disapointing Victory

[HMSWarspite]

And a very silly battle it was too!

A few facts (or to be accurate, current beliefs of mine )

1 Chess is entirely deterministic, with strictly defined and limited move options for every turn. IIRC there are 20 possible first moves. We have only just got to the point where AI can beat the best human, and even then probably not consistantly. The human will learn, the AI does not (or only to a trivial degree). AI for WitP that plays like a human is years away, in the same way that 36" 3D holographic computer displays in your home are years away!

2 I predict the AV toggle will just further expose the weakness of the AI when you get in to fantasy. Any complaints that the AI cannot counter attack from 4:1 down will result in me falling off the chair with merriment. If Jn does that well, you have won!

3 I bet you, that if you edit the game to make all Jn a/c 1 manoevre, 1 durabilty, and all allied 40points for each, the AI will struggle. Probably about the same as 2! The point is, respect its limitations...

4 Playing historically just means 'in a historically consistant manner' not slavishly repeating history. Go on, be real - those squads are real people. Those aircraft lost had real pilots in them. Play as if that matters, and with the type of preparation Mog always advocates. (Or if Jn, play as if you will need the IJN/IJA for your next war against Germany for world domination!) Then see if the contraints seem so unrealistic. If you want to play Civ, then go and play it!


I really do struggle with this forum sometimes. You know a better hole, go to it! (To misquote a ww1 saying!)

[Mr.Frag]

No point getting into it Warspite ... you are arguing against people who find it perfectly normal for Japan to conquer the world in 400 days.

What cracks me up is there are no Allied fanboys jumping into this and screaming like mad. In the UV days, we had 50 page long threads because a F4F got shot down by a A6M2. Here we have Japan conquering the world and not a peep! [:D]

I guess it's true, there really are no Allied fanboys left. [:D]

[Tankerace]

Ok, my .02.

First, from a non biased standpoint, and from the standpoint I prefer, I would like to have a toggle. And if the devs have already agreed to look into it (thank you), then to argue any further on the point is redundant.

I agree with Mr. Frag about not wanting to take up the devs time, so they can fix game killing bugs. But here I am of two opinions. 1), it has waited this long, a little more time won't hurt, and 2), since odds are they should have been fixed pre-release, then getting a toggle to me makes up for having to live with the bug.

As to no allied fanboys left......[;)]

I consider myself one. Realistically, Japan could probably have not even got a toehold on the US. But at the time the US made allowances for loosing everything to the west of Chicago. If War in the Pacific will give give the Japanese player the OPPOROTUNITY to SEE if he can take the US, just like it gives the US a chance to SEE if it can invade Japan, then that is what sets it apart from other games, other than its hefty price tag. A good wargame doesn't just cover what happened. It covers what happened, and gives the player a chance for what ifs.

If I get an auto victory as the US, at ANY time, it would upset me. I understand that I won the war, but I would like to be given the opporotunity to invade Japan in an Operation Olympic manner. Or is I played Japan, and I took PH, even if I won the war, I would still like the opporotunity to TRY to invade the continental US. I might get my ass kicked, I might not. But either way, it will be fun. And I believe that is what WiTP was created for.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

No point getting into it Warspite ... you are arguing against people who find it perfectly normal for Japan to conquer the world in 400 days.

What cracks me up is there are no Allied fanboys jumping into this and screaming like mad. In the UV days, we had 50 page long threads because a F4F got shot down by a A6M2. Here we have Japan conquering the world and not a peep! [:D]

I guess it's true, there really are no Allied fanboys left. [:D]

I just want the whole mess to shut up and go away. Those of us with a balanced view are hoping that the developers will continue seeing the light of sense and leave things pretty much alone, while fixing bugs and adding well-reasoned enhancements. This game has already gone way too far in accommodating the "Nippon olympics will be held in Washington, D.C. this year" crowd. For example, you wouldn't dare leave out Japanese aircraft and other weapon systems that had only a marginal effect on the historical war, but you better not bring in those horrid, horrid Allied aircraft and weapon systems that had a profound effect in late 1944 and onward to the end of the war.

America wanted to give up. Nukes were so nasty that you should be severely penalized for using them. And so on.

I tried a long time ago to tell you what would happen if the game stopped being a game and started pandering to the editor.

It's enough to make me go back to Iago-ing it.

[Mr.Frag]

Tankerace, I agree entirely.

The problem here is that the Allies OOB was deliberately weakened due to my stunts in the Test Games killing the AI at Mandalay. China was also set very weak so it can not jump on Japan at the start of the game. Both of these result in an *artificially* weak Allied side. When you couple this with the general fact that the Human side will outperform the AI side (just common sense) you end up with these *record setting* blitz's happening. If the OOB had not been altered to make the Allies wimpy, I would not even be pointing this out as you would not be playing with a loaded deck.

The fact that no one is pointing out anything even remotely close to AV in Allied games shows clearly that these late changes to the OOB did a good job of making a Allied vs Computer game respectable. The problem is these changes also made Japan vs Computer worse. What is needed now is a reverse scenario where the Japanese vs Computer game is also respectable, with starting Allied troops not weakened down in smaller bases.

