disapointing Victory

[mogami]

Hi, My Momma says "Silly is what silly does"

[Sneer]

Hi I have good memory and follow this forum for a while.
As sb noticed before Beta testers are switching their statements.

I checked earlier posts and found some interesting quotes :
All of them from Mr Frag against AI thread - you can look and see that - it was one of few tests of AI against Human before release
very interesting so read till the end

it starts[:D]
1. about palying game [:D]
"Just to set the stage, I am not holding back on anything, using every dirty trick in the book to beat the AI[;)]. I have probably played upwards of 2,000 starts now. All settings are in their standard position except for Vary start."

2. about autovictory and finishing[:D]
" Sorry, but I have little interests in playing the end of the game without earning the right to be there. Perhaps one of the other guys can kick off the '43/'44 version where Japan can do nothing but die with style. "

3. about difficulty[:D]
"1) What difficulty setting are you playing at?
Historical "

4. about AI "historical" performance
"Glad *you* guys think I am doing very well. I am about to loose Singapore, PI is running out of supply. I am holding for the moment in Burma, but thats about it ... The one Brit CL got hammered because it was got hit hard right off and the AI decided to finish it off. Did a great job too because it went down the following turn.
Basically, I am getting kicked everywhere and fighting back as I pull out resources and oil to feed Oz, but I am running out of time.
That should give you an idea of how the AI plays as Japan. One month in and nothing I did really detracted it from it's goals. It is still expanding like a virus inspite of me breaking up 3 major invasion fleets. Not too shabby and there are 2 higher skill levels if you really want to get spanked. "

5.about historical performance - why Mr Frag did not surrendered Mandalay - it is not historical - does anybody lost Mandalay to AI????
"Japan lost 88 aircraft in an evil little base jump just outside Singapore. Japan has also lost a couple hundred aircraft at Mandalay, which would fall to most of you, but I knew what was coming so I had every unit there was in India already on the way. Had I not pulled two P-40B groups out of PI and stuck them there and managed to get them upgraded, Japan would have steam rolled over me. I am currently keeping at least two of the divisions unable to attack each turn with ground attacks with fighter-bombers. Had I not saved *every* base unit from Victoria Point all the way up, I would not be able to have the size of the air groups here and the AI would have killed me quickly.
The AI expected to win here, and it didn't. Based on the distances involved, it takes a *long* time to bring in more troops. In the mean time, I have a major advantage of supply, support, air support, constant bombing from multiple bases and range is most certainly on my side as I am attacking in the hex I am in. "

6. Final and best note from 6/7/2004
"#3 The higher level of difficulty is for Mogami only. I doubt anyone else could stand it"

I'm lazy so i did not checked what was written in second half of the thread

Shame , Mr Frag ,Shame

[Mr.Frag]

Let me restate this as some of you just don't seem to get it:

You don't play with restrictions when you play against the AI. You handicap the AI by restricting it with other then "Very Hard". The AI plays 1 turn at a time. The AI can not plan in depth. You play multiple turns in advance. Allowing the AI to peek at what you are doing is the *only* way to simulate it playing multiple turns and planning what might seem to be obvious stuff.

If you don't want to give the AI a chance, thats up to you. But don't come here and complain about the AI unless you are playing it on a level where it is not held back by historical constraints. It is completely unreasonable to complain when *YOU* are the one imposing the restrictions. Should you choose to play a game where the AI has no chance and win easy, the only thing you have accomplished is to show that you want to win. You didn't really win, you won with a handicap.

Now, after winning with a handicap, you want the developers to go in and modify the game so you can continue to play winning even more? Whats the point? It's like taking candy from a baby. The baby can't fight back. What exactly is the point of stealing candy from a baby? It make you feel good or you just like candy too much?

I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, but playing a game beyond where the game ends is just an ego trip. Grow up and find someone who fights back and quit picking on the baby. The AI is not going to exploit your weaknesses like even the greenest human player is. If you want something more then an ego trip, take the handcuffs off the AI. It's still not going to be up to human standards, but it is out of diapers at least.

