2 day/1 day turns

[romanovich]

Are there any new features in AE that were already disclosed that would make one regret to choose the 2 day turn option?

[JoePirulo]

You can switch between 1, 2, 3 days turns or continuos play against the AI. It´s an option I use, when nothing happens: 2 or 3 days. When action is calling 1 day/turn.
Max.

[romanovich]

I knew about that for AI games. But I played the big historical scenario a few years back and the AI at some point late in '42/early '43 got so predictable it wasn't any fun anymore. A game this scale needs human unpredictatbility. I recruited a worthy opponent who'd be new to WITP (but capable of handling this sort of complexity) to play the grand scenario in AE as PBEM. Obviously you have to plan for playing it for at least a year, but if you do 1 day turns, if you start in late in 2008 (god, I am still optimistic, aren't I?) you wouldn't even have gotten halfway thru 1942 at a realistic playing rate (one turn every other day) after that year. So it seems imperative to plan for a 2 day turn set-up in PBEM, but then you're locked in with that choice, obviously. So I am really, really wondering if we would come to regret choosing the 2 day turn option for the new AE (I've only played 1 day turns in WITP against AI because you could do several in a day and micromanaging is fun).
 
Big decision! A year of your life!
 
So, glad to get guidance from anyone who monitored the boards and saw anyone drop hints as to the benefits/drawbacks of 1 day/2 day turns in AE.
 
(might need to/should post in AE forum, but what the heck...)

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: romanovich

Are there any new features in AE that were already disclosed that would make one regret to choose the 2 day turn option?

Not at all - I've done the bulk of my AE testing with 20day turns. As far as I'm concerned, AE is just as confortable with 2-days turns as stock.

[Feinder]

If your army attacks 1:1 on day 1, it attacks again on day 2, usually with much depleted supplies, more often than not, ending in 0:1, and doing a fine job of blunting your offensive army.

Any chance some sort of check has been added to AE, to *not* automatically trigger that 0:1 suicide attack on day 2?

I do believe that is my single biggest frustration with 2 day turns - that you can't stop an attack that would obviously fail (all it would take is a supply check, and the player could decide to halt the attack : will the auto-attack be able to make this check?).

-F-

[jwilkerson]

I think whata I like about 2-day turns is that the tactics are different. What works in one may not work in the other. And 2-day turns require more planning. So if you really don't like 2-day turns don't play them. For me ... it took at 400 turns of 2-day turns before I finally got "converted" .. before that I was thinking I hated it and was just doing it because Nik was making me .. but then there was a turn where I plotted a high speed run for the Eastern Solomons down to just East of the Louisades (with KB) .... and re-home-ported myself to Shortlands, where I had built up the port and stock piled a bunch of gas. We started the turn ... my carriers ran down to the Louisades launched an attack on Nik's carriers and ended the turn at Shortlands. When I looked at the map at the start of the next turn, KB was fully fueled!!! And boy that one sold me. I could make a carrier strike and back away from the battle space and gas up ready for ops the next turn. The perfect "hit and run".

But the planning requirements are different and it is best not to launch attacks by air, sea or land unless you believe both days worth of attacks will be in your interest. If this type of planning is not for you then stick with 2-day turns, but I love it!
[:)]

[Feinder]

Feinder - I do believe that is my single biggest frustration with 2 day turns - that you can't stop an attack that would obviously fail (all it would take is a supply check, and the player could decide to halt the attack : will the auto-attack be able to make this check?).

Jwilkerson - But the planning requirements are different and it is best not to launch attacks by air, sea or land unless you believe both days worth of attacks will be in your interest. If this type of planning is not for you then stick with 2-day turns, but I love it!

I'll take that as a "no" then. That's truely unfortunate.

[:(]

-F-

[Nikademus]

2 day turns are great for players who on average only do 1-2 turns per day PBEM. Otherwise your looking at a game time play equiv. to real time. i.e. 2 years of game play = 2 years of RT. Thats daunting.

Not being able to micromanage and plan/execute attacks also forces more careful (i.e. more realistic) planning which forces you to rely on local commander's decisions. If one thinks an attack might fail...then the best plan may be not to do it. Slows down pace considerably. It also eliminates to a degree the ability to "teleport" airforces, attack then teleport back out next turn.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

That's truely unfortunate.

Ah, but we did leave the 1-day turn option still available - so you won't have to suffer playing 2-day turns!
[:)]

[Feinder]

The conundrum is that I prefer 2 day turns for the clip of the game - I'm one of those folks who only has time to manage a turn a day.

[Nikademus]

its not so bad. Like i said, you just have to be more cautious in your planning, which is a good thing IMO.

[jwilkerson]

F,

It took me about 400 agonizing turns (of play against the Nikster) hating 2-days turns all the time - thinking "I'm a 1-day turn guy - why the hecque am I playing 2-day turns" before I finally made it over the hump and became a 2-day turn guy.

I suspect I am pretty slow-witted ... I think most people can make it in less turns ... but you have to cross the desert to get to the promised land!
[:D]

[jwilkerson]

Oh ... I almost forget ... even in stock .. if you loose badly enough ... your LCU will not make the second day's attack anyway ... so actually what you are asking for is already there!

[Feinder]

you just have to be more cautious in your planning

 
It's not a matter of planning.  It's a failure of the game engine.
 
It's Daly Waters on the CHS map, or would be any other largely isolated inland base (like Alice Springs on the stock map).  There only access is by road from Katherine in the North (enemy held), and Tennet Creek from the south (friendly). 
 
Given nature of Daly Waters being a town in the middle of the desert, this pretty much precludes the use of landing additional supplies by ship.
 
Which leaves...
 
There are HQ units at every city to "pull" supplies from the nearest port to the front.  There are also litterally hundreds of C-47s at Tennet Creek hauling supplies to the front.
 
Besides waiting to attack when fully supplied, that pretty well sums what the extent of what may be "planned" within the limits of WitP game engine.
 
The fact that troops will attack with full supplies on day 1, and then suicide themselves on day 2 indicates either
1.  The supply model is lacking that they won't draw supplies on the second day.
2.  The attack model is lacking because they're too stupid to realize that they ran out of bullets on day 1.
3.  Or both the above are true.
 
If I could stop the attack on day 2, I would; but the engine is too stupid to cancel the attack.
 
I don't understand the defensiveness on behalf of the WitP engine.  It has nothing to do with "planning".  There are plenty of things wrong with WitP.  The problems with supply model and it's effect on combat in 2-day turns being one several issues that remain.
 
-F-

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's a failure of the game engine.

-F-

Oops.
[:)]

[Gem35]

How about those Cubs?[;)]

[Hornblower]

i prefer 1 turns...  go yanks

[goodboyladdie]

Two day turns are better in my experience. The war flows better and moves faster. I have played both and the extra control one day turns give can be useful, but two "feels" more realistic.