Play ability? -or just history?

[1275psi]

Ok
Now Im looking forward to AE as much as the next guy -in fact today I just invested over 30% of my savings into a new box so I can play it.
I also admit to not having trawled through all the posts on the new game.
But I do have some concerns, and want to express an opinion

With WITP, we have seen a huge range of variables in the AARs
We have seen Japan run riot
We have seen allied wins in 42
we have seen japan win in 44
We have seen tokyo raised in 43
Both allies and Japan have demonstrated a huge range of different ways to play.
From crazy full ahead, kill, kill, kill ways (I've done this against wobbly)
to the
every electron soldier and plane is like a son to me way ( also played that way)

The choice has always been mine -and my opponents, we decide how we are going to play
Want a "historical feel game -you can find an opponent- (Tabpub, BBF are my opponent)s
want a mad punch up -you can find an opponent (High robertlee!)
want a "reasonable battle of wits -you can find an opponent (high general!)

What concerns me is that AE is going to put us into such tight straight jackets -that BOTH players will be "forced down the same historical paths"

Japan will have to invade singas -the allies will have to die
japan takes the DEI -the allies fight -and lose

Where then -? , Political points says -the solomons basically for Japan.

For the allies the choices will expand -but for japan?

Now this is actually fine FOR THE FIRST times -a real historical game -great. real historical limitations, problems ect.
But for the second game?
or the third game???

Who knows? - but I have this opinion
After 6 months if all the AE AARs are all starting to sound the same -going down the same paths of strategy, then AE will be a success as a Historical simulation -and a failure as a game.
And as (I suspect just from reading the AARs) there are far more people out there I suspect seeking a game than a exact historical simulation, thats going to be fatal.

So - I really hope AE will still allow a great deal of strategic flexibility -or we may never see a game of this like again.

[treespider]

Well after the NEI is taken - which was a historical necessity - Japan will have several options India, Australia, the Soviet Union (ha-ha), The South Pacific, China etc etc...

The likely difference is that Japan in AE will probably only be able to pursue one or two options instead of ALL of them....time will tell.

[bradfordkay]

"The likely difference is that Japan in AE will probably only be able to pursue one or two options instead of ALL of them....time will tell."

If this turns out to be the case, then AE will have been a success.

[Alfred]

There is nothing wrong with Japan pursuing all the options of India, Australia, USSR, SoPac, China etc provided:
 
(a) it is not done simultaneously,
 
(b) merely by moving one uber invasion stack, disregarding historical logistical realities, and
 
(c) within the first 6 months when there simply are no meaningful forces available to the Allied player to counter these moves.
 
Alfred

[witpqs]

IMO the basic scenarios should have historic capabilities included. What the players do with those capabilities is up to them. The only restrictions should be the capabilities themselves. Add in HR's between players that are intended to account for game engine short-comings.

If someone feels those capabilities are too limiting then mods can address that (or non-historical scenarios if Matrix, et al ever decides to include them).

[Rainer]

I fully support your view.
That's what WitP (and other more serious war games) is all about: have the military equipment and human ressources of the time period at your disposal, and then see what you can do. To achieve a reasonable game balance (Grigsby excells at that I believe) some political constraints may be included, say a "political point system".
Otherwise limiting the player in what is "allowed" does not make a good game. At least not for me.
If I want to see "historically correct" events I watch "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "Midway".

[mlees]

ORIGINAL=  Rainer
 
I fully support your view.
That's what WitP (and other more serious war games) is all about: have the military equipment and human ressources of the time period at your disposal, and then see what you can do. To achieve a reasonable game balance (Grigsby excells at that I believe) some political constraints may be included, say a "political point system".
Otherwise limiting the player in what is "allowed" does not make a good game. At least not for me.
If I want to see "historically correct" events I watch "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "Midway".

 
The problem is, though, exactly what a particular player thinks Japan was actually capable of in WW2.
 
We have seen plenty of folks make the assertion that Japan could have conquered Australia and New Zealand IRL. I may disagree (especially if the Army does not pull out of China).
 
So, if WiTP AE does not give Japan the ability to conquer Australia & New Zealand, that player is going to assume that the game did not give him the tools Japan had historically. If, in WiTP AE, we see Japan routinely conquer Australia & New Zealand, players like me will think that Japan is too strong relative to their historic capabilities.

