ORIGINAL: ndworl
I agree it is something players should discuss both before and during the game. But why is invading at Mersing gamey? If the primary objective is Singapore and Mersing is acceptable as an air base, it has a number of advantages, mostly that it cuts off British units from retreating to Singapore. I agree it makes it more difficult for the British, but I would have thought that was the idea. (I am on turn 1 of a game in which I did exactly that, so I am genuinely interested to understand why it is seen as gamey.) Conversly, why is abandoning most of Malaya gamey? Churchill was urging his generals to do exactly that.
The Mersing Gambit is considered by some to be gamey because it takes advantage of the Japanese player knowing exactly where the ADBA forces are on day 1 and knowing that those forces are rarely if ever going to be able to react well to an attack there, as opposed to a historical commander on the ground that would have no such knowledge.
ORIGINAL: Quixote
Attacking at Pearl Harbor is cheesy because in the game (system) everybody knows that:
A Pearl Harbor raid in comparison isn't necessarily as gamey/cheesy because the Japanese player will have to deliberately choose to do it at the expense of any other possible attack that the KB could pull off, i.e. Manila. What would be an exploitation of historical foreknowledge would be sticking around Pearl Harbor for days knowing that the USN will be in a poor position to react, and/or sending the KB to try and hunt down the American carriers since you know where they start from.
