"Tojo Edition"

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Do you think that Japan had the real world capability to conquer much more than they did historically before they reached the end of their tether? That they could have been rampaging in China, blast through Burma to the Indian border, hold all of Malaysia and the PI, most of the DEI, and be invading the Central and South Pacific by March '42?

With the amount of foreknowledge players have? Yes. This works both ways, though. Late in the game Allied players can be much less cautious than historically, and plan their operations with foreknowledge of goals, achieving which auto-wins the war. (So, in WitP it was possible for Allies to end the war on historical timeline with rush to Marianas and strategic bombing, even after losing all major naval engagements until November 1943.)

They (The Japanese) could pretty much go where they pleased but they couldn't be everywhere at once. Like everybody else, they had limited amphibious capacity and logistical necessities. So I just don't believe they could do all of the above so quickly (March '42). Also, had they been willing and able to project so much power globally then they would have appeared to be the bigger threat than the corporal in Germany that was getting most of the attention.

[Andy Mac]

Really ? not my experience all my PBEM opponents gave me a tough fight into 45 in WITP and I expect at least two of them to do the same in AE

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: bklooste
.

Not sure where the AFB get the ideas the IJA was a push over , with air support and well supplied they pushed over the Australians in Malaysia ( who did quite well in North Africa against Rommel who in turn gave the US a run for their money) , they also did ok in teh Solomans with pretty bad supplies also with Ichi Go they thrashed China.. Its just historically they chose not to.

Go back and read what I wrote.

Did they take Singapore in early January and inflict 10X the casualties that they received? In the Solomons they died in droves.

In this game they can steamroll anything in a couple days and be no worse for wear.

1. Yes they did inflict 10* the casualties..
2. January / 15 February Historically , come on thats close enough... And in most of the early cases the Japanese risks Naval losses by a landing further south cutting of the retreat.

Lastly in some PBMs the allies are stil fighting in Singapore in Malaysia in March to April and even in June for Manilla.

1. Only if you're including those that died as POWs.
2. PBMs could mean the areas were bypassed.

Also, I'm not saying the IJA was "a pushover", I'm saying they just weren't nearly as formidable as they are depicted early in the game.

Everything in WitP used to be extreme. Most battle results were lopsided. AE addressed this problem very well in the Air & Sea departments but Land combat still seem to be "all or nothing" affairs in my experience. Since everything comes down to land combat I consider that a bit of a problem.

If it's beyond the capabilities of the devs to fix this, given what they have to work with, then that's all she wrote. However, I don't really understand why that would be the case since such good progress was made in other areas.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Really ? not my experience all my PBEM opponents gave me a tough fight into 45 in WITP and I expect at least two of them to do the same in AE

[&:]

Not understanding this post if it was in reply to mine above yours.

I edited my post to make it more clear who and what I was talking about.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

They could pretty much go where they pleased but they couldn't be everywhere at once. Like everybody else, they had limited amphibious capacity and logistical necessities. So I just don't believe they could do all of the above so quickly. Also, had they been willing and able to project so much power globally then they would have appeared to be the bigger threat than the corporal in Germany that was getting most of the attention.

You underestimate the benefits of foreknowledge. In AE, initial Japanese operations are not a big jump into unknown - you know beforehand the general outline of things that are going to happen at the war's beginning and the extent of your advantage. Knowledge that yes, PH will be a complete success alone makes possible many things that were not possible, period, in RL, such as an attepmt to take Hawaii in December 1941 (and the fact that you can plan an operation before a day passes in the game allows to deploy IJN battleline on December 8, secure in the knowledge that Pacific Fleet is short on heavy surface forces). You also know quite accurately, what you can allow yourself to expend. You also likely know what your enemy has, if not (after the first few days) where. While there are some drawbacks, compared to RL, such as more determined land resistance at all major points, this is huge. This is the main factor that allows for bold early-war planning, even though somewhat better economical and production situation eventually helps to maintain the pace too. Note, that such audacious strategy means accepting heavy losses against a human opponent, inevitably in transports and possibly in warships.

[Grotius]

I agree with FatR: foreknowledge makes a huge difference. We players are far more profligate with our resources because we know much more about the enemy than the historical actors did.

Do you think land combat in this game is all it can be?

It's roughly what I want in a game of this scale. Sure, ground combat could be handled like "Advanced Squad Leader" or an Operational Combat Series game or something, and then none of us would ever finish.

Do you think WW2 subs should be able to sink DDs and other ASW craft at will?

No. Fortunately, this is not the case in AE. My subs can't sink anything "at will."

I see no evidence of pro-Japan bias in AE. I see Japan doing well in some games and the Allies in others -- and remember, the AARs we see tend to focus on the early war, in which Japan is ascendant. This dev team seems especially careful about avoiding bias. They even eradicated the subtitle to stock, which some thought reflected a Western perspective on things -- "The Struggle Against Japan 1941-45".

