Originally posted by AGRICOLA
The problem is in providing players with a reason for playing if the outcome is certain defeat. If good play cannot force a stalemate and a negotiated peace (Allied war weariness, casualties etc), IMHO the scen is a dead duck as far as anyone actually playing it.
Don't shortchange the Japanese on useful units that they actually had available in favor of another Allied unit or a next to useless Japanese one.
The problem is in providing players with a reason for playing if the outcome is certain defeat. If good play cannot force a stalemate and a negotiated peace (Allied war weariness, casualties etc), IMHO the scen is a dead duck as far as anyone actually playing it.
Don't shortchange the Japanese on useful units that they actually had available in favor of another Allied unit or a next to useless Japanese one.
What will constitute victory for Japan?
What should the level of victory be?
Would the USA historically have done anything less than totally defeating Japan?
IMO Japan could never have defeated the USA. Yamamoto clearly understood that, even before Japan fired the first shot.
The best that Japan could have hoped for historically, would have been a stalemate and/or a negotiated settlement.
Should this be based on the number of objectives obtained?
Should Japan be allowed to invade the west coast of the USA (if not - how do we prevent it)?
Will "victory" for Japan depend on it reaching a certain date (such as January, 1947 or '48) with Tokyo and/or the mainland still free from US invasion?
In Matrix's WiTP, victory for Japan constitutes it doing better than it did historically by a certain date.
Any other suggestions?
Comment