WPO: First impressions

[Tankerace]

Oddly enough, sometime the AI can stall, other times its dynamite. Not that that is a bad thing.

[Helpless]

then AI came at Manilla with 1 Div, 1 Bde and 2 SNLF ( I think ).

Really strange. AI brought much more in my AI game. Don't know it this would be enough, but...




I think it should be prohibited to play AI someone who has >1000 posts [:D]

[jwilkerson]

I think it should be prohibited to play AI someone who has >1000 posts

Well certainly for someone who has 2400+ PBEM turns of WIP I agree [:D][:D][:D]

Wasn't real game - just play test !!!

[jwilkerson]

Ok - I flip flopped the sides in S1 and played Japanese against AI for 6 months ( well 5.5 anyway )... here is scorecard.

[jwilkerson]

Here is China .. I did get toehold in Northern China ( Peking/Tsingtao and Manchuria ) and took Canton to help take Hong Kong ).

[DuckofTindalos]

A counter to the "too powerful" subs would be to play with Sub Doctrines ON; Bill Durrant and I do so in our game, and subs certainly haven't played a very great role.

[jwilkerson]

And here is PI .. completely cleared ( of course ) and building up.

All in all as in WITP I find playing Japanese more difficult. And in WPO I am not sure on the best "strategy" for the Japanese in a campaign. But then figuring that out is half the fun ( and figuring out the battlefleet tactics is the other half ! ). So at this point I'd like to start a PBEM campaign but guess I should await patch one ... which will have some significant changes ( like most of Chinese Army static ).

The Allied AI was much more passive ... and counterattacks were limited to some suicidal tanker fleet attacks on Batan Is. ( ok some cruiser attacks also .. but mostly tanker fleet attacks ) ... And a US Regiment trying to beat up a Japanese Division while the Japanese division was on Wake .. ( the US regiment lost this fight ). Oh and I did take Midway to give the AI something to do - but it ignored me.

But the fun factor is still working !!! It is soooo refreshing being able to drive boats around without worrying about airplanes ... and seeing subs act like subs !!!

Oh one strangeness ... I tried to fly some aeroplanes in my attack on Hong Kong .. and was having about 5 ( out of 50 ) per attack get shot down by flak ( I was flying ground support mission - which goes in a 2000 feet ) ... was this level of destruction intended ? Seemed a little too effective for the flak side to me ... but if this stands .. then using aeroplanes to support ground battles will not be happening in this game !

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

A counter to the "too powerful" subs would be to play with Sub Doctrines ON; Bill Durrant and I do so in our game, and subs certainly haven't played a very great role.

Who said they are "too powerful" - not I - not I - not I - I play with doctrine off and I love it !!! Subs are "perfect" !!!

[crsutton]

Just starting scen #4 as the Japanese against the Allies with my friend Stefan. A lot of options. Lots of planning. Not really sure what to do. Shanghi, looks very vunerable. Perhaps I can blockade it and trap his ships there, then invade and play defense at Formosa. Allied air is marginally better but pretty much limited to one base in the PI. Might just be best to go for PI before he can build up his defenses, but an invasion in the face of his intact battle fleet could be a disaster.

Uh......Hope you are not reading this Stefan.[;)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I am thinking this game was made for a guy like me.... I love WitP but the air power was a bit overwhelming. The fact you can use TFs without worrying about that KB will make for many a fun night, but tough morning at work the next day. [:D]

Presumably theres still the odd carrier though, no? of Hermes-like ability?

[bradfordkay]

"But the crowning touch - was when I saw the commander of the Corregidor Batteries was none other than Major M. Scholl !!!"

Does this mean that they'll finally fire at passing enemy vessels? [:'(]

[JeffroK]

Just downlaoded the Game.

Biggest dissapointment, the use of the old WITP map.

Given a number of improvements are out there, this should have been fixed.

Some ship & aircraft artwork is of "low"/"fuzzy" quality, again, some superb artists have provided alternative WITP artwork, they need to be brought on-side.

I have played 10 days as Allies against AI, S1. Its a great game, getting the US mobilized and into action is going to take time.

HOUSE RULE, (I hate them.)

At Start it is Japan V USA only. I tossed a coin and the French allied with the USA. All other Nations were waiting to be attacked. Japan bombarded Singapore on 10/6/22 so the Brits are now in (Maybe the Aussies as well??)

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


Biggest dissapointment, the use of the old WITP map.

Given a number of improvements are out there, this should have been fixed.

