"Tojo Edition"

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

But you can as Japan expand further than historical, decide on differant strategic directions and different policy. If the game allowed Japan to over run the USA mainland 50% of the time for a 'win' no-one would take it the least seriously. Allied production is a fact of life in any simulation of the pacific war so yes the Allies will always 'win' but as Japan can you make them 'win' in 46 rather than 45. thats the litmus paper of end game success imo.

Caveat - unless i completely missed the point of your post [;)]

Actually the VP system let's the Japanese player 'win' the game. The things you mention are what I refer too. I do realize that if I play as Japan and can't get the VP victory by early '44, it's probably a lost cause. That doesn't mean that I can't be a major PITA to my opponant until the bitter end though. [;)]

And if you make no mistakes and your allied opponent makes a few bad mistakes, you can actually win the game. It's possible, not probable. I'm ok with this.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Shark7
And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

The only way you can "do better" than your historical counterparts is if you face the same realities, challenges and restrictions as they did. Wanting to "do better" by inventing your own realities makes it sound like you watch the "History" Channel far too much... [:D]

Why does it always come down to 'fantasy land' when a JFB says he wants to do better than in real life? You say I want to invent my own realities when I said nothing of the sort, what I refer to game wise is that taking the exact tool we have in game and using my own brain cells to devise a better plan. What I vehemently oppose is a game that uses its own mechanics to ensure that the outcome is always the same, because that is not a game. You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Don't let game mechanics be so unbalanced that there can never be a different outcome.

That is my point.

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

But you can as Japan expand further than historical, decide on differant strategic directions and different policy. If the game allowed Japan to over run the USA mainland 50% of the time for a 'win' no-one would take it the least seriously. Allied production is a fact of life in any simulation of the pacific war so yes the Allies will always 'win' but as Japan can you make them 'win' in 46 rather than 45. thats the litmus paper of end game success imo.

Caveat - unless i completely missed the point of your post [;)]

Actually the VP system let's the Japanese player 'win' the game. The things you mention are what I refer too. I do realize that if I play as Japan and can't get the VP victory by early '44, it's probably a lost cause. That doesn't mean that I can't be a major PITA to my opponant until the bitter end though. [;)]

And if you make no mistakes and your allied opponent makes a few bad mistakes, you can actually win the game. It's possible, not probable. I'm ok with this.

I couldn't agree more, the player/admiral/politician who makes the least blunders will be seen as a 'victor' or sorts [:D]. I havnt yet tried PBEM as Japan , i hope to one day. but i love playing Japan vs the AI (well once i get my head round the production system at least).

No offence here at all intended, but why make the point of 'imbalance' in a game thats so heavily based on real life that we all know Japan cant possibly win , except on points. It certainly isnt a re-hash of history and god forbid it ever become one. Imo 99% of players want a lot of 'what-if' factors in thier games, makes them unpredictable on a theatre scale and tactical too. but at the end of the day japan is toast.

I think your being a bit harsh on Mike there, he did put a smiley in there for you[;)].

Don't let game mechanics be so unbalanced that there can never be a different outcome.

Depends on what you mean by outcome. will allies eventally win the war ? yes its pretty much inevitable. It's how you play the game that matters, not the conclusion which is pretty much set in stone.Of course Japan can do better that she did historically, i dont have to point you to any AAR's as your an old hand here from the WitP forums.

I am genuinely confused as to what your point actually is [&:]. I have been known to be as thick as a brick on occasion so please enlighten me. [;)]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK



But you can as Japan expand further than historical, decide on differant strategic directions and different policy. If the game allowed Japan to over run the USA mainland 50% of the time for a 'win' no-one would take it the least seriously. Allied production is a fact of life in any simulation of the pacific war so yes the Allies will always 'win' but as Japan can you make them 'win' in 46 rather than 45. thats the litmus paper of end game success imo.

Caveat - unless i completely missed the point of your post [;)]

Actually the VP system let's the Japanese player 'win' the game. The things you mention are what I refer too. I do realize that if I play as Japan and can't get the VP victory by early '44, it's probably a lost cause. That doesn't mean that I can't be a major PITA to my opponant until the bitter end though. [;)]

And if you make no mistakes and your allied opponent makes a few bad mistakes, you can actually win the game. It's possible, not probable. I'm ok with this.

I couldn't agree more, the player/admiral/politician who makes the least blunders will be seen as a 'victor' or sorts [:D]. I havnt yet tried PBEM as Japan , i hope to one day. but i love playing Japan vs the AI (well once i get my head round the production system at least).

No offence here at all intended, but why make the point of 'imbalance' in a game thats so heavily based on real life that we all know Japan cant possibly win , except on points. It certainly isnt a re-hash of history and god forbid it ever become one. Imo 99% of players want a lot of 'what-if' factors in thier games, makes them unpredictable on a theatre scale and tactical too. but at the end of the day japan is toast.

