ORIGINAL: witpqs
[The war was slanted toward the Allies, the game is slanted toward Japan (to make it worth playing).
I like the first part, except it wasn't "slanted toward" the Allies. Reality is reality. When you kick the sleeping gorilla in the nuts, expect to get your ass handed to you shortly.
The second part gives me a big problem. If this is so (and I'm not saying it is), it is very poor game design that departs unforgivably from the historical situation.
From Day One of wargaming, play balance has always been the role of victory conditions. The idea was to put you into a historical role and give you the opportunity to outperform your counterpart by comparing your accomplishments to what occurred historically.
"What if" considerations, like OOB variations, were strictly limited to the possibilities and included only after you had come to terms with the game itself. These days, you can't see a new game design even announced before people start clamoring for "modability."
Personally, I prefer to play the game itself, not some eat-from-one-side-or-the-other-of-the-mushroom drug trip fantasy. In WitP, for example, I evaluate my success or failure based on objective criteria I have established with a view toward first trying to figure out who the hell I am and second trying to determine how I did in comparison to that totally fictitious person's real-life accomplishments.
The WitP VP criteria (almost never mentioned in the headlong lemming rush toward "let's change this" and "I'm unhappy with that" land) were poorly thought out at the beginning and have so little relevance to all the fiddling and finagling that has been done to this game as to be - pardon the expression - irrelevant.
"Win" and "Lose" need better definition, but first, the player's role has to be identified and considerations like how well the game mechanics present historicity need to be addressed.
Good luck with all that. We've got what we've got, and I'm living with it. I suggest others do the same.
