Scen1 v Scen2 in 2-player

[dasboot1960]

I'd like to ask what PVP players think.
Particularly in terms of 'historical' (I know that needs to be squishy for an enjoyable game) timelines, if not outcomes. Roughly, given equal players, does Scen 1 doom IJ to inevitable defeat? Does Scen 2 condemn the ally to clawing for Karachi, Pearl and some remnant of perhaps Alaska, US and NZ until late 43? Those are stark terms, but ..., well, there it is. I know there's all the variables. Generally speaking?

[RangerJoe]

Scenario 1 is historical as far as the OOB and other things are concerned.

Scenario 2 is to help the Japanese.

Against equal players, the Japanese should lose. Unfortunately, too many Allied players give up (see "Sudden Carrier Loss Syndrome") or try to counterattack too soon which may lead to the "Sudden Carrier Loss Syndrome" just a little bit later.

[PaxMondo]

From what I've seen in the AAR's, Scen 1 comes down to:
- HR's - what's allowed and what's not ...
- Luck or not

Not taking away from anyone's skill or anything. But, if the two players are experienced (meaning they know both the rules, and all the basics in terms of gameplay), and are roughly the same level of skill, then you look at the HR's.

If the HR's allow anything/everything, the allies are in trouble. There are some game mechanics that give an advantage to the IJ and allow them to accomplish more than is realistically possible (exploiting 1st turn magic moves, ability to build 5000 Tojo's, etc.).

If you have moderate/reasonable HR's, then the game gets pretty balanced. My comment of "Luck or not" is that the game then becomes more a game of poker ... the winner is generally the player who can best predict what his opponent will do and trap him with it. Either side has a real chance to win, and that's what you see.

RJ's comment about SLCS is real: many players abandon a game when they face a set back. Particularly for the allies, early material losses (CV/BB's) are not of crucial consequence.