This has nothing at all to do with history. This is about people wanting to play at baby level because they want to win at all costs. That's perfectly ok if thats what you want to do. Just don't expect some of us to sit here and like it as we see it in a different light. If you want to kid yourself into thinking you accomplished something, thats between you and your computer.

end of thread for me ... had enough of this one topic.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

Hi I have good memory and follow this forum for a while.
As sb noticed before Beta testers are switching their statements.

I checked earlier posts and found some interesting quotes :
All of them from Mr Frag against AI thread - you can look and see that - it was one of few tests of AI against Human before release
very interesting so read till the end

it starts[:D]
1. about palying game [:D]
"Just to set the stage, I am not holding back on anything, using every dirty trick in the book to beat the AI[;)]. I have probably played upwards of 2,000 starts now. All settings are in their standard position except for Vary start."

2. about autovictory and finishing[:D]
" Sorry, but I have little interests in playing the end of the game without earning the right to be there. Perhaps one of the other guys can kick off the '43/'44 version where Japan can do nothing but die with style. "

3. about difficulty[:D]
"1) What difficulty setting are you playing at?
Historical "

4. about AI "historical" performance
"Glad *you* guys think I am doing very well. I am about to loose Singapore, PI is running out of supply. I am holding for the moment in Burma, but thats about it ... The one Brit CL got hammered because it was got hit hard right off and the AI decided to finish it off. Did a great job too because it went down the following turn.
Basically, I am getting kicked everywhere and fighting back as I pull out resources and oil to feed Oz, but I am running out of time.
That should give you an idea of how the AI plays as Japan. One month in and nothing I did really detracted it from it's goals. It is still expanding like a virus inspite of me breaking up 3 major invasion fleets. Not too shabby and there are 2 higher skill levels if you really want to get spanked. "

5.about historical performance - why Mr Frag did not surrendered Mandalay - it is not historical - does anybody lost Mandalay to AI????
"Japan lost 88 aircraft in an evil little base jump just outside Singapore. Japan has also lost a couple hundred aircraft at Mandalay, which would fall to most of you, but I knew what was coming so I had every unit there was in India already on the way. Had I not pulled two P-40B groups out of PI and stuck them there and managed to get them upgraded, Japan would have steam rolled over me. I am currently keeping at least two of the divisions unable to attack each turn with ground attacks with fighter-bombers. Had I not saved *every* base unit from Victoria Point all the way up, I would not be able to have the size of the air groups here and the AI would have killed me quickly.
The AI expected to win here, and it didn't. Based on the distances involved, it takes a *long* time to bring in more troops. In the mean time, I have a major advantage of supply, support, air support, constant bombing from multiple bases and range is most certainly on my side as I am attacking in the hex I am in. "

6. Final and best note from 6/7/2004
"#3 The higher level of difficulty is for Mogami only. I doubt anyone else could stand it"

I'm lazy so i did not checked what was written in second half of the thread

Shame , Mr Frag ,Shame

John Kerry has this problem too......in his case..... a voting record.....

[samuraigg]

You don't play with restrictions when you play against the AI. You handicap the AI by restricting it with other then "Very Hard". The AI plays 1 turn at a time. The AI can not plan in depth. You play multiple turns in advance. Allowing the AI to peek at what you are doing is the *only* way to simulate it playing multiple turns and planning what might seem to be obvious stuff.

Let me get this straight... unless we allow the ai TO CHEAT(in combat, I have no problem with using the Hard difficulty), we are handicapping it? What planet are you from?

Now, after winning with a handicap, you want the developers to go in and modify the game so you can continue to play winning even more? Whats the point? It's like taking candy from a baby. The baby can't fight back. What exactly is the point of stealing candy from a baby? It make you feel good or you just like candy too much?

