ORIGINAL: Kull
Looking at this logically, you can clearly see the whole "debate" is essentially pointless:
Then why are you participating?
1) The land war in China is an aberration in the overall mechanics of a "War in the Pacific" game. It should be obvious to everyone that the devs spent their time - and rightfully so - in upgrading the coding of the Air-Naval-Amphib portions of the game. And they succeeded spectacularly, IMHO. Seriously. Anybody who compares AE to WitP and says those aspects are now worse is flat-out lying. Elimination of air carnage, island stacking restrictions, and near-real-life loading/unloading times are just a few examples among a host of similar logistics and warfare improvements, all of which put AE light years ahead of its predecessor.
I haven't seen anyone say that AE is overall worse in the Air/Naval/Amphib department. AE is an overall incremental improvement but it still has some real problems that (mostly) carried over from the original.
Land combat is pretty bad. It's always been pretty bad. Unfortunately ownership of every objective is determined through land combat so it can't just be ignored. AE is supposed to be a new game and I would expect land combat resolution to have been much more improved. There have been some nice improvements to help with supply and resting land units but the land combat itself remains a weak link. Which you apparently concede since you left it off the list above.
2) And that's important because, as in real life - the fate of China HAS NO STRATEGIC impact on the war. Go ahead and watch as Japan takes the whole thing (which probably isn't even possible, but let's accept the premise for a moment). What does Japan have? Answer: Absolutely nothing that will impede the cross-island onslaught from the USA. The war can only be won by preventing Allied conquest of the critical "island highway" leading straight at Japan. And every Manchurian Air Unit and all the "Artillery Death Stars" in the world won't keep that from happening.
This is simply untrue. Everything on the map is interrelated. The strategic impact if Japan takes all of China would alter every decision both sides made in game and IRL. The ridiculousness of such an event would also make many people think any historical wargame that easily allows it is utter crap.
3) So why - one must ask - is the debate focusing on an "over-powered" Japan? Simple. Admiral's Edition takes a long time to play and few of the complainers have played it long enough to see that all the Japanese success in '42 is ephemeral and fleeting. Whether the Allied player is facing the AI or a human, you WILL be taking it on the chops, and you WILL be taking it on the chops for MANY MONTHS of real-time game play! Is that frustrating as hell? You betcha. Which is just one more way in which the devs nailed the "real life" aspect of playing as the Allies in the early part of the war. Just like King and Nimitz and MacArthur, you'll feel angry and PO'd for a very long time. But just like they did, if you are patient and bear the blows and don't surrender (which, after all, was the real-life Japanese "war winning plan"), then you too will see the tide begin it's slow but inexorable turn. And it WILL turn.
It's absolutely no consolation that later in the game the weak game aspects will be in my favor. As for being frustrated just like Nimitz & King IRL. They wouldn't have just been frustrated, they'd have been replaced, if the war played out as it generally does in WitP. If voicing my displeasure on specific issues makes me a "complainer" or a "whiner" then so be it.
People need to understand - and I mean REALLY UNDERSTAND - that the devs had to make hundreds of thousands of things function perfectly here. And the end product of that is a game which mimics the real "War in the Pacific" to an amazing degree. And if there are some aspects which aren't "just so", well, that's what happens when you are building a massively complicated monster like this. What's surprising isn't that some things may be wrong - the REAL miracle is that so much of it is exactly RIGHT!
Besides, if we've learned anything from watching these guys work over the past few years, it's this: If it can be tweaked and improved, they will do it.
People need to understand - and I mean REALLY UNDERSTAND - that some of us aren't entirely thrilled with the product they purchased. There's no reason for anyone take that personally. Not the devs and especially not the peanut gallery.
I don't doubt the sincerity of all those who work so hard to make AE (and WitP before it) the best that it can be. Sadly all their hard work and good intentions mean nothing to me if I'm unable to enjoy the game.
and also a do-able solution. Take the risk or don't its Japans choice and they may get lucky. However i can see one game killing potential problem with it. Japanese PBEM player pulls what he likes from Manchiria and soviets activate early then he bails .. no fun for either player. Conversely he could pull troops from manchuria and decimate china (note i didnt say conquer) then the allied player whines and bails.