now, i think you are at least as good as me, and probably on the balance of things, still a solid notch above, and yet our games have not been all that competitive. all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top. this suggests to me, that ideas for axis are at a minimum more difficult to come by, and that, again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.
the evidence thus far suggests axis does not (have an equal position), even though it is far from conclusive.
I disagree. The evidence is that Axis optimal strategy (or even sound strategy) is far less prosaic, and far more precise than sound or optimal Allied strategy. It is highly conclusive! There is no evidence either way as to whether or not the game is ultimately balanced.
…you, on the other hand, have put at least some serious time in working out ideas for axis, and have failed miserably.
That’s not fair. To the extent that I’ve put serious time into ideas, I have not failed miserably, and o the extent that I’ve failed I have not put serious time into ideas!
I put lots of thought into accomplishing Sea Lion (less into post Sea Lion). If you recall I won the Sea Lion game. I got lucky at the end, but I blundered at the end too. We both played poorly early game. I Don’t see this as a miserable failure, and haven’t ruled out Sea Lion.
Game two was KAF which hadn’t been thought out at all. I had a terrible time G1, and did not try and could not play Sea Lion which was the purpose of KAF to begin with. Germany did almost nothing that game, including not attacking Russia soon enough, and handing over Southern Europe to the UK. I consider that game was a wash, but not a failure! I think You’ll be buying ground units US1 from now on - and that still might not stop me…
Game three I tried a “standard” Axis approach, but this was really the only time I’d ever tried this, and I’d not put any thought into how to play it. This a loss but not such a defeat that I can’t look back and think about what I could have changed to possibly come out ahead. I don’t consider that a miserable failure.
In all three games I played the Med like a newb.
i think i have been winning not due to superior play or to fortune, but for having the much easier job.
…all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top.
Is my job easier because the Axis are inherently disadvantaged, or because there strategies are more limited, more complicated, and harder to refine?
You seem to believe the former. But your evidence rests on your impression on how much thought I’ve put into the game, how much of this thought has translated into my performance (surprisingly little - I’ve cleaned up several strategies but then not tried them again) compared to how much room I have left to refine and improve these strategies.
Me, I agree it’s been harder for me to discover a sound Axis system. I also think this has caused me to make far more mistakes than you (by virtue of having more vital moves to miss). Put another way, My position being more complicated than yours means you easily have outplayed me - despite my having put in extra thought and a possible skill discrepancy. Although your moves may have been more obvious than mine, I nonetheless think your play has been more sound than mine.
…again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.
Personally, I believe I have to explore and improve with both KRF & KRL. Maybe I’ll discover neither work. But I insist there is no onus on anyone to demonstrate optimal play 'at this time". That is not reasonable. The onus is on the kindred intellect to look thoroughly for non prosaic winning Axis strategies, and for everyone else to give us time. Ask me in six to twelve months.