I think your being a bit harsh on Mike there, he did put a smiley in there for you[;)].

Don't let game mechanics be so unbalanced that there can never be a different outcome.

Depends on what you mean by outcome. will allies eventally win the war ? yes its pretty much inevitable. It's how you play the game that matters, not the conclusion which is pretty much set in stone.Of course Japan can do better that she did historically, i dont have to point you to any AAR's as your an old hand here from the WitP forums.

I am genuinely confused as to what your point actually is [&:]. I have been known to be as thick as a brick on occasion so please enlighten me. [;)]

I'll see if I can clarify then.

My point is that the mechanics of the game should never limit a players ability to gain a victory. The mechanics being how the probability of a hit is resolved or whether a contact is made, etc. AE doesn't seem to have that.

Sure the database is based on realistic numbers and an American 5"/38 is far more likely to hit than a 12.7mm/40, but so long as the formula to resolve whether it hits or not is the same, it is fair.

So what I mean is make sure that the nuts and bolts we can't see that determine every outcome in the game are balanced, then the game is fine.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach




I feel that you are to kind with your approach to someone that is unapproachable. While I will leave it alone and back off, ala Erik, I feel it is futile to try a stroking move with this individual.

I calls them likes I sees them.

Except you didn't leave it alone. You took another shot. None of my criticisms of this game have come out of left field.

Do you think land combat in this game is all it can be?

Do you think WW2 subs should be able to sink DDs and other ASW craft at will?

Do you think that Japan had the real world capability to conquer much more than they did historically before they reached the end of their tether? That they could have been rampaging in China, blast through Burma to the Indian border, hold all of Malaysia and the PI, most of the DEI, and be invading the Central and South Pacific by March '42?

These are things that make the game difficult for me to continue to play. Every time I start another game of WitP, or now AE, I end up switching over to a 4X game instead. Because in Civ type games I'm not hampered by any expectations of realism.

If I didn't think this game could be any better then I wouldn't bother to download the patches but it does have unrealized potential IMO.

[Swenslim]

I recommend everyone to relax, after patch 2 China is balanced, Japan player has now to leave much more garrison troops wich dicrease his ability to conduct offensive greatly.

[bretg80]

IMHO we all need to keep perspective. The devs are trying to do their best and we as gamers are a demanding group who wants the best game possible. We need to respect each other and understand that we both want what is best for this game. We aren't always going to agree on what is best and hence the disagreements, but let's all agree that if you care enough to post on this board then you care about this game.

On a completely different note, I really wish that we could zoom in and out on the map without having to side scroll all over the place. If there is one thing that you could fix in a future patch that would be a huge benefit to users of the game that would be number one on my list. Yes you can jump around on the minimap, but it is still very awkward. AE is a modern game and it was released in 2009, side scrolling is a 90's game retro UI. We spend a lot of time looking at that map and it would be so nice to be able to zoom in and out of it to see the big picture as needed. It would also be fantastic to be able to see where all of your units are headed. This is an operational wargame and there is so much information that is hidden from the user that we have external bolt-ons (which are very good by the way) to help us with the game. When is AE going to improve the UI? It seems that the UI is always last on the list of new features and yet it is what we live and die with every time we touch the game. Speaking of which, I am a big GG fan, but he is always criticized by reviewers for his UI design. This is where we can help to make this game more accessible to others. We still need to work on the game mechanics, but let's not forget usability too.

Just my two cents. And yes, I've heard how difficult it is to work on the UI in WITP. Most things in life that are worth doing aren't easy

[wworld7]

It has been stated before that the feature you (and many) desire cannot be done with the current code. If there ever is a WITP-2, we can hope for improvements here.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Do you think that Japan had the real world capability to conquer much more than they did historically before they reached the end of their tether? That they could have been rampaging in China, blast through Burma to the Indian border, hold all of Malaysia and the PI, most of the DEI, and be invading the Central and South Pacific by March '42?

With the amount of foreknowledge players have? Yes. This works both ways, though. Late in the game Allied players can be much less cautious than historically, and plan their operations with foreknowledge of goals, achieving which auto-wins the war. (So, in WitP it was possible for Allies to end the war on historical timeline with rush to Marianas and strategic bombing, even after losing all major naval engagements until November 1943.)

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: bklooste
.

Not sure where the AFB get the ideas the IJA was a push over , with air support and well supplied they pushed over the Australians in Malaysia ( who did quite well in North Africa against Rommel who in turn gave the US a run for their money) , they also did ok in teh Solomans with pretty bad supplies also with Ichi Go they thrashed China.. Its just historically they chose not to.