This is a matter of opinion. First off, WPO's map is not Witp's map. It is based on it, but has several improvements. While ABs and SCs maps are great, I for one am not a fan. I personally don't see the big issue with WitP's original map, aside from the few spelling issues that I fixed in WPO.

Some ship & aircraft artwork is of "low"/"fuzzy" quality, again, some superb artists have provided alternative WITP artwork, they need to be brought on-side.

Considering I was among the first to do new ship artwork for WitP (The Allied OOB Graphic mod, for example, or fixing oversites such as the one stacked Cleveland CL), I did them in the style I like. Again, this is a matter of opinion. Cobra's ship art, for example, is good, but is not to scale and is often hard to recognize (at least for me). My art (again, based on my style that was well liked by the WitP community) provides accurate silhouettes that are reasonably to scale. I am sorry you do not like the art, but as it is the style I prefer, and the style that other prefer, I chose to use it. Modders are free to mod it to their preferences. If I had say used Cobra's style, that would have put some off, whereas in this case mine seems to have put you off. Its a no-win situation really.

That said, I am glad you like the game, and I hope you enjoy it.

As to house rules, I agree with you, I don't like them either. But I'd rather have house rules than to have the same old game every time. At least with WPO (as opposed to WitP), there are different choices to be made each time, providing different experiences.

[Mike Carroll]

I have had great fun with the game. Map preference, I like Aaron Browns but that is just because to me it has more of an old "Board War Game" feel. Wish I could find my old SPI War in the Pacific game.

I am not sure why people do not like honor rules. It gives you flexibility to play a game based on how you view the situation. I think some of the database changes made in the upcoming patch (Chinese warlords) close some of the remaining holes that are really unrealistic to the time. Within the limitations of the game engine you need the ability to turn off or on colonial powers as the situation dictates. I highly doubt that the British would stand by and let the US be totally destroyed in the Far East, at some point they would take a stand to protect Australia and their own colonies. Yet alot of people want to fight just a US-Japan war so this gives them the choice.

The thing I really like about the game is the scope. I typically spend 30 to 40 minutes on a turn vs. WITP with 1.5 to 2.0 hours. This allows for a quicker pace of turns - sometimes 3 or 4 a day. Don't get me wrong I love WITP, but the PBEMs I am in will probably not end for years. This game I might actually finish in a year or so.

I also like the surface combat and lack of intel. The playing of cat and mouse is very challenging. You must pay attention to all the details (but more limited) and guess sometimes[:D]

[Helpless]

...I typically spend 30 to 40 minutes on a turn ...

that's plain cheating

[:D]

[JeffroK]

Tanker,

The map as used is 3rd world, the imaginative communication lines in Australia are pure WITP Vanilla version. Keeping Port Moresby as the hub of imaginary tracks leading to Milne Bay & Lae should have been fixed eons back. Correcting a few spelling errors is immaterial.

While you may like the map, the widespread use of the alternatives in WITP show this needs a lot of work..

Afterall, you are keeping your Customers happy, not the Designers.

[TDeacon]

First impressions: <minor edits for clarity>

1) It is pretty; I like the artwork; the ship profile images are nice, and I like the way they seem to be approximately "to scale" relative to each other.

2) The wood-colored informational popup blocks one's view, and should probably be moveable.

3) The game engine may or may not be adequate for facilitating WWI-type fleet tactics. I am still hoping that I can work around this by using the game engine creatively. For example:
a) Too many night battles. This seems to result from the fact that the night portion of a 24-hour day occurs first. Since a players' AI commanders seem to have difficulty achieving battles in the open ocean (away from a base), most of mine have occured when the enemy was sighted within 1 or 2 hexes from my fleet. If I then manually plot movement in that direction, contact tends to occur during the first half (night) of the 24-hour turn. There doesn't seem to be a way to instruct my commanders to prefer night over day or vice-versa. This game falls into the time period when naval professionals were planning on refighting Jutland-type battles, in daylight, at long ranges (eventually using aircraft spot, to shoot beyond the horizon).
b) Numerical superiority doesn't generally yield expected results. The recommended squadron size of 4 BBs tends to produce fragmented battles, where the less numerous force can fire successively at each piece of the attacking force. Theoretically, a 3-1 daylight encounter (Pacific Jutland, Turn 2 at Hong Kong) should often result in relatively little damage to the stronger side, due to the progressesive improvement in the odds with each combat iteration. Of course, history shows that this theoretical advantage isn't always realizable, because not all elements of a large fleet might be able effectively shoot at the opponent at the same time (Jutland), due to range and visibility issues. However, it should be possible at least some of the time.

