I gotta admit, I find it amusing the back-n-forth

[moses]

Of course I love WITP. Think its a great game. But as a player who mostly plays as Japan it is clear that my job is too easy in some areas.

I just added up the losses of my 24 main assault divisions that destroyed russia in a month. They suffered total losses of 171 infantry squads. An avg of 7.12 squads per division. What would that be 50 or 60 infantry casualties per division? Only a couple of divisions have more then 50 disrupted squads and they can be sent to china/ SRA pretty much immediately.

My strategy was essentialy a giant Banzii charge with 15 divisions into Russia during the dead of winter. Nothing subtle or brilliant. You would think even in victory at least some of my divisions would be a wreck. I did pump 100,000 or so supply into Russia, most of which is still sitting in various russian bases. I guess I'll burn some when I turn replacements on. The point being that my invasion can be conducted at negligible cost.

I'm not crying because someone just whooped up on me in a game. I'm crying because I can defeat anyone easily in this theater and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. And it requires no skill on my part to do it.---There are easy fixes to the problem of large area land combat and some of them should be implimented to bring these theaters into historical balance.

[swamp fox]

As one who is trying to decide whether to buy, I have been completely confused by the love-hate relationship the board has with this game. Should I wait for the next patch to decide?

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: swamp fox

As one who is trying to decide whether to buy, I have been completely confused by the love-hate relationship the board has with this game. Should I wait for the next patch to decide?

If you are looking for a game in which you can do all sorts of things with the weapons and forces of WW II in the Pacific and you want to have fun - buy the game.

If you are looking for a serious, accurate and bug-free historical simulation of the Second World War in the Pacific Theater - you probably want to wait a bit.

Dave Baranyi

("...your mileage may very")

[moses]

The game is fantastic despite the many flaws that myself and many others point out, often in confusingly angry tones. The quest for perfection continues but as is it is still the most AWESOME WARGAME IN HISTORY.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I dont really think this game allows the Japanese to overachieve more than the Allies. I think since everyone knows what more to do as the Japanese than the Japanese did that most will overacheive. I also think that since most of us have only played to 43 at the most that the Japanese will always be seen as overachieving because they will have the advantage up until then. Im sure as soon as people start playing past 43 that the allies will be overachieving even more soon as well!!!

I agree with these intelligent comments, at least to the degree they recognize that each side will "overachieve" in its own period of strength ascendancy.

[byron13]

Swamp Fox:

You must keep in mind that this game is a tremendous undertaking, seeking to combine in one game air, ground, and sea units. And, of course, within each of these general types are numerous sub-types, each of which require special treatment, such as cargo carriers, fighters, amphibous-capable, level bombers, dive bombers, radar-equipped night fighters, etc. Most games that have attempted to meld these three into one game usually do so abstractly - either by design or because of the scale of the game. But this game gives you hands on control at a remarkable scale over all units covering approximately half of the globe. It is truly a remarkable achievement.

Add in the fine details like some ships can only carry infantry or light weapons, while other specialize in heavy equipment; tracking fuel usage for ships but allowing refueling at sea; affects of malaria; requiring tenders to refit and rearm certain types of combat ships . . . the list goes on and on.

Because the game is so much more complex and detailed than any other game on the market, the coding is more complex. The game as released is very playable, but there are a couple of quirks that you see people focusing on. No game is ever perfect, and because this one is based on history and not fantasy, anything that is not precisely historical is deemed a design error or, in some cases, even a bug (and, yes, some are actually bugs).

I, frankly, haven't even noticed some of the issues people are railing on. The biggest problem is probably the accelerated land combat. But trust me when I say that the people that declare an issue/bug to be a "gamebreaker" or render the game "unplayable" are out of their heads. To the contrary, this game is very stable and imminently playable. There is simply no other game like it on the market today. The scope and grandeur is breath-taking. Most of the problems either balance out or affect a very small portion of the overall game so that their affects are negligible. If I ever actually notice the issues of which other people complain, I will write it off to an odd happening that will, in all likelihood, be well within the spectrum of possible outcomes.

Unplayable? Hardly. If anything, it has rendered many of my other games virtually unplayable because of their relative simplicity and the frustration at not being able to micro-manage. It's like going from an immensely complicated board game, like Campaign for North Africa, back to Tactics II. You can't make the switch. Tactics II is no longer a military simulation but is just an abstract board game like Risk or chess - possibly fun, but not a simulation.

Looked at another way, if you scaled this game down in both size and ability to micro-manage to the size of other games, the problems would also scale down to such a small level that they wouldn't even be noticeable and would beat all other games hands down.

