Unable to fight--NO Aircraft......

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
IMHO, the JFB are playing Scen 2 more as it gives them more toys a bit sooner,  how about a counter for the AFB.

And where you'll find Japanese players for that, genius, considering that the stock game is already stacked against them worse than RL (as evidenced by AARs out there), even assuming Scen 2, PDU ON and perfect economic management with exploitation of every trick out there? For that matter, I doubt many Allied players will find this interesting.

That's why I feel little sympathy for AFBs who complain that they don't have enough equipment or that some aspect of the game doesn't benefit the Allies as much as it should (even if actually I agree, that, say, Japanese ASW is too good). I have yet to see any of them winning their wars noticeably slower or less overwhelmingly than Allies did IRL, never mind actually losing.

[pmelheck1]

Japanese Factories to me should be capped to historic levels or give Allies a boost to replacement rates the same as Japanese factories are above historical.  If Japan is producing 5 times as many fighters the Allies would receive 5 times the replacements.  Make the production system self balancing.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: mullk

Japanese Factories to me should be capped to historic levels or give Allies a boost to replacement rates the same as Japanese factories are above historical.  If Japan is producing 5 times as many fighters the Allies would receive 5 times the replacements.  Make the production system self balancing.

In the end, it doesn't matter how much of what the Japanese Player produces...in the end the Allies will always be better and always be overwhelming. You can produce 300 Franks a day and it won't make up for the fact that the B-29s are very difficult to shoot down. It won't make up for the fact that the US gets more carriers than the IJN gets of all capital ships combined. And it sure doesn't make up for the fact that the Allied pilots are just better right out of the pool by the end of the war.

What good are 300 Franks per day when the pilots you have for them are 20 XP? They're nothing but cannon fodder for the 55 XP Mustang, Jug and Lightning pilots.

[vonTirpitz]

Fortunately the designers foresaw that they wouldn't be able to make everyone happy all of the time and provided you an editor. No matter how much is given to one side or the other there will always be someone who complains that they can't win under the circumstances given.

Go change the allied production rates by 10 fold and have at it. There have been some valid points made and interesting ideas for improvements. However, the rest of this debate seems meaningless at this point as long as the editor is available to players. It will simply come down to finding PBEM opponents that are willing to play your mods.

Good luck and enjoy your time playing the game. That's really all it comes down to.

[LoBaron]

I have not the slightest idea why anybody believes this discussion still makes sense.

WitP AE, even the most basic version, has 6 "difficulty levels" for the Allied player - against the AI or PBEM - to chose from.

* Scen#1 with PDU off
* Scen#1 with PDU on
* Scen#2 with PDU off
* Scen#2 with PDU on
* Ironman with PDU off
* Ironman with PDU on

Show me one Japanese player who is able to beat an average Allied player in Scen#1 with PDU off, if you find such a player, congratulations, you
just found someone belonging to the best of the best, additionally gifted with truckloads of luck.
Thats the historical game gentlemen.

Every scenario beyond Scen#1 with PDU off is designed as a helping hand to give the Japanese side the boost it needs to make the game either more interesting, more evenly matched,
or simply to simulate an ahistorical "what if" situation that has nothing to do with reality.

The fewest Japanese players accept the hardest difficulty level. Why? Because it is extremely tough. And they know with near certainty that they will have a hard time to even reach historical
deadlines, not to speak of winning. I got a high respect for the guys taking on a match as the Japanese with these constraints.
If you get outproduced and pushed back far beyond historical frontlines, then you probably chose the wrong scenario for your skill level against this specific Japanese player.
Shit happens.

Sorry guys, but this thread is full of AFB whiners... [;)]

[FatR]

Adding to what LoBaron said, I don't remember anyone in PBEM actually surviving until the Soviet activation as Japan, even with Scen 2 and PDU ON. There are 2 ongoing games on this forum where it is likely happen, but in one of them the Allied player was extremely passive until autumn of 1944. I remember only one game where the Japanese player won by points, and that was an autovictory in 1943. Quite a number of games so far ended in crushing Japanese defeats (by points or by player surrendering after losing all options) in 1943-44. As far as I can tell, just surviving into 1945 against a determined opponent requires scoring some serious naval victories in 1942-43, without suffering any serious naval defeats.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Sorry guys, but this thread is full of AFB whiners... [;)]

.....and just as full of those who giggle with glee that the game was designed to placate the JFB whiners who can't live with the same historical constraints they expect thier opponents to live with!

