s the point?
(Yes, I am exagerating a bit, but you get my meaning)
As for someone ´playing´ the AI:
All I can say is: So what?
If a customer gets a kick out of playing the AI, what´s the harm in this? He is, after all, only playing the AI, it´s not going to happen in PBEM and if he tries those tricks there, I am sure he will get his behind handed to him
"Tell the King: After the battle my head is at his disposal, during the battle he may allow me to use it!
GenLt. Seydlitz to Frederik the Great after disobeying an order to attack
R. Hoenig, Germany