Uhm, Im playing the game on Hard. If I win, it was without a handicap. Since it was without a handicap, give me my autovictory toggle.

I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, but playing a game beyond where the game ends is just an ego trip. Grow up and find someone who fights back and quit picking on the baby. The AI is not going to exploit your weaknesses like even the greenest human player is. If you want something more then an ego trip, take the handcuffs off the AI. It's still not going to be up to human standards, but it is out of diapers at least.

Pretty weak AI that you need to let it cheat in combat "to take the handcuffs off."

end of thread for me ... had enough of this one topic.

I'm glad. But before you go, get it through your head that NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO PLAY THE GAME THE SAME WAY YOU PLAY IT. Not all of us enjoy playing PBEM. Some of us like playing the AI at various difficulty settings. If a player wants to play on historical, or even EASY, and rape the AI... LET HIM.

There is something that you just don't get. And its that customers don't like being told what they like, or what they should like. WE know what we like.

Its like trying to order a hamburger ketchup only at a resturaunt and being told by the waiter that you really should have cheese and pickles on it. And instead of accepting the order for what it is, a request from the customer, you are argued incessantly about WHY you should have pickles and cheese on your burger.

I just don't get it.

[RUPD3658]

While I am a supporter of being able to disable the Auto Victory feature I feel the need to stand up for Mr. Frag here. Matrix is the only company I know of that gives players this much imput into how they want their games to be AFTER they are released. It is not a good idea to piss off and sap the dedication of the people who do so much for our enjoyment.

That being said I would like to say that I understand Mr. Frag's point about not breaking the AI by exploiting it. In the 80's I played on the tounament circiut for Task Force Games' Star Fleet Battles. I encountered many a "Rules Lawyer" who spent more time exploiting loopholes in the written rules than actually using any stratagy. Very annoying to spend more time agruing over the wording of a rule than playing the game. He has said that you don't have to play dumb, just don't do anything that a real commander would not do or that you would not do against a human opponant. I play at very hard and still whip the computer eventhough I have had my wings clipped by it a few times.

I think that the ability to disable the AI would solve this whole debate. However I would challenge anyone who uses it to save a file and then switch sides as soon as the auto victory would have been reached. This way they can finish their total conquest of the world but still have the balls to see if they could dig themselves out of the hole they put the AI into.

I saw earier that Mr. Frag has the ability to void out points. I am hoping that he will do this for me as I intend to do just what I have listed above.

While it is fun to totally smack the s@#t out of the AI it is a real challange to play against overwhelming odds and win. It is not fun if there is no chance of losing.

As to a smarted breed of AI I leave that to the programmers. Someday I would like to see one that has various personalities. You never know if you will be facing a suicially aggressive AI (Patton) or a cautious deliberate one (Montgomery).

So just give us the auto victory toggle and we agree not to play on less than very hard and to switch sides after we are done.

Mr. Frag, I appreciate your committment to the game and am sorry for the abuse you have recieved.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Sneer

Hi I have good memory and follow this forum for a while.
As sb noticed before Beta testers are switching their statements.

I checked earlier posts and found some interesting quotes :
All of them from Mr Frag against AI thread - you can look and see that - it was one of few tests of AI against Human before release
very interesting so read till the end

it starts[:D]
1. about palying game [:D]
"Just to set the stage, I am not holding back on anything, using every dirty trick in the book to beat the AI[;)]. I have probably played upwards of 2,000 starts now. All settings are in their standard position except for Vary start."