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
.....and just as full of those who giggle with glee that the game was designed to placate the JFB whiners who can't live with the same historical constraints they expect thier opponents to live with!

Well, actual results of actual games demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the game was designed to placate AFBs and "historical" constraints on them are far less that what constraints which actually existed in history (unless you believe that the entire Allied leadership was composed of idiots), but don't let empyrical evidence impede your whining.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mullk
Japanese Factories to me should be capped to historic levels or give Allies a boost to replacement rates the same as Japanese factories are above historical.  If Japan is producing 5 times as many fighters the Allies would receive 5 times the replacements.  Make the production system self balancing.

Oh man. I've certainly seen games where Japan produced roughly 1/5th-1/4th of the historical production (Stoneage vs Spruance PBEM, for example). But if you actually know a game (not against AI, AI just gives itself planes) where Japan actually managed to make 5 times the historical numbers of fighters, I would dearly love to see it, be amazed and learn from it.

[Puhis]

Yeah, 5 times historical number of fighters would mean something like 1200 Zeros per month and 1500 army fighters per month... [X(]

[FatR]

Well, and speaking honestly, I don't believe designers have intentional bias for either side. I do, however, believe that historical inconsistencies that impair the Allied side get disproportionate attention on the forums, while those that impair the Japanese side are glossed over. For example, I don't really see much people bothered with the fact that it is quite easy to lose more Betties in one unlucky day of early-war combat over Luzon or Java than was lost during the entire conquest of DEI/Philippines/Malaya - it is actually harder to avoid such unlucky days during one's initial conquests. (For the record, I'm not arguing for making Japanese bombers siginificantly more durable, because, thanks to Durability being the key stat for surviving flak and the game apparently not having provisions for large bombers being extra vulnerable to flak during low-level attacks, this will make them a scourge of Allied fleets - basically for the same reason skip-bombing 4Es break the game; that's a good example of compromising historical accuracy in less important things to maintain it in the big picture.)

[mdiehl]

Well, except, FatR, no one has made a clear historical case that the game saddles the Japanese with historical inconsistencies that impair their game. Betties did tend to get shot down in droves when they went up against well-supplied bases or USN TFs, and USAAF 4EBs (B-17s) were, in fact, the first bombers to employ skip bombing.

[crsutton]

You all have to remember that a game of this scope was entirely too big to fully playtest. It is just not possible to explore every aspect in testing. It would have taken years. It is an incredibly detailed and complicated game, there are bound to be balance issues. The only real problem with scen #2 is that the balance is front loaded. If the Allied player survives 1942 reasonably intact then he is going to do just fine no matter what the Japanese player builds.

So far, they have done a pretty good job addressing the issues, and if you have not fooled around with the betas then you are going to be blown away by the next patch.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
.....and just as full of those who giggle with glee that the game was designed to placate the JFB whiners who can't live with the same historical constraints they expect thier opponents to live with!

Well, actual results of actual games demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the game was designed to placate AFBs and "historical" constraints on them are far less that what constraints which actually existed in history (unless you believe that the entire Allied leadership was composed of idiots), but don't let empyrical evidence impede your whining.

Your position that the end justifies the means is a valid argument. By virtue of your argument, it appears that you do indeed recognize the inequity of giving one side an ahistorical capability that the other side is denied. You seem to just be taking the position that since in the long run it doesn't skew the historical outcome, it isn't something worth arguing over. You position is, however, predicated on the assumption that the game ever gets to the end.

Try broadening your perspective.

What about the multitude of games that never get past the first two years?

What about players like me who swore off PBEM because our attempts at it ran head on into petulant and childish "fair weather only' JFBs who have no intention whatsoever of allowing their opponents to prove that the advantages given to the Japanese side in the early game can, and will be overcome by the Allied player?

Is giving "fair weather only" Japanese players, who fully intend to quit as soon as they have shot thier bolts and the tide has turned, a greater oppurtunity to beat up on the Allied side in the early game, a good thing for the game overall?

You appear to be convinced that it is.

I am not.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
.....and just as full of those who giggle with glee that the game was designed to placate the JFB whiners who can't live with the same historical constraints they expect thier opponents to live with!

Well, actual results of actual games demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the game was designed to placate AFBs and "historical" constraints on them are far less that what constraints which actually existed in history (unless you believe that the entire Allied leadership was composed of idiots), but don't let empyrical evidence impede your whining.