Go back and read what I wrote.

Did they take Singapore in early January and inflict 10X the casualties that they received? In the Solomons they died in droves.

In this game they can steamroll anything in a couple days and be no worse for wear.

1. Yes they did inflict 10* the casualties..
2. January / 15 February Historically , come on thats close enough... And in most of the early cases the Japanese risks Naval losses by a landing further south cutting of the retreat.

Lastly in some PBMs the allies are stil fighting in Singapore in Malaysia in March to April and even in June for Manilla.

[bklooste]

i think we should have a scenario 3 with the WITP AI scripts on scenario 1 there people will be happy till 1/43 at least.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I've cited the areas where the game falls short for me. It's those shortcomings that cause me to not enjoy the game. You're willing to overlook them. I'm not.

Impasse, then. But it's actually a bit deeper:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

....those like me that expect plausible results from a historical simulation with a historical order of battle.

I expect that a game of this complexity is going to deviate - at the tactical level - from the results one might see in a pure historical simulation. For you that's a major issue, as you've said many times. And it's not "whining or complaining" to bring those issues up and ask the developers to see if they can be tweaked toward more historical outcomes. They have asked us to give feedback and it's obvious that they do listen and make adjustments where possible. But the devs have also said - many times - that there are limits to what the code can do.

At the end of the day, WitP-AE will never be able to give real-world results from every type of tactical encounter. The Land War has never been a WitP strength, and although heavily tweaked, the code is fundamentally the same. Likewise the submarine code has a number of base-level issues (i.e they are a variant of surface vessels) and thus there will always be problems in how the game handles them. And there's plenty of other areas where the ancient code has reached its limits. So if your criteria for enjoyment is that WitP must be a "historical simulation", then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. It's closer than anything else one can find on the market, but it's probably never going to achieve what you are expecting.

[bradfordkay]

"I'll see if I can clarify then.

My point is that the mechanics of the game should never limit a players ability to gain a victory. The mechanics being how the probability of a hit is resolved or whether a contact is made, etc. AE doesn't seem to have that.

Sure the database is based on realistic numbers and an American 5"/38 is far more likely to hit than a 12.7mm/40, but so long as the formula to resolve whether it hits or not is the same, it is fair.

So what I mean is make sure that the nuts and bolts we can't see that determine every outcome in the game are balanced, then the game is fine."


Pardon me if I missed something on the forum, but where have the game mechanics been skewed to promote one side over the other? I know that weapons data has been massaged, but I do not know of any situation where the combat resolution routines have been massaged into favoring either side. Can somebody point out where this has happened?

[Swenslim]

At Solomons if Japan had good airbase at Shortland or Munda the USA would be trashed in late 1942...  but they showed poor tactic level planning and not forsaw battle for unknown Guadalcanal island.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

At Solomons if Japan had good airbase at Shortland or Munda the USA would be trashed in late 1942...  but they showed poor tactic level planning and not forsaw battle for unknown Guadalcanal island.

Maybe - it's hard to say what the rejoinder would have been.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

At Solomons if Japan had good airbase at Shortland or Munda the USA would be trashed in late 1942...  but they showed poor tactic level planning and not forsaw battle for unknown Guadalcanal island.

Well, neither did Allies consider Solomons any sort of battlefield in early war.

[Rob Brennan UK]

I'll see if I can clarify then.

My point is that the mechanics of the game should never limit a players ability to gain a victory. The mechanics being how the probability of a hit is resolved or whether a contact is made, etc. AE doesn't seem to have that.

Sure the database is based on realistic numbers and an American 5"/38 is far more likely to hit than a 12.7mm/40, but so long as the formula to resolve whether it hits or not is the same, it is fair.

So what I mean is make sure that the nuts and bolts we can't see that determine every outcome in the game are balanced, then the game is fine.

Ah i see now. all i can offer in way of a reply is what the Devs have stated. There is no intrisic advantage to either Japan or the Allies programmed into the combat model.

From personal experience i havnt seen any one sided affairs that havnt at least been looked at by the testers and Devs with the most glaring being addressed by the patches to some degree or another. How the new patch will change China (as an example) is yet to be discovered and as in all things this complex will take time.

That said though, are some 'devices' i.e radar working as approximate as it should to replicate real world happenings ? i have no idea, and all that I and we as a communitly is post 'oddities' and ask the people who programmed the game 'is this WAD?'

There are no 'midway' moments hardcoded so Japn loses its best carriers in june 42. If a japanese player does lose them then its usually a combination of bad luck and advocating a high risk venture.

After that little ramble, no i dont believe the game has any hidden agenda or bias in the coding and both sides are free to do what they want with what they have. Thats why i like it so much.

[LoBaron]

Its exactly as Rob said.

