Timtom,
The defence would like to introduce into evidence the thread. [;)]
Mogami,
(why accept one exploit and question another?)
Simple, because people differ and the reason so many people went and died fighting against the evil of fascism was precisely so that their societies would continue to be able to countenance difference and accept it.
And onto your points.
If WiTP used a map of the entire globe then it would be "Global War" and this and EVERY AAR would be different. Put in different parameters and the outcome would be different. This is obviously so. Seriously though, accept it, people differ and draw the lines in different places.
" If players assigned units in reinforcement que HQ and arrival locations this AAR would be much different."
Yes, as would all other AARs. Change the parameters and ALL games would be different.
The object when playing Japan is not to out do Japan's successfull phase but to improve where they FAILED!!!
No, that is inaccurate. THAT may be your object. However people differ ( and let's be thankful for that for a world in which everyone thought the same would be a world in which I'd definitely commit suicide... or more likely be euthanised for being unwilling to conform) and so some players have different objects when playing the game. My objective in all strategy games I play is to try to run as many continuous and contiguous operations as possible as quickly as possible with as little margin of error as possible. This is what gives me enjoyment of the game. In WiTP this translated in one way. In Combat Mission, in another, in WiR in another etc...
So, your "truth" is but one of the possible truths out there. I find it disappointing that you continually talk as though it is "the only truth". That sort of attitude causes the sorts of wars we enjoy replaying virtually. People have different views of what makes something enjoyable than you do. This doesn't make you wrong or them wrong. It just means you differ. Vive la difference!!!
The conquest of India on a world map solves none of the main Japanese problems of defense. The main enemy of Japan is the US Navy. The main concern of Japan is preventing the drive towards the Japanese Home Islands.
I disagree with this. Removing the Indian theatre as a base from which aerial and amphibious offensives can be launched into the DEI IS the solution to one of Japan's main problems. In order to defeat the drive against the Home Islands ( the main objective of any viable strategy) it is necessary to ensure that maximum resources can be allocated to the Pacific Theatre at the appropriate time. In order to ensure that maximum resources can be allocated it is necessary to:
a) minimise the drawdown of these resources in other theatres ( served by eliminating India as a theatre since it is a much smaller drain on resources to garrison a country than to fight a strong foe in that country or surrounding regions)...
b) maximise the security of one's own means of production ( in this case the DEI) ( served by eliminating India as a base for amphibious or aerial assault towards the DEI)...
These are the same reasons given for the capture of Northern Australia and are, in that case, quite valid ( although slightly less so as the Northern Australia gambit is usually less decisive). Again, you have an opinion, others have different opinions. This is all quite acceptable.
Lastly I would STRONGLY disagree that the main enemy of Japan is the US Navy. Japan's main enemy is, and always will be, its delicate resource & oil situation. No matter how strong the US Navy is it is meaningless if it cannot further the curtailing of the flow of oil and resources to the home island. Certainly it is one of the most important means of achieving that curtailment but a strong navy does not necessarily equal that curtailment. A player who had managed to retake the DEI and cut off the flow of oil and resources but had lost the US Navy earlier in the game would be in a much stronger position than a player with a strong US Navy but very limited Pacific Holdings.
This is a game which mixes the operational, strategic and national policy objectives. It seems that it was always assumed that since Japan's national policy objectives are obvious the strategic means taken to achieve them would remain the same no matter what doctrinal outlook was applied. I would argue that this assumption is, obviously, fallacious and that differing doctrines brought to bear on the national policy objectives will yield different solutions ( strategic plans). In any case at the national policy level it really is always ALL about logistics and politics and any military actions should be aimed at either harming the enemy's logistical or political situation and all decisions made with the impact on logistics in mind. Worrying about the US Navy more than logistics is a path to massive failure for the Japanese IMO. Of course since you come from a Western doctrinal viewpoint it is entirely understandable that your view of these things would differ. Since I come at this ( and other strategic/operational/tactical situations) from a very different doctrinal standing I evaluate things differently.
As to your last points... You describe two types of players:
1. Recreators and
2. people who want to capture the whole map...
There are more types than that and to attempt to polarise the discussion by this labelling is "unhelpful". In many cases seeking to capture much of the map does not arise out of a desire to capture the map but, simply, arises out of a given doctrinal viewpoint which drives one to a different view than others.
Now can I suggest that as this AAR is going to be continuing shortly ( hopefully later today) that people take the discussion of extended maps and what players should play stock and what players should play extended maps to the war room or the general forum? I'd be happy to continue it there but that discussion, while tangentially involving this AAR, isn't really what an AAR is supposed to be about ok?
. 
