ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
well, this could one part of the "mess"...
as a player i take the game and try to "win" (attention win is meant in ellimination any enemy unit) or to cause the enemy maximum damage.
If i play as the japanese, i try to take out china, cause i want the americans to bleed to death later on and i would need the troops... but if i conquer china and maybe india, game is out. But why should i just hold on cause i create a third front (burma, pacific + china...)
my strategy is allways to concentrate on the weakest enemy, kill him and then go on (something the germans should have done in 1917 with italy...) So your troops will be more and more superior to the enemy (or in witp-conditions) not too much inferior in numbers...
so, if the game "sucks" (not really, or i wouldn´t play nearly any freetime i have) in this, it should be fixed. Even if i think that in a total war with "ONE" target (china out of the game) after sra conquered, it could be done.
It is my aproach, not everybody has to copy.. but still it is true that the game should have avoided most serious "bugs" before the customer has it. Or, like now, we get the input.
But yes, you have the point.
I too think it is an allied vers. computer version, but even here i think it has serious flaws (even more as the japanese side).... these designed scenarios would be a solution, and honestly WE all could do our part in developing such scenarios.... like give the japanese 10 cv more in 1941, so the allied player has to deal with much more, or for the japanese ver the ai weaker troops in china (you still should be able to kill the ai in china, but only with a large part of your troops and with costs in your potential defence force...)
hm, what do you think, is it doable ?
and again, i do not want to be part of the beta-basher-team... if it sound accidentaly so, i have to apologize - you did a great job, and i want you still as a workhorse for me [:D]
You have probably noticed playing that the AI handling China doesn't really do much on either side. It has been programmed to expect a draw type situation. The Chinese troops have been weakened at the start to prevent an Allied player from kicking Japan out.
The last major fix, done because of my test game was to weaken the Allies in Burma. This solved the problem of the Allies being able to do unhistoric things like holding Mandalay/Rangoon/etc, but in reverse it makes it much easier for a Japanese player to sweep the board here.
As we run into these types of situations, it becomes more and more clear that a separate set of requirements exists for player vs AI based on which side they are playing.
As these types of changes can all be done through the scenario editor, it is really just a matter of identifying the weak spots through game play then going in and fixing them through some unit placement and tuning of base sizes. Consider this as a simple change: If you increased the sizes of the Chinese held bases at the start of #15, this would automatically impose a higher garrison limit on Japan should they capture the base, cutting back on the number of free troops available for further conquest. Simple fix, but only works on Japan vs computer. If it was played as Allies vs computer, it would be horror! Same can be done by setting higher fort levels at starting bases, setting % disabled, setting readiness higher, etc.
The nice thing to all of this ... none of this requires *any* change to the code so the devs can get on with fixing real stuff and adding features.
The only thing that needs to be agreed to to be able to gather a valid set of what needs to be done is everyone playing the game with the same difficulty level so the reports all apply to a level playing field.
hehe good, bad or indifferent, opinions are like ... well you know the rest 
)
