@Der:
One of the arguments for the G1 turkeyshoot I’ve seen in this thread is “its aways been that way” - I find that kind of funny. It reminds me of the old story of the housewife who always cut the ends off the ham before baking it. The husband asked why. She said “Because my mom alway did it that way.” Her grandma was then asked and she said HER mom always did it that way. Finally it got back to great-grandma who said “I did because my baking dish was so small.”
My point is because of tradition you can get attached to bad ideas. If you’ve had fun playing 50 games of global, you will be attached to the tradition of that setup, even if part of it is terribly flawed.
You can finger me out specifically for that assertion, I don’t mind.
Perhaps your analogy is more apt than you realize. Maybe the reason the setup is like it is because the previous versions of A&A “were so small”… ha! (I am sort of half serious there.)
And I agree that because of tradition you can get used to (any) ideas. I am especially prone to that being very conservative and reluctant to change. I will entertain new ideas but I won’t endorse them until they have been proven effective. That is the reason for my persistence on this issue. If nothing else I am motivating you to find a workable solution.
My position, is evolving, but for now remains that the current UK navy setup, which has always existed in one form or another, is not a hinderence to balanced or fair gameplay. The game works predominantly alright, if it does need a few tweaks here and there. To me the setup does not need to be altered… for balance purposes anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you Der Kuenstler have never said because of the UK navy setup the game as a whole is unbalanced or gives the Axis an unfair advantage to win. If you do not feel that the game is broken (or close to it) because of this, your problem is that the setup just irks you.
That is perfectly fine. I guess it does annoy me too when I play as the UK. If you can find a way to circumvent the Royal Navy being blown out of the water on G1, while still retaining balance in the game then more power to you.
@Der:
We should respect and honor these game testers and designers, but they are still just guys. I think Larry Harris is great, but he is not God and his ideas, like anyone elses’, can be improved upon.
Most of the time it takes an outside mind to introduce a positive change to any organization, as everyone within the group has become accustomed to the “way it is” - no matter how preposterous.
Obviously I never likened Larry to God or even that, because he designed it, it must be the best. I have been on these forums long enough to recognize the shortcomings of many involved in this game’s production. However, I support the setup for what it gives us and has given us for some time: a playable game.
I actually like your proposed setup and would gladly playtest to refine it. I appreciate your willingness to look for another, equitable way to approach the setup, I really do.
However, I would like to add something for consideration:
I am not up on what everyone’s current strategy for Japan is, but from my memory and, again personal experience, find that when Japan makes its move to attack the Allies, most people do not follow history and attack Pearl Harbor and then fight the United States. Instead primary focus is given to taking territory in Asia (China & India). This does not follow history very well at all. Maybe someone can elaborate on their strategies and tell me if I am right.
If this is the case, the Japanese player does it because it is more effective than what Japan did in the war. Effectively this is the same as the European situation with Germany and the UK. Instead of following history and not attacking the Royal Navy, Germany turns around and does it anyway because it is in its best interest.
Though I guess the point is that you want to change it so that it is not only not in Germany’s best interest, but impossible to do anyway.