Bottom line: there simply is no other game like it and there is no substitute. I would gladly pay $80 again for the pleasure of playing it.

[Cap Mandrake]

It is a truly awesome undertaking. Is it perfect..of course not..but still dang fun. A new idea or tactical approach will occur to you every time you fire the game up.

The Land combat does involve some abstraction..but one musn't expect an olive in one's martini in a war zone.

[swamp fox]

Thanks for the response. As a gamer who started with Tactics II, and who has attempted to play Campaign for North Africa, your comparisons struck a chord. I remember owning three games back in my boardgaming days that I never came close to finishing, War in Europe, War in the Pacific, and CFNA, all by SPI. I couldn't even set the maps up in the living room of my apartment. But I really wasn't sorry I bought the games, because I loved to set them up and play around with them. And now I won't even need a spare room. Off to the store.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: moses

Of course I love WITP. Think its a great game. But as a player who mostly plays as Japan it is clear that my job is too easy in some areas.

I just added up the losses of my 24 main assault divisions that destroyed russia in a month. They suffered total losses of 171 infantry squads. An avg of 7.12 squads per division. What would that be 50 or 60 infantry casualties per division? Only a couple of divisions have more then 50 disrupted squads and they can be sent to china/ SRA pretty much immediately.

My strategy was essentialy a giant Banzii charge with 15 divisions into Russia during the dead of winter. Nothing subtle or brilliant. You would think even in victory at least some of my divisions would be a wreck. I did pump 100,000 or so supply into Russia, most of which is still sitting in various russian bases. I guess I'll burn some when I turn replacements on. The point being that my invasion can be conducted at negligible cost.

I'm not crying because someone just whooped up on me in a game. I'm crying because I can defeat anyone easily in this theater and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. And it requires no skill on my part to do it.---There are easy fixes to the problem of large area land combat and some of them should be implimented to bring these theaters into historical balance.

The problem is that you have to expect, to some degree, that the game is designed NOT on you making major efforts in the USSR, but the Pacific, hence the name. It's too bad they can't endlessly deal with all hypothetical possibilities, but the reason it's too easy is because we're focusing our attention on areas where WE KNOW the programmers haven't put forth much effort to contain. Nothing wrong with looking for an avenue for victory but when it's apparent that it only succeeds because the programmer didn't get hypothetical with that theatre, then it's pretty useless as I view it.

If this game were more of a take control of Japan and do anything, anywhere, then I could understand this more. The only probelm though, is that trying to knock the USSR out of the war is a realistic ambition, cince later in the war they can devour you. The problem with that however is that the USSR isn't designed to do anything really eactive there if you put forth a major effort.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the Japanese are at war with the US, even if they don't use the historic 1st turn, or don't attack anywhere in this game. If that's true I suppose they thought such a thing would force you to fight in the Pacific, therefore there would be no need of using hypothetical forces beyond the ship spawning rule to cover a major effort on the USSR for example.

From my view, while I think it's interesting to see what you can do in the USSR to some extent if they didn't put up any defense to deal with such a contingency then you shouldn't really claim the game is weak because of it, because the game isn't designed to simulate a USSR attack (though we might like that to be included). While I hate to have my direction pretty much dictated for me when there's other land that can be conquered, one can only say the game is really weak when you attack in the theatre that the game is really focused on.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: swamp fox

As one who is trying to decide whether to buy, I have been completely confused by the love-hate relationship the board has with this game. Should I wait for the next patch to decide?

You know, this love/hate thing is typical of many game boards. Every game I play generally has a contingent that screams "the game is the absolute best thing ever" and a contingent that screams "this game is too buggy and I refuse to play until they're fixed!" I find that both groups tend to cancel each other out over time (and no, I don't mean this as criticism of anyone on here) and they often get into rather amusing food fights with each other. Some people are more easily pleased than others and sometimes people get an impression of how things will go that doesn't get fulfilled (sometimes that's the games' fault, sometimes, that's the customers' fault). I'm sure there was at least one person who went to see Star Wars on it's opening night and left the theater thinking, "what garbage, I should ask for my money back!" The simple fact is that you can listen to people up to a point but ultimately you're going to have to try it in order to decide if you like it or not.

It's a common element of games that they tend to have bugs. Some a lot, some a few, some that cripple the entire game, others that are merely strange or annoying. I personally have experienced few of the problems that have been reported here; maybe I'm lucky, maybe it's because I have a brand new computer, maybe I have a higher tolerance/patience level than some for the difficulties. Some of the issues that have been reported may indeed be due to gameplay choices rather than bugs or poor design. It's difficult to judge anything on one run through, it could be the skill/experience of players or luck.

