ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
As I've said before, I LIKE the element of "danger" and excitement that auto victory adds to the game. I would NOT play if auto victory was off the table (unless there was an absolutely air tight way of achieving it). To this point, an airtight method hasn't been discovered, though many of us wonder if Oz or India are possibilities. Alot of games will have to be played before we'll know. And a more aggressive Allied defense will have to be employed to try to prevent it.
Incorporating this and Chickenboy's comment I have to agree. Auto-vic is needed IMO. And there is no air-tight way to get or to stop it.
However, what might make some Allied players uncomfortable is that the "going for it" in the early game is in the hands of the Japanese player. If he tries it in a credible way the Allied player has no choice but to meet him, and stop him, possibly at great loss in men, materiel, and time. Many Allied players are uncomfortable not being in control, or not having the unilateral option to choose to Sir Robin.
But, as Nemo points out, the choice for either player to play high risk/high reward is always there, in any era. If I can generalize, AE as a community seems to have a higher proportion than the general population of engineers, IT professionals, lawyers, medical types, retired military technologists/intel/cryptos, and all-around "hard" number-crunching type folks. Perhaps that's to be expected given the demands the game presents, and I shouldn't feel abandoned by my fellow liberal artists. But that preponderance of quant jocks also, maybe, leads to "grinding" the game rather than a more poker-type approach.
In the land of the math-blinded, the one-eyed gambler is king? A grinder who meets a hail-mary auto-viccer is always going to be exciting.
N.B. I do not assign any names to either category, except myself. I ain't no grinder. [:)][8D]
