Well some aren't technically bugs, like 4E's having the anti-shipping abilities of 2E's, but I don't want to re-hash all that disturbed me. In fact, I probably couldn't remember them all, I just know for my own case I had seen enough to make it not worth my time. And, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I was the lone one expressing opinion similar to mine, though I have heard a great many complaints. Completely healthy air groups randomly splitting into different places, AI-led KB being a sitting duck; don't even get me started. Others play past the deficiencies, but the Pacific theatre and the very long nature of this game combined (and the game being very quickly one-sided - well that's just how it was), added to make the decision to cast it aside so much easier. I might put up with this sort of error and sloppiness on an Eastern Front game, but certainly not the much more boring PacWar. Price too pays a factor. I just think an $80 game, no matter how complex, should be more playable; just a general rule of thumb. Yeah, I know, everybody and their dog disagrees. That's not surprising again.ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger
To me, WITP was some of the worst money per useage I have spent on games, and I have a good experience in the grognard side of things. It was just too buggy for me to take a serious effort.
I think you're on your own here Charles. For me, and i know for most others on this forum, WitP has been easily the BEST value for $$ of any game i have ever shelled out cash for. Curious to hear though, exactly what bugs were you struggling with?
It seems there's a high ratio of guys willing to forgive Pacific theatre problems simply because they're a lot more desperate for a game than East Front afficinadoes are (it's the best they got is what I keep hearing). I'm very much on the fence with AE, as it's either something to make WITP playable in my view, or it's something to add to my shame of spending so much on a game that even historically was so one-sided.