Interestingly, there are some who claim the game is not enough of a simulation for their tastes. Many of us who bought this game are history buffs and know something about the Pacific campaign. We have opinions about what Japan "should have done" and we use this game to implement those. This creates ahistoric results at times that leads some to contend things are broken (like Japan conquering China, but who knows? In the real world Japan did not set out to conquer all of China, what would've happened if they had?). Yet, there is another group that claims that the game is too much of a simulation, that is they want to be able to go off and do things ahistorically and the game holds them back (like on Japanese aircraft production). Is this a design flaw or is this a deliberate attempt on the developer's part to balance the game between the die-hard simulation types and those seeking enough flexibility to try and change history? If you buy the game, you'll have to decide that for yourself.

It's an expensive game and there are some who took the position that if you spend $70 on a game, it should be absolutely perfect. I chose to take a different position (where humans are involved there is generally no such thing as perfect) and so probably emotionally I've weathered the occasional hiccup fairly well and like I've said I have noticed very few problems.

There's an interesting letter from the developer on the main page entitled "Clarification of future development plans" (I'm not sure how to do a hyperlink here [&:]) that to me indicates the game will continue to be supported for the time being. As far as I'm concerned, the game is completely playable as is and for me the patches were more augmentations as opposed to necessary. If you want it, I say buy it. Personally, this has been the most absorbing, addictive, and interesting game I've ever played and I do it all over again in a minute.

Cheers,
Rob [8D]

[byron13]

Sorry, Rob, but I'm not going to allow anyone to cancel me out!!

[Kwik E Mart]

this thread reminds me of how i felt about buying Russo-German War from Schwerpunkt Games. i agonized for months about the timing of when to buy what appeared to me an unfinished release. i finally bought it, but there were so many "show stopper" issues with that game that i took it off the hard drive shortly thereafter and haven't played it since.

i knew i was taking a chance with WITP buying ver1.0 (given my experience with UV), but i figured it was worth the risk. most (IMHO) of the worst issues were eventually fixed in UV, so i guess it just depends on your thresh hold of frustration as to when to purchase.

as for the back and forth on issues in this game, i think it is a little premature to make some of the claims posted on this board with such a small number of data points of games actually played to completion

regards,

[DrewMatrix]

Regarding the original post (that people claim this or that side has a sure win just from the starting conditions):

I suspect that people are saying "The Japanese win all the time by taking China and moving LCUs to the Pacific" etc without actually playing the game to a conclusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people conquering China (check), moving LCUs (check) and then _presuming_ the Japanese will win? Or are they actually playing to a 4:1 edge in 1942 etc?

I suspect a lot of these sure wins will sort themselves out in a few hundred turns to an advantage, but not a certainty.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Regarding the original post (that people claim this or that side has a sure win just from the starting conditions):

I suspect that people are saying "The Japanese win all the time by taking China and moving LCUs to the Pacific" etc without actually playing the game to a conclusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people conquering China (check), moving LCUs (check) and then _presuming_ the Japanese will win? Or are they actually playing to a 4:1 edge in 1942 etc?

I suspect a lot of these sure wins will sort themselves out in a few hundred turns to an advantage, but not a certainty.

yes my thoughts exactly!!! not many people have even played to 1943 when the allies will start rampaging. if youve got everything in burma, india, china, russia, you better look out!!!

[Onime No Kyo]

I'm sure no one is asking but here is my input on the topic. I started a '43 capaign against the AI (just to practice amphib ops and such). It plays much differently than scenario 15.

-China is a deadlock! I have made pretty big advances here but if I was playing a human oponent I would have had my @ss handed to me long ago with the chanses I take. At the same time, I can hold off any Japanese attack with no trouble.

-Japanese CV aviation is nonexistent. The fighter complements have been reduced to almost nothing just by encountering the CAP over my bases. I base this observation on the fact that they are now launching unescorted strikes every time they lauch. AI stupidity notwithstanding, I think they really are out of fighters. However, I doubt this would be so if the "cold start" did not assume that IJN airpower had be all but slagged at Midway.

-Allies need MAJOR overkill in land forces to take any base, especially atolls. A landing with 1 Inf. Div. and 1 RCT on Kwajelein was repulsed in 3 days. It took me 4 complete US army Divs. to take the place and all 4 were effectively wrecked when I was done. My landing at Victoria Point with the 72 UK Bde. and 2 UK Div. is being stopped cold by 1 base force. I'm certain that I will take the place sooner or later but the mere fact that I'm having so much trouble is the point. In effect, this has nothing to do with strategy, just simple numbers and game mechanics.