[Canoerebel]

I doubt many people who play the game think there's any pro-Japanese (or pro-Allied) bias on the part of the developers of the game.  You're right, too, that any flaws in the game will benefit the Japanese early on since they have the initiative and greater clout at the start, and will then give the Allies a big boost later on.
 
But there are serious problems with the game.  Most of the major problems I've seen cut both ways:  artillery death stars, nuclear subs, and ineffective fortifications.  These cut both ways with the tendency to hurt the Allies early and the Japanese late.  Some people are skeptical of or even dispute that these flaws exist, meaning that a consensus hasn't developed.  So more time will be needed to evaluate the situation.  But only a few PBEMers have gotten into late '42 at this point and the reports that I've seen tend to be unanimous on these points.
 
The only flaw in the game that is totally one-sided is the situation in China.  Skepticism and doubts have been expressed about this, too, so that further time will be needed to fully evaluate.
 
I'm nearing November 1, 1942 in my PBEM game.  I've seen all of these problems repeated for months of game time.  In many cases the problems are getting even worse.  If my perception is accurate, then there is going to be a mounting hue-and-cry as others advance further into their games and find these problems and reach a certain level of frustration at their inability to solve the problem.  However, many players have already imposed house rules to avoid these problems.  They don't want serious flaws to interfere with games that they have devoted hundreds of hours to.
 
 

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mjk428

They could pretty much go where they pleased but they couldn't be everywhere at once. Like everybody else, they had limited amphibious capacity and logistical necessities. So I just don't believe they could do all of the above so quickly. Also, had they been willing and able to project so much power globally then they would have appeared to be the bigger threat than the corporal in Germany that was getting most of the attention.

You underestimate the benefits of foreknowledge. In AE, initial Japanese operations are not a big jump into unknown - you know beforehand the general outline of things that are going to happen at the war's beginning and the extent of your advantage. Knowledge that yes, PH will be a complete success alone makes possible many things that were not possible, period, in RL, such as an attepmt to take Hawaii in December 1941 (and the fact that you can plan an operation before a day passes in the game allows to deploy IJN battleline on December 8, secure in the knowledge that Pacific Fleet is short on heavy surface forces). You also know quite accurately, what you can allow yourself to expend. You also likely know what your enemy has, if not (after the first few days) where. While there are some drawbacks, compared to RL, such as more determined land resistance at all major points, this is huge. This is the main factor that allows for bold early-war planning, even though somewhat better economical and production situation eventually helps to maintain the pace too. Note, that such audacious strategy means accepting heavy losses against a human opponent, inevitably in transports and possibly in warships.

Foreknowledge will certainly help you make brilliant decisions. So I'm not surprised that the Japanese player should do better overall in the early stages. Crucially by (hopefully) not blundering into a Midway-like debacle. Foreknowledge doesn't give you extra amphibious ships, or gasoline, or bullets, or rations or make time stand still.

The Japanese wisely went to great lengths to misdirect and avoid detection prior to the raid on Pearl Harbor. They didn't just send everything they had to the four points of the Earth. Had they been moving in all directions at the start of the Pacific War they would have lost the element of surprise.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I agree with FatR: foreknowledge makes a huge difference. We players are far more profligate with our resources because we know much more about the enemy than the historical actors did.

Do you think land combat in this game is all it can be?

It's roughly what I want in a game of this scale. Sure, ground combat could be handled like "Advanced Squad Leader" or an Operational Combat Series game or something, and then none of us would ever finish.

In terms of complexity, I agree. It might even go too far - because of all the detail I expect finer results.

Do you think WW2 subs should be able to sink DDs and other ASW craft at will?

No. Fortunately, this is not the case in AE. My subs can't sink anything "at will."

Against the AI in my games, going all the way back to the last couple of years of WitP, they absolutely thrash ASW TFs. There's a reason why new players are cautioned not to hunt subs with anything valuable.

I see no evidence of pro-Japan bias in AE. I see Japan doing well in some games and the Allies in others -- and remember, the AARs we see tend to focus on the early war, in which Japan is ascendant. This dev team seems especially careful about avoiding bias. They even eradicated the subtitle to stock, which some thought reflected a Western perspective on things -- "The Struggle Against Japan 1941-45".

There seem to be some pro-Japan players but I don't think Matrix or 2by3, or the current devs would swing things Japan's way because of any personal bias.

I do think there is a tendency to want to balance things a little bit for PBEM which might give the impression of a pro-Japan bias.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I doubt many people who play the game think there's any pro-Japanese (or pro-Allied) bias on the part of the developers of the game.  You're right, too, that any flaws in the game will benefit the Japanese early on since they have the initiative and greater clout at the start, and will then give the Allies a big boost later on.