[anarchyintheuk]

I'll be happy if pace of operations slows down: no more insta-bases, no more same day transfer and attack, etc.

As much as I like Tora, Tora, Tora and Midway I wouldn't watch them because they were historically correct. In any event the comparison doesn't work. While WitP can give you the very outcomes of those movies given the same forces (although more than likely the USN doesn't receive as much as the historical damage at PH and would get smoked at Midway because Nimitz didn't know enough to wait until the squadrons were reorganized and fighters increase, avengers were available besides the fact that he wouldn't have had the intel needed for the ambush in the first place, etc.)I haven't seen how AE would straightjacket the IJN/IJA to strictly following history turn by turn.

[Rainer]

The problem is, though, exactly what a particular player thinks Japan was actually capable of in WW2.

Exactly. Same true for Allies BTW.
And therefore some discussions are running in circles because neither side can really prove what Allies or Japanese were really "capable" to do.
I personally see WitP as a very very good "tool" to figure out how far I can get as Supreme Commander (I play Allies only against AI). And that is a lot of fun for me. I do not care that much for "repeating history". But I would not be that much interested if certain parameters were grossly wrong, say what a B-17 could carry or how far a B-17 could fly. Most of that stuff is fairly well represented in the game. A huge amount of data had to be explored and worked into the game engine. And most of those data are really, really hard to come by. And that alone makes WitP stand apart from the rest.

Looking forward to AE. Coming closer to Gary Grigsby's statement many years ago: "Pacific War is not complicated enough". True enough. WitP is not complicated enough [;)]

Edits to get rid of spelling errors

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

The problem is, though, exactly what a particular player thinks Japan was actually capable of in WW2.

Exactly. Same true for Allies BTW.
And therefore some discussions are running in circles because neither side can really prove what Allies or Japanese were really "capable" to do.
I personally see WitP as a very very good "tool" to figure out how far I can get as Supreme Commander (I play Allies only against AI). And that is a lot of fun for me. I do not care that much for "repeating history". But I would not be that much interested if certain parameters were grossly wrong, say what a B-17 could carry or how far a B-17 could fly. Most of that stuff is fairly well represented in the game. A huge amount of data had to be explored and worked into the game engine. And most of those data are really, really hard to come by. And that alone makes WitP stand apart from the rest.

Looking forward to AE. Coming closer to Gary Grigsby's statement many years ago: "Pacific War is not complicated enough". True enough. WitP is not complicated enough [;)]

Edits to get rid of spelling errors

My feelings, exactly.[8D]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: mlees

ORIGINAL=  Rainer

I fully support your view.
That's what WitP (and other more serious war games) is all about: have the military equipment and human ressources of the time period at your disposal, and then see what you can do. To achieve a reasonable game balance (Grigsby excells at that I believe) some political constraints may be included, say a "political point system".
Otherwise limiting the player in what is "allowed" does not make a good game. At least not for me.
If I want to see "historically correct" events I watch "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "Midway".

The problem is, though, exactly what a particular player thinks Japan was actually capable of in WW2.

We have seen plenty of folks make the assertion that Japan could have conquered Australia and New Zealand IRL. I may disagree (especially if the Army does not pull out of China).

So, if WiTP AE does not give Japan the ability to conquer Australia & New Zealand, that player is going to assume that the game did not give him the tools Japan had historically. If, in WiTP AE, we see Japan routinely conquer Australia & New Zealand, players like me will think that Japan is too strong relative to their historic capabilities.

Even if Japan had completely conquered China, it is unlikely they could have done much more. When you've got a few hundred million people to keep subjugated, most of your troops will be stuck doing just that...keeping those few hundred million people subjugated. And pulling out wasn't an option either, they needed the resources from Manchuria. So basically, 1/4 of Japans resources were tied up in China indefinately.

Perhaps a lot of people don't realize that. The trouble with expanding is that you have to police and defend it all...the more you expand, the more you limit your offensive capabilities. The game as is doesn't model that except in China and to an extent in Korea. In Truth, you should probably have to have at least a minimal garrison in any base hex you conquer...and that goes for both sides really.

[1275psi]

Some really good posts here

I actually have faith that the team will get it pretty right.

Just invested 1500 bucks hoping so
I got my 3 GB Ram, super dooper video card ect, ect already to go now
[:D]
So , when da we get it!!!![:)][&o][&o][&o]