2. about autovictory and finishing[:D]
" Sorry, but I have little interests in playing the end of the game without earning the right to be there. Perhaps one of the other guys can kick off the '43/'44 version where Japan can do nothing but die with style. "

3. about difficulty[:D]
"1) What difficulty setting are you playing at?
Historical "

4. about AI "historical" performance
"Glad *you* guys think I am doing very well. I am about to loose Singapore, PI is running out of supply. I am holding for the moment in Burma, but thats about it ... The one Brit CL got hammered because it was got hit hard right off and the AI decided to finish it off. Did a great job too because it went down the following turn.
Basically, I am getting kicked everywhere and fighting back as I pull out resources and oil to feed Oz, but I am running out of time.
That should give you an idea of how the AI plays as Japan. One month in and nothing I did really detracted it from it's goals. It is still expanding like a virus inspite of me breaking up 3 major invasion fleets. Not too shabby and there are 2 higher skill levels if you really want to get spanked. "

5.about historical performance - why Mr Frag did not surrendered Mandalay - it is not historical - does anybody lost Mandalay to AI????
"Japan lost 88 aircraft in an evil little base jump just outside Singapore. Japan has also lost a couple hundred aircraft at Mandalay, which would fall to most of you, but I knew what was coming so I had every unit there was in India already on the way. Had I not pulled two P-40B groups out of PI and stuck them there and managed to get them upgraded, Japan would have steam rolled over me. I am currently keeping at least two of the divisions unable to attack each turn with ground attacks with fighter-bombers. Had I not saved *every* base unit from Victoria Point all the way up, I would not be able to have the size of the air groups here and the AI would have killed me quickly.
The AI expected to win here, and it didn't. Based on the distances involved, it takes a *long* time to bring in more troops. In the mean time, I have a major advantage of supply, support, air support, constant bombing from multiple bases and range is most certainly on my side as I am attacking in the hex I am in. "

6. Final and best note from 6/7/2004
"#3 The higher level of difficulty is for Mogami only. I doubt anyone else could stand it"

I'm lazy so i did not checked what was written in second half of the thread

Shame , Mr Frag ,Shame

John Kerry has this problem too......in his case..... a voting record.....

Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.

[John B]

It seems that we probably have two conflicting approaches here. 1) those who want to play a competitive contest. 2) Those who want primarily a historical simulation. Both are valid reasons for playing WitP, but both need a different approach. For 1) PBEM is really the only satisfactory answer. For 2) Play against the AI set at at "Historical" or "Hard" , the player using a realistically "historical" approach (which doesn't mean replicating every action as and when it occurred historically, but not doing anything which was unrealistic historically). For this approach, a player needs to read up a bit on the war first, though I guess anyone opting for 2) is a Pacific War buff to at least some extent anyway.

Playing option 2, as I am, the AI on "Hard" is plenty capable of providing an enjoyable and educating contest- which is all I'm after, really [:)]

[tsimmonds]

There is also a third type, the sandbox gamer, for whom WitP is a very elaborate set of toy tanks, ships and planes. The game also includes a little boy to play with, the AI (he looks kinda like Macauley Culkin). You can beat him up and he won't complain, and after they patch in the option to disable the auto-victory, he won't even pick up his toys and go home.

/joking

[mogami]

Hi, It might be something much simpler. Both Mr Frag and Myself have played the game many thousands of turns. Maybe we have to just sit back and relax and let other players catch up. An adult can tell a young person what the world is like and give advice but unless the young person lives and learns he will not agree or understand.
As players who want to go past AV do so and grow bored they will raise the level play PBEM or find another past time. We are not trying to belittle the other players but in our excitment and passion get them to where we are now. It's lonely here and we want someone to play with.

[ZOOMIE1980]

Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.

I've played the Hard level since about day 1 since it's the highest level that does not involve too much of some sort of a force multiplier (less fatigue and disruption are just more force multipliers). And yes, I have no problem playing the AI the way the AI was programmed to be played against.

What I DO have a problem with is beta testers telling paying customers what they should like or what they should want. In the normal world it is the PAYING CUSTOMERS that TELL the developer what they like and want. The developer either delivers, even if they don't like it, or they pay the consequences of not providing what customers want.

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!

[Grotius]

The AI in this game is better than in most computer wargames. That's not saying much, but hey. I can't think of a computer wargame with a better AI. I can think of only one computer strategy game with a better AI (other than chess): Galactic Civilizations -- a game with a square chess-like grid and a far less complex battlefield.