-Night bombing does nothing. I have 4 sqadrons of B-24s bombing Rabaul at night and getting 1-2 airfield hits per night.

-PTs have done nothing. Not only can they not find the targets half the time but if the enemy TF is escorted by DDs, they get slaughtered for no gain. However, they wreak havoc with unescorted transports, just as they should.

-In '43 I already have more Allied CVs than I know what to do with. I am operating 2 CV TFs with 2CVs and 3 CVLs apeice. There is no KB to fight, they do diddly against transports (see my other post in the "Anyone noticed this game is kinda like the U.S.S.R.?" post) and they get nicked just hard enough by LBA to stay away from any major Japanese bases.

In synopsis, there are many other instances I could mention. There are also a few assumptions I am making here. I am playing the AI, not an oponent who is capable of reacting. The situation in '43 from a "cold start" is likely to be very diferent from the one we would see if the game had been played from '41. The AI is not offensive, thus I can make all the moves I want without being afraid that my oponent will hit me "where I 'aint".

Personally, I dont think that too many of these complaints are valid. A few things could be tweaked. However, this game does not have as many "game breakers" as some on this forum would have it beleived. IMHO, I think people should do less complaining and more playing.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

I'm sure no one is asking but here is my input on the topic. I started a '43 capaign against the AI (just to practice amphib ops and such). It plays much differently than scenario 15.

-China is a deadlock! I have made pretty big advances here but if I was playing a human oponent I would have had my @ss handed to me long ago with the chanses I take. At the same time, I can hold off any Japanese attack with no trouble.

-Japanese CV aviation is nonexistent. The fighter complements have been reduced to almost nothing just by encountering the CAP over my bases. I base this observation on the fact that they are now launching unescorted strikes every time they lauch. AI stupidity notwithstanding, I think they really are out of fighters. However, I doubt this would be so if the "cold start" did not assume that IJN airpower had be all but slagged at Midway.

-Allies need MAJOR overkill in land forces to take any base, especially atolls. A landing with 1 Inf. Div. and 1 RCT on Kwajelein was repulsed in 3 days. It took me 4 complete US army Divs. to take the place and all 4 were effectively wrecked when I was done. My landing at Victoria Point with the 72 UK Bde. and 2 UK Div. is being stopped cold by 1 base force. I'm certain that I will take the place sooner or later but the mere fact that I'm having so much trouble is the point. In effect, this has nothing to do with strategy, just simple numbers and game mechanics.

-Night bombing does nothing. I have 4 sqadrons of B-24s bombing Rabaul at night and getting 1-2 airfield hits per night.

-PTs have done nothing. Not only can they not find the targets half the time but if the enemy TF is escorted by DDs, they get slaughtered for no gain. However, they wreak havoc with unescorted transports, just as they should.

-In '43 I already have more Allied CVs than I know what to do with. I am operating 2 CV TFs with 2CVs and 3 CVLs apeice. There is no KB to fight, they do diddly against transports (see my other post in the "Anyone noticed this game is kinda like the U.S.S.R.?" post) and they get nicked just hard enough by LBA to stay away from any major Japanese bases.

In synopsis, there are many other instances I could mention. There are also a few assumptions I am making here. I am playing the AI, not an oponent who is capable of reacting. The situation in '43 from a "cold start" is likely to be very diferent from the one we would see if the game had been played from '41. The AI is not offensive, thus I can make all the moves I want without being afraid that my oponent will hit me "where I 'aint".

Personally, I dont think that too many of these complaints are valid. A few things could be tweaked. However, this game does not have as many "game breakers" as some on this forum would have it beleived. IMHO, I think people should do less complaining and more playing.

very good points.... i also noticed a few of these games that people are complaining about are using multiple day turns. i think if these strategies were used with 1 day turns you would see different stories.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

very good points.... i also noticed a few of these games that people are complaining about are using multiple day turns. i think if these strategies were used with 1 day turns you would see different stories.

I agree with this. It seems odd to me that you buy a game with such a fantastic level of detail (I mean, how many games that cover such a massive theater would let you track EVERY squad of troops, every ship, every plane, even the pilots of those planes?!) and then throw that out the window by running through days at a time.

[tanker4145]

I just started a 2-day a turn PBEM and really like it so far. It's only been 3 or 4 turns, but already I like the feel a lot more then the 1 day turns. Plus, more happens during a single turn so you can get farther into it. Plus you have to use a little more caustion and planning I think since you can't react every day. Of course I'll have to play more to be sure but I think 2 day turns is how I'll probably play from now on and I may give 3 day turns a try.