But there are serious problems with the game.  Most of the major problems I've seen cut both ways:  artillery death stars, nuclear subs, and ineffective fortifications.  These cut both ways with the tendency to hurt the Allies early and the Japanese late.  Some people are skeptical of or even dispute that these flaws exist, meaning that a consensus hasn't developed.  So more time will be needed to evaluate the situation.  But only a few PBEMers have gotten into late '42 at this point and the reports that I've seen tend to be unanimous on these points.

The only flaw in the game that is totally one-sided is the situation in China.  Skepticism and doubts have been expressed about this, too, so that further time will be needed to fully evaluate.

I'm nearing November 1, 1942 in my PBEM game.  I've seen all of these problems repeated for months of game time.  In many cases the problems are getting even worse.  If my perception is accurate, then there is going to be a mounting hue-and-cry as others advance further into their games and find these problems and reach a certain level of frustration at their inability to solve the problem.  However, many players have already imposed house rules to avoid these problems.  They don't want serious flaws to interfere with games that they have devoted hundreds of hours to.

Since I do not know exactly what forts represent in game, I cannot comment on whether there is a serious problem or not. I just do not know precisely what a level one fort means, versus a 4, not to mention a 9. Was Singapore a 9 ? Well it fell. Was Okinawa a 9 ? Well it fell. Is a 1 nothing more than a depression in the ground ? Is a 3 a shallow slit trench ? I just do not know.

Doesn't a HR limiting each divison to one regiment of arty help some ( I am not sure tbh ). But HRs still seem to be a good solution when playing someone else.

In my AI games I haven't seen a game crippling "nuclear sub " problem playing either side.

[Canoerebel]

No, one arty per division HR doesn't help.  Miller has seven divisions at Sian and seven arty units.
 
I don't think you can compare AI to PBEM in any aspect including Nuclear Subs.  Others are reporting similar problems in PBEM games.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

No, one arty per division HR doesn't help.  Miller has seven divisions at Sian and seven arty units.

I don't think you can compare AI to PBEM in any aspect including Nuclear Subs.  Others are reporting similar problems in PBEM games.

I'm not casting stones at the PBEM crowd, believe me. But when a problem is reported by both AI players and PBEMers, then we are likely facing an issue that can be fixed or at least addressed. When the issue is reported only from the PBEM side, that suggests that human players have found a coding "gap" and are exploiting it for all it's worth. The AI doesn't use "artillery death stars", so it's pretty clear which side of the table that falls on (i.e. system exploit). That doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at. But what happens if the fix adversely imperils the AI side of that game? Or when (not "if) the human players figure out a way to work around that coding fix with yet another exploit?

I'll grant you that some of the numbers appearing in the Land Combat reports are almost laughable (on several levels), so hopefully something can be done in that area. But the goal of an "HR free" game is probably not realistic so long as we are faced with the inevitable fact that human ingenuity will always find an exploit, no matter how good the code. For every one programmer, there's 1000's of guys pushing the limits - and they'll find 'em. They always do.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

No, one arty per division HR doesn't help.  Miller has seven divisions at Sian and seven arty units.

I don't think you can compare AI to PBEM in any aspect including Nuclear Subs.  Others are reporting similar problems in PBEM games.

I think limit should be 1 extra arty per Corps (3 div) unless in defense.

[Oliver Heindorf]

For me, I see the Arty a real bummer AND the fact that japanese subs rule the whole sea. Regardless what I do, they sunk everything at the West coast and east of OZ- what comes in front of their tubes and even at the lone ocean near canton and palmyra they have one single sub patrouling - and guess what, the lone sub finds almost any convoy that goes this way. I think they have some sattelite / Radar navigation tracking system on board to get their targets [8|]
#

So far, in one game month repeated three times in 41/Jan 42, they always scored more tonnage then the german wolf packs in their best month in 43. (and this is simply laughable).

I didnt even scratched their paint with dozends of ASW TFs patroulling on the WC and drops of hundreds of DCs. I think I made about 100 AWS sorties so far and not a single depth charge hitted a single sub. Nearly 100 ASW planes in Jan 42 patrouling the area at San Diego and LA - its just worthless - I think they just guide the enemy subs to their targets. I wont say that I need to score on every sortie but not being able to do anything against subs is VERY frustrating. As an allied player, you can just go around sub patroulling areas but there is simplen force in this game to stop the mayhem. Other methodes are useless.

So yes, it fells like a Tojo Edition but not forced, done by flaws in the code.

[FatR]

Air units need to be trained to 50+ in ASW skill to start actually hitting subs sometimes. Well, at least I hope so. Playing as Japan, I put most of short-ranged patrol units, that aren't of much use for long-range search, as well as a dozen IJA units that use old planes at the beginning on ASW training at the first turn and drilled them for several months.

[Andy Mac]

We have a fix we are looking at and testing for Arty