Your position that the end justifies the means is a valid argument. By virtue of your argument, it appears that you do indeed recognize the inequity of giving one side an ahistorical capability that the other side is denied. You seem to just be taking the position that since in the long run it doesn't skew the historical outcome, it isn't something worth arguing over. You position is, however, predicated on the assumption that the game ever gets to the end.

Try broadening your perspective.

What about the multitude of games that never get past the first two years?

What about players like me who swore off PBEM because our attempts at it ran head on into petulant and childish "fair weather only' JFBs who have no intention whatsoever of allowing their opponents to prove that the advantages given to the Japanese side in the early game can, and will be overcome by the Allied player?

Is giving "fair weather only" Japanese players, who fully intend to quit as soon as they have shot thier bolts and the tide has turned, a greater oppurtunity to beat up on the Allied side in the early game, a good thing for the game overall?

You appear to be convinced that it is.

I am not.

So, your opinion between the lines is that the game should be more "balanced" early on, while giving the Allies every advantage they'd get any way in the later years, to make sure Japanese side is played by people who enjoy getting beaten, while Allied victory remains given?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I have not the slightest idea why anybody believes this discussion still makes sense.

WitP AE, even the most basic version, has 6 "difficulty levels" for the Allied player - against the AI or PBEM - to chose from.

* Scen#1 with PDU off
* Scen#1 with PDU on
* Scen#2 with PDU off
* Scen#2 with PDU on
* Ironman with PDU off
* Ironman with PDU on

Show me one Japanese player who is able to beat an average Allied player in Scen#1 with PDU off, if you find such a player, congratulations, you
just found someone belonging to the best of the best, additionally gifted with truckloads of luck.
Thats the historical game gentlemen.

Every scenario beyond Scen#1 with PDU off is designed as a helping hand to give the Japanese side the boost it needs to make the game either more interesting, more evenly matched,
or simply to simulate an ahistorical "what if" situation that has nothing to do with reality.

The fewest Japanese players accept the hardest difficulty level. Why? Because it is extremely tough. And they know with near certainty that they will have a hard time to even reach historical
deadlines, not to speak of winning. I got a high respect for the guys taking on a match as the Japanese with these constraints.
If you get outproduced and pushed back far beyond historical frontlines, then you probably chose the wrong scenario for your skill level against this specific Japanese player.
Shit happens.

Sorry guys, but this thread is full of AFB whiners... [;)]

+1 (not that I always agree with LoBaron, but this time, he is 100% correct in his assessment.) [;)]

Just choosing PDU off will change 90% of the issue with Japan producing more/better aircraft. Play Scen 1 with PDU off and if you are still getting whupped by Japan, post your complaints. If you are playing Scen 2 or playing PDU on, then complaints are not valid in this discussion. Japan gets huge advantages to scen 2 or PDU on. Picking both those options makes the problem compounded.

[kfsgo]

Allied aircraft production can't be controlled per se, but on-map aircraft factories can be toggled on or off - given that, it'd be trivial to make a variant Scen. II with a bunch of aircraft production options to be activated only given whatever conditions set. It'd have to be done manually, but wouldn't be much work, and if you feel the need for it I guess 5 minutes of admin wouldn't be a great hardship. Hell, I'd be happy to do it if someone wants it - wouldn't take long.

Of course, the catch would be getting anyone to actually use the scenario - "turkeys voting for christmas" springs to mind...

[Mynok]

What about players like me who swore off PBEM because our attempts at it ran head on into petulant and childish "fair weather only' JFBs who have no intention whatsoever of allowing their opponents to prove that the advantages given to the Japanese side in the early game can, and will be overcome by the Allied player?

What nonsense. This is not a game problem. This is your inability to choose good opponents. [8|]

[HansBolter]

To those responding to my posts, thank you ever so much for demonstrating your inability to grasp the concept of equity.


"my inability to choose good opponents".........is facilitated by the game's structure which encourages the proliferation of bad opponents. Try extracting your head from your nether reagion and comprehending reality for what it is!

[bigred]

Unfair comment. FatR and I are still playing a game in 43.

Is giving "fair weather only" Japanese players, who fully intend to quit as soon as they have shot thier bolts and the tide has turned, a greater oppurtunity to beat up on the Allied side in the early game, a good thing for the game overall?

You appear to be convinced that it is.

I am not.