The game uses die rolls that only differ if the device class is different.

The die rolls used to calculate the hit chance of a ship mountent gun on another ship differ to, for example die rolls for a 20mm cannon in an air battle.

Its the input values into these die rolls that make the difference.
For example the ship mounted guns´ values (based on historical values as close as possible) spiced with rolls for crew experience, weather, detection value,
range to target, tactical situation, moonlight, commanders values, and many more that I forgot or don´t know about result in the chances of the gun to hit another ship.

[bacchus]

WOW!
I read this original post and did not forsee this much discussion happening.
I took the time to post my comments on the Wargamer forum under the same name so no need to repeat them here. (and as you can tell from my post total and years I have been a member, you can see posting is not my strong suit) A game must be truely noteworthy to generate so much discussion on both sides of an issue, especially an issue originally started in another forum. Its amazing how things can get quickly elevated in a posting forum. I enjoy the game (heck I enjoyed the original UV) and enjoy discussions on how to make it better. My thanks to critics and developers alike who keep the original UV going and changing; hopefully for many more years.

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

My support to AE Team for the hard work. AE is an amazing product. Like a grogrand playing wargames from I was 14 y.o. I am absolutely satisfied with AE like the best PC wargame that I ever played.
About criticism, I am not agree with comments like wargamer forum... Probably this player don´t know about House Rules (needed sometimes to play as near to historical envrioment as possible). If you are agree with your opponent no one IJA aircraft will be transfer from Kwangtung to another playing areas... right?.
Like this H.R. another more could be taken for players to avoid unrealistic situations (no strategic bombing on China factories, 4E bombers at 10,000 or 15,000 feet in naval attack, all PT boats in the same hex in the same TF, and like this all that you want or need...).
For the other hands I can not understand this kind of players that need that the game will be like real war was.. WITP AE like others wargames is a game, it´s not the real life.. Could be near as possible to real life, but it´s a game.. and will be boring if I like JFB must to take the same deccisions of IJA/IJN Staff or like AFB taking the same decisions like Nimits/McArthur/Chiangk...wouldn´t be ?.. I think this "wargamers" like the historical timeline...well, you can take the same decisions like japanese Staff, but that´s your deccision in your play, no more.
The game is for all wargamers (no only for purist), and I think more of them like "What if.."

Finally, I am an unconditional WITP AE player (like AFB or JFB, I am glad playing any of sides) and I am very glad with the AE Team work.

P.S: excuse me for my english, it´s not my native language, i wait could be understood.

Ramón

Well Said, Fletcher -

Good Morning, Gents,

I would like to express my sincere graditude to Matrix and the AE Developent Team for giving us such an outstanding game on the Pacific War. Most certainly there are areas or aspects of the game that could be changed or tweaked but, as pointed out by Canoerebel, Fletcher, Kull and others there is no game that comes even close to the wealth of detail, gaming experience and sheer enjoyment offered by WitP AE.

And, when it comes to support, Matrix is second to none. Patch 2 is awesome, Gentlemen. While not a programmer I do understand the enormous effort required to put together a 90 plus megabite patch. To me it's like Christmas - I can't wait to see what new surprises await....

This Forum ( with all of it's contributers) is another first class teaching, learning and reference tool. I can't tell you how nice it is to know that help or advice is just a keystroke away.

Another "Well Done" to the authors and editors of the WitP Rule book - well written with an amazing amount of information. As I read and reread each section of the rule book I will often find something or a concept that I missed.

War in the Pacific Tracker - is really what made playing the Japanese side doable. An absolutely First Class utility. Not to mention free of charge. I don't have much experience with WitP Staff (yet!); but from what I hear it is good. Will soon give it a go.

Currently I am playing my first email game (as the Japanese) against an experienced opponent. I am also playing solitaire against the Allied AI. Spending all those hours (just like everybody else!) setting up unit by unit; task force by task force has given me an ever increasing appreciation for the incredible detail and level of information that is available in AE. Sometimes the awareness (and appreciation) of a game mechanic or feature is immediately visable, sometimes it is very subtle and sneaks up on me.

As for China - it is what you make it. I focus on what I can do, not on what I can't do. Many valid points have been brought up about gameplay in China. If necessary I will use some of the house rules suggested by players more experienced than myself. Regardless - my intent is to enjoy the game and give my honorable opponent a run for his money....

Finally, a Thank You to my email opponent. It took two days for my initial set up and over a day for me to get each of the next four turns back to him. He gave me the time and support to work thru the mass of detailing required to do it right. I still have a heck of a lot to learn, but the hardest part is over and I am enjoying both games (email and solitaire) very much.

Mac

PS: Don - I can't wait for your "Da Babes" mod! Keep on it! <grin>