From: United States
ORIGINAL: Ian R
Whenever there is a complaint that something or some capability is "unhistorical" or "ahistorical" around here, it only ever seems to be about the United Nations side.
Nonsense. With all due respect, but I believe your strong pro-Allied bias has left you blind on one eye. Über-Netties, Über-Zeros, overavailability of air-launched torpedoes, too much idle merchant shipping, insane Japanese R&D advancements, ridiculously high airframe production figures, the magic highway, China Blitzkrieg - just to name the most blatant examples - have all been complained about on the forum as being unhistorical or ahistorical - and justly so.
Fact is - both sides get their share of unhistorical capabilities, and both JFBs and AFBs have been complaining bitterly about the other side's advantages in the past - while often ignoring or belitteling the advantages given to their side.
So now it starts.
It's clear you misunderstood his comment.
Unlike you, I clearly understood it to mean the only complaints that are ever accepted as valid.
Your response proves his point.
Thank you for being gullible enough to take the bait.
Since the Japanese ahistorical abilities were auspiciously added to make the poor, weak, underpowered Japanese side viable to play as a side in a game, any and all complaints by AFBs get disregarded and excused away.
Followed by multiple references by JFBs that the Allies will always be powerful enough to overrun Japan in '44 so all of the early Japanese advantages are moot.
If only every game made it to '44 they might actually have a valid argument. Too bad they, and you don't.
Kindly keep your holier than thou indignation to yourself.