As to CR taking a different approach. Yes but based on conversations I've had I think he'd like to be able to use tempo and failures in opponent orientation as force multipliers. That's why I give the input I do.
I'm quite sure you're right and we all enjoy your analyses. But I would suspect that CR is under three other constraints outside of the game engine.
1. It seems to be that you're 98-100% a game player in your approach to WITP as opposed to a simulator. Unless there is a home rule, I would be surprised if you saw many if any constraints on doing an operation that's possible under the game system. CR seems to be mainly a gamer rather than a simulator, but with him I think it;s more 85-15%.
2. CR just had a game collapse in an unfun way due to operating outside the expectations of his opponent. I think it can be inferred that Q-ball expected a more aggressive response meeting Japanese aggression - when he ran into a Sir Robin defense and then screwed up his response invading India - he lost interest and the game just fizzled in what was probably CR's least satisfying AAR reported game. CR knows that Chez is more of a historicist that he is, and is somewhat concerned that both that his approach be perceived as fair by Chez and that the game not collapse - as he explained long ago in the post from which this thread is now titled. The sort of action you proposed could not be done by a real military figure in a democracy - as opposed to a Napoleon. It would be like the Allies doing a snap invasion of Munda right after winning the second naval battle of Guadalcanal when it wasn't clear that the Japs wouldn't make another major effort on Guadalcanal - maybe a good idea, but not something Halsey could have done without being relieved.
3. Your approach in your AAR's often seems to operate on the premise that you have the preponderance of psych dominance of Lee over Pope or Grant over Pemberton. I suspect CR thinks it more appropriate to view his situation more like Lee v. McClellan.