Also, Very Hard doesn't give the AI that much help. I'm playing on the Very Hard setting, and while the AI may get a little help in combat, it's nothing all that noticeable. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the developers added an Almost Impossible level that gave the AI much more significant combat and logistics bonuses. I have no problem with giving the AI an advantage. I play Civ 3 that way, and it makes the game more enjoyable and challenging.

One other point: There's one cheat the AI never gets: saving and reloading. I never save-and-reload against the AI.

Yet another point: I've yet to see someone post that they whupped the Allies playing as Japan in, say, a 1944 or 1945 scenario on Very Hard. Nor have I heard of anyone conquering San Francisco or even Hawaii. Sure, you can easily bamboozle the AI, but it's not brain-dead.

Finally: I'm having a great game against the AI (on Very Hard) simply by imposing house rules on myself. PBEM players also use house rules. What's the big deal? I don't "play poorly" or "repeat historical mistakes". I play to win. But I play within historical constraints -- as does the AI.

[samuraigg]

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!

Amen, sorry to interrupt the love fest for Mr. Frag, but he deserved any and all "abuse" (if you can even call it that [8|]) he recieved in these threads for deliberately going against what such a large amount of people are requesting and repeatedly telling us what we SHOULD enjoy.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.

I've played the Hard level since about day 1 since it's the highest level that does not involve too much of some sort of a force multiplier (less fatigue and disruption are just more force multipliers). And yes, I have no problem playing the AI the way the AI was programmed to be played against.

What I DO have a problem with is beta testers telling paying customers what they should like or what they should want. In the normal world it is the PAYING CUSTOMERS that TELL the developer what they like and want. The developer either delivers, even if they don't like it, or they pay the consequences of not providing what customers want.

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!

Hi, They did. This thread should have ended a while ago. But really I have another question about this post. I've not been around pre-release of many wargames. DO they really ask what you want and then make the game? Or do you buy the game and play it the way it comes. What if there were no Matrix forums and you just saw WITP sitting on a shelf somewhere?

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It might be something much simpler. Both Mr Frag and Myself have played the game many thousands of turns. Maybe we have to just sit back and relax and let other players catch up. An adult can tell a young person what the world is like and give advice but unless the young person lives and learns he will not agree or understand.
As players who want to go past AV do so and grow bored they will raise the level play PBEM or find another past time. We are not trying to belittle the other players but in our excitment and passion get them to where we are now. It's lonely here and we want someone to play with.

Well, there you go again. Where did this notion come from that this game was supposed to be a PBEM only game? Just because you and Fraggo think that's the end-all, be-all of the game, not very many, in terms of percentages of purchases, will agree with that notion. The overwhelming VAST majority of players are solitaire players, playing the AI or themselves in hotseat games. My opponent is already growing impatient with me because I got busy with my life (yes many people actually have real lives outside this game) and have not provided him a turn in over a week! It's been three days since I even clicked on the WitP icon on my desktop!

YOu beta's make a crucial mistake all the time. You assume the games purchacers see the game as you see the game and you get short tempered and irritable when they refuse to do so. The reality is, very few see the game as your guys do and very few ever really will. And that is quite obvious everytime these contentious threads come up.

[pasternakski]

There was a very important point made earlier by (I think) Frag that gives me pause in the blind pursuit of "let us play until doomsday."

Nobody knows how the AI will perform if the AV limitation is removed. There may be significant programming problems that will have to be addressed in order to make the AI play on competently if the human wants to play on. The AI, in short, may have been designed around the victory conditions.

If that is the case, I say, "Forget it, let's live with what we've got."

Let's just continue to find ways to smarten up the AI instead of giving it combat advantages and additional ways to cheat.