4) The unit values are sometimes a bit strange, but I assume the editor allows us to modify this? <edit: it apparently does> For example, the British G3 battlecruisers are rated below the pre-WWII dreadnought BBs like Iron Duke. G3 was twice as large, and had a modern all-or-nothing WWII-like armoring scheme, magazines below shell rooms, with 18-degree inclined 12-14" side and 4-8" deck armor (the thinner values protect machinery). In another example, Hood was generally considered to be armored on the scale of Queen Elizabeth class BBs (prior to QE's WWII reconstruction), so should probably have equivalent durability.

[bradfordkay]

"While ABs and SCs maps are great, I for one am not a fan. I personally don't see the big issue with WitP's original map, aside from the few spelling issues that I fixed in WPO."

" Tanker,

The map as used is 3rd world, the imaginative communication lines in Australia are pure WITP Vanilla version. Keeping Port Moresby as the hub of imaginary tracks leading to Milne Bay & Lae should have been fixed eons back. Correcting a few spelling errors is immaterial."

Justin, I wish to echo JeffK's comments about the map as posted above. The railroad/road/trail systems as shown on the original WITP map (and apparently continued in the WPO) map are pure flights of fancy. These do detract seriously from my enjoyment of the game.

The good news is that Andrew has posted a desire to fix this - it's just a ways down the road. I, for one, will be happy to wait until that map is released before I mess too much with WPO. The rest of the game looks great, but the map is not one of the finer points of the game.

[jwilkerson]

3) The game engine may or may not be adequate for facilitating WWI-type fleet tactics. I am still hoping that I can work around this by using the game engine creatively. For example:
a) Too many night battles. This seems to result from the fact that the night portion of a 24-hour day occurs first. Since a players' AI commanders seem to have difficulty achieving battles in the open ocean (away from a base), most of mine have occured when the enemy was sighted within 1 or 2 hexes from my fleet. If I then manually plot movement in that direction, contact tends to occur during the first half (night) of the 24-hour turn. There doesn't seem to be a way to instruct my commanders to prefer night over day or vice-versa. This game falls into the time period when naval professionals were planning on refighting Jutland-type battles, in daylight, at long ranges (eventually using aircraft spot, to shoot beyond the horizon).
b) Numerical superiority doesn't generally yield expected results. The recommended squadron size of 4 BBs tends to produce fragmented battles, where the less numerous force can fire successively at each piece of the attacking force. Theoretically, a 3-1 daylight encounter (Pacific Jutland, Turn 2 at Hong Kong) should often result in relatively little damage to the stronger side, due to the progressesive improvement in the odds with each combat iteration. Of course, history shows that this theoretical advantage isn't always realizable, because not all elements of a large fleet might be able effectively shoot at the opponent at the same time (Jutland), due to range and visibility issues. However, it should be possible at least some of the time.

A similar ( but different ! ) problem exists in WITP .. and that is that carrier task forces can't do "hit and run" strikes ... essentially to use carriers you have to use the "patrol" order ... and similarly ( but different ! ) in WPO if you want to fight a ( mostly ) day battle .. you need to use the patrol order ... you may also fight the first part of the battle at night .. but you will fight at least some ( maybe most ) of it during the day time.
As to the battle division sized independent task forces ... well we just need to use our imagination ... certainly Admiral Jellicoe would not have approved ! But in the game ... the supported BATDIV ( like 4 BBs with 4 DDs ) repeated 4 times ... plus 3 or 4 task forces of CLs and CAs ( 4 each with 4 DD ) seem to perform better than larger TFs ... another "game within the game" is where to position the better commanders ... the most aggressive should probably be placed in the TFs you want to engage first ( perhaps the CL/DDs as at least in the shorter scenarios they will fight better at night ) ... so this aspect is not perfect .. but with more practice hopefully we can understand the best ways to work the system and then focus on the strategic/operational aspects which are where the "fun" is ( for me anyway ).
Maybe in hind site it should've been tried to reverse the sequence of day/night for the engine for WPO ... ( for WITP it makes sense to have night first ... maybe for WPO it makes sense to have day first ) but that is probably water over the dam at this point. The coding is probably done. Database changes we can make.

[Treetop64]

Tanker, you and your cohorts rock, dood!

However, now I have the problem of deciding which way to devote my attention to: WitP or WPO. I don't want to distract my immersion in one by diverting to the other, but alas, I fear I may have no choice...

...Oh, the problems of life...