So you have a problem with the Allies changing their doctrine in a beneficial manner to improve their performance in the war. Do you have the same problem with the Japanese changing their doctrine to improve their performance? If so, try playing the Japanese without the ability to coordinate navy and army command of air units and missions, without properly escorting merchant convoys, using the KB as bait to try and create surface engagement opportunities, and have the Japanese subs ignore merchant shipping targets.ORIGINAL: Bif1961
With the opponent I have been playing with for several games, we understand that situations like these are best addressed in HRs and if there had been a previous bone of contention it should have been worked out before starting a new game. However, The use of pickets by the Allies were normally limited to combat vessels with radar as pickets against massive kamakazi attacks. The use of allied pickets as displayed in this contest is practically suicide missions for the crews and would be against the national norms. If the allies were losing and an invasion of their home land was a threat then norms change and use of these pickets would probably been used, but that is not the case here. The Japanese mindset was far different and with some soul searching they allowed suicide attacks as policy, when the tides of war turned against them. What the game engine allows isn't always what a real nation would ask it's service members to do, especially at this point of the war, where we see basic equality is forces.
Why should one side be allowed to benefit from hindsight, and the other be expected to ignore those benefits?