The very real problem with games of this kind of epic scale is that balancing them to work in all situation requires years worth of data. There will never be enough time for a few select folks to do this and 2by3 has better things to do like fix bugs and add features.

[Tankerace]

Mr Frag.

I think I see your point. Am I correct in assuming that what you are saying is the main source of all of our problems is that China is included in the game? And if China was removed, then in theory many of these issues would go away?

Or, to avoid the issue entirely, just totally forget about China? That's fine by me, I don't even mess with China.

[Mr.Frag]

I think I see your point. Am I correct in assuming that what you are saying is the main source of all of our problems is that China is included in the game? And if China was removed, then in theory many of these issues would go away?

China's part of it, but India was also dumbed down to take away the Allied ability to hold Japan in Burma. As is, you can zap China and India completely out of the game which is producing insane scores which throws the 4:1 ratio on it's butt.

Leaving China alone after clearing the rail line and stopping short of Dacca in India will keep the game playing without things going into silly score ranges. Destroying all these troops + some key bases results in about a 25k unbalance in the score which is what kicks it into AV range.

[Tankerace]

Just to compare my game to this, are you saying if I confine myself to just holding Rangoon (which is primarily what I am doing now), then theoretically the problem shouldn't crop up?

I like the solution, but I'd still like an AV toggle, just to make sure.

[Mr.Frag]

Just to compare my game to this, are you saying if I confine myself to just holding Rangoon (which is primarily what I am doing now), then theoretically the problem shouldn't crop up?

You can go farther north but basically stop and dig in at the trails. That will keep you out of trouble.

[Tankerace]

What about as the Yankee's?

[Mr.Frag]

What about as the Yankee's?

Shouldn't be any Yank problems as the deck is stacked against them. If you pull off an AV, you earned it because most of your points from from Japan itself.

[Tankerace]

Sweet.

I'm REALLY behind right now... hehe, the "stupid" AI is giving me a thrashing. I thought I was scared to sacrifice ships in UV... but that isn't anything compared ot this.

[ZOOMIE1980]

Remember this toggle issue just isn't for Japanese players drumming the AI, but Allied players, even playing a good historical game, getting to Aug or Sep 1945 and finally getting their 2-1 margin and seeing the game end. I would STILL like to go ahead and have the option to invade Japan at that point in a "capture the flag" kind of thing. I mentioned back during the beta testing that many will victory points are totally useless and would just as soon see them gotten rid of or at least hidden away for the benifit of the AI under the covers.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
You still don't get my position do you?

I am not "for or against" changing VP conditions.

I am "against" opening up a new can of worms full of bugs due to enabling something that is completely untested and against the design of the game. I am also "againt" wasting programmers time implementing things that don't make game play better. Anything that doesn't improve the game play strikes me as time taken away from things that could improve the game play.

That is a position I respect… even if it blocks something on my wish list.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Thats why I fight against these types of enhancements. There are 8 hours in a business day. If Mike spends 4 of them to add new code to deal with disabling auto-victory, thats 4 hours not spent correcting the bug that results in units vanishing.

Which is more important to game play?...

Subjective.

I believe that removing upgrade restrictions and placing restrictions on Japanese production would enhance ‘game play’ for many Japanese players, while other feel it wouldn’t be worth the effort.

Cost vs benefit is not something I can do from the outside.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
I just want the whole mess to shut up and go away. Those of us with a balanced view...

[8|]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Frag, you can´t bash players for this.... i want to play BOTH sides... if i play as the japanese i allways will try to conquer china... why ? cause for me it is logistical a support and i could save planes and, err piolets([:D]).. also i think, with a conquered china, the japanese could hold better against the evil brits and could resupply their worn out troops in the pacific.... this is my way to solve this nightmare for the japanese.... if the game was developted for ONLY the allied player against the AI, then this is the real problem behind many things. But again, this is the fault of 2by3, they should have made it an allied player-only game (but then i would not buy it, and many others, too) or, as you mentioned, there need to be more scenarios with stronger (but not too strong) chinese units.... i think this should be possible to realize.
The AV-button is useless for me - cause i want to play it out... if you think about russia 1941... a realistic autovictory would end the "game" in nov. 1941... but still the russians won the war. So, the possibility to remove the AV-conditions for the player (he can play all along) is good. With a toggle, everybody is happy... the time to do it is not lost to "anti-bug", cause it is for me and many other players a real huge "bug"... i can live with some bugs that stop the game, as long as an easy workaround avoid it (like the strange Shiplist - back-button end the game-crash - i just press exit and the game run...)

so, everybody has an opinion about this game and you (the testers) have spent a lot time and energy with it - i have much respect for you [&o] but still there exist problems you do not see (cause you have a different opinion, yeah, you have the same right to have a different pov [:D]) and i like them fixed. Also, the allied side should be programmed the way it should ALLWAYS strike back (say you loose all carriers and bb´s in 1942 and untill mid 43, together with 1000 ak/ap... well then the americans built 20 more essex and bring in 1000 new ak/ap and 1 million more troops... why not solve it this way ? For me, this would be the "realistic" way to handle this situation.... japan manage to invade pearl, conquer china and force the brits back to karachi ? conquer australia and oz ? fine, then the invasion force first take back this .... you just need for india a jump point that can´t be touched by axis troops...