ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Bullwinkle,
YOu are conflating two separate things. I am simply saying that the new system is an improvement and NOT as bad as people are making out. I'm not saying it is perfect and neither am I saying what preceded it didn't require changing.
To take a statement that the current system isn't as bad as some are making out and to make out that that's saying either of those other two things is to ignore the meaning of English. Hopefully you'll agree you just misread, in haste, what I wrote.
What I read was you commenting that your experiece, playing the Japanese side, in reconning Okinawa could be expanded to make a greater point that the beta change is a yawn. Sorry, I read English real good.
My greater point, which I will, after this post, cease discussing here, is that this beta change is a structural game mechanism change which affects game balance. As such it should not be made after the request of one or two partiisans without a thorough discussion by the general community.
Lawyers, engineers, and yes, even doctors, understand that it is the general case which must be examined, and not the exception. In GJ's current set-up, or yours with Okinawa, recon is a relatively low-asset-consumption endeavor. In the historic case, with strat bombing undertaken from the Marianas with very few assets possessing the requisite range, it is a far larger Allied trade-off decision vis a vis fatigue, ops loss, and time. Yes, it is historic truth that it was undertaken, but the game is a bundle of trade-offs to history in order to meet game balance needs. (Amphib bonus anyone?)
Unilaterally changing a balance element without a quid pro quo (that's Latin BTW) should not be a decision made by a few, or one. That this change is big or small is not the point.







...so you're welcome to give Rader's advices and suggestions, but don't abbandon me[:)]