[pad152]

Let me get this straight... unless we allow the ai TO CHEAT(in combat, I have no problem with using the Hard difficulty), we are handicapping it? What planet are you from?

samuraigg

All game AI's cheat at one level or another, go ask Cid Meyer (maker of CIV, others) who even admitted this several times in print. If any developer tells their game AI doesn't cheat they are lying or their game has no AI[;)]

Matrix /2by3 Games are being very honest here, something most game companies don't do. This doesn't mean the AI won't impove in future patches if it's possible. Many people are complaining AI turns take to long aready, making the AI do more isn't going to make things run quicker. There has to be trade-offs somewhere nobody is going to happy if the AI turns start taking an hour to complete.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.

I've played the Hard level since about day 1 since it's the highest level that does not involve too much of some sort of a force multiplier (less fatigue and disruption are just more force multipliers). And yes, I have no problem playing the AI the way the AI was programmed to be played against.

What I DO have a problem with is beta testers telling paying customers what they should like or what they should want. In the normal world it is the PAYING CUSTOMERS that TELL the developer what they like and want. The developer either delivers, even if they don't like it, or they pay the consequences of not providing what customers want.

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!

Hi, They did. This thread should have ended a while ago. But really I have another question about this post. I've not been around pre-release of many wargames. DO they really ask what you want and then make the game? Or do you buy the game and play it the way it comes. What if there were no Matrix forums and you just saw WITP sitting on a shelf somewhere?

Sorry, I missed that memo....

As far as games with no pre-release forum, well I usually buy it, play it a bit, and unless its a really good fit for what I like, I toss it away in few weeks.

But when you open yourself up for user community input you open yourself up for EVERYTHING that entails. One thing nice about the OpeSource world is not only can people give input about what they like and don't like about the software, they can actually make the changes themselves if the core developers have no interest.....

[mogami]

Holy Cow [X(] Thats like Van Gogh being at an exhibtion and explaining one of his paintings to onlookers and being told he knows nothing of art and clearly nothing about this particular artist.

I wonder who understands the game. A person who has been involved for over 4 years or someone who has had the game for 2 months?

The problem is we can't make anyone use the game as designed if they can find other things to do. I've explained things like the RD aircraft factories in Japan are for the AI.
Without them the AI will not begin producing the correct numbers and types of aircraft when it should. But then I get

"Why give us something and then tell us not to use it"

The whole point of Mr Frag and I even posting in this thread is that a player will not get the 4-1 in 1943 unless he is exploiting the game. And this is always taken as "You have to play stupid and make mistakes"

And the final winning cry was "If they want it give it to them" Now that has been decided several days and many posts ago. Mr Frag and I's contiuned posting here was not our attempt to call any one stupid or sway them to our way of thinking. (Because I fairly certain most people will understand what we are tallking about after they have made around 2000 turns)

Niether one of us cares how you play or what you do. We have only been trying to explain how to get the most out of the game. Our great mistake was not catching on very early that there are people who like to believe they can win the game and beat up the AI and don't care how they are doing it as long as the game ends with them in Seattle.

[Mr.Frag]

Amen, sorry to interrupt the love fest for Mr. Frag, but he deserved any and all "abuse" (if you can even call it that ) he recieved in these threads for deliberately going against what such a large amount of people are requesting and repeatedly telling us what we SHOULD enjoy.

Explain to me why I as a "paying customer" have to put up with you?

I think your request is garbage and a waste of the folks I "too" paid for who could be doing something else that actually adds value to the game instead of some "babyfest ego stroke".

I have nothing to do with Matrix Games or 2BY3. I do not represent them. I do not speak for them. I am a paying customer who has the exact same "rights" as anyone else who paid for the game. You want to know what those "rights" are? They are the right to delete the software should I not like it and post messages here that do not violate the forums rules. Period.

2BY3 owes you nothing. The fact that they choose to do more then that is their choice. Threads will this type of crap and "demands" are more likely to make them simply stop and move on. Didn't mommy ever teach you that polite requests are more likely to get you something as opposed to threats and demands?