Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Some of the added Allied handicaps were added at the last minute before release.

Nice. How many fricken "Allied handicaps" are there?

This is NOT how you balance a historical simulation. Imagine Jane's F-15, if we gave the Iraqis Tie Fighters to make it more "fair". LOL...

-CJ

My moneys on the F-15s in the atmosphere. A tie fighter dosen't look like it would have any lift in an atmospheric flight. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Ayradon

I don't post often. More of a lurker to find the answers to my questions but I had to comment on this bubbling feud.

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

The truth of the matter is that you can only make a game with historical units. War is by no means predetermined. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to these games but the truth is that the actual battles fought during any war could have and would have had different outcomes if only one small thing was different.

If you want a historical simulation what is the point of playing any game. The object of these games is to change history not force it upon the person playing it. What would be the point of playing any nation in any era if what happened in RL was forced upon the player.

Watch the History Channel if you want a historical outcome because that is the only place where you are going to find reality.

I agree 100%. The devs have done a tremendous job trying to make a game that is as historically-based as possible while still allowing some freedom to make differing choices by the players. This makes for a fun game. They have also tried to make an AI that provides a challenge to those who prefer that mode of play. Sort of like hitting bullseyes in opposite directions with one shot IMO, but they've done it.

Once they get some of the anomalies addressed, this is going to be fun for everyone, no matter what their mode of play.

 
-F-

Ok, I feel a little bad about starting the whole gun penetration issue. I realized that the only time I post on here is if I find something in the game that I don't like, or that I think is wrong. The only two things I've noticed as being an issue is the Aussie CA's vs Mogami, and the large US BB TF vs a small Japanese BB TF.

So, despite my two threads on issues I want to see changed, I want to say that this game rocks. I'm not sure you can find a subject that has more details to it than the Pacific war. The people who made and continue to make this game have done a phenominal job. Thank you.

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
To answer your question, I have in WitP, haven't in AE yet. Not sure I want to.

I'm guessing you are coming from the "Japan has no chance to win, so we made some changes to make it more playable" angle.

Nope. I was coming from the "I'm trying to give this guy the benefit of a doubt approach" given that you've managed to irritate at least one developer so far and bore another. So....as another developer, i was curious as to why you seem to think there are anti-Allied biases built into the game. Hence, the repeated question, "have you played Japan yet in AE?".

Thx for finally answering. I figured you hadn't but again....that benefit of a doubt thingy. I now suggest that before you start ringing the firebell any further and making accusations and demands towards the AE team, that you first play the Japan side before you start condeming the game as an Allied fanboy fantasy. Delete or play the game...or design your own wargame since you say your a developer. It's your choice. All i have to say on this.

ORIGINAL: Ayradon

I don't post often. More of a lurker to find the answers to my questions but I had to comment on this bubbling feud.

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

The truth of the matter is that you can only make a game with historical units. War is by no means predetermined. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to these games but the truth is that the actual battles fought during any war could have and would have had different outcomes if only one small thing was different.

If you want a historical simulation what is the point of playing any game. The object of these games is to change history not force it upon the person playing it. What would be the point of playing any nation in any era if what happened in RL was forced upon the player.

Watch the History Channel if you want a historical outcome because that is the only place where you are going to find reality.

Well....WELCOME ABOARD!!!![:)]

Glad to have your thoughts and input! In my opinion, the more thoughts we have posted here the better! I hope this won't be your last!![&o]

Currently playing the Grand Campaign.....Lost a lot of land, hopefully the enterprise can save midway....anyway I love this game.I think that this is game is very well done, but I won't be convinced that you can actually do *anything* in this game until I see some kind of invasion of the Japanese Home Islands or American West Coast.I would be happy just being able to take Pearl Harbor as the Japs.

For whatever its worth when playing against a competent PBEM Japanese opponent-and my opponent is quite good, you should forget about a Midway moment. A human opponent isn't going to make the same mistakes as Yamamoto did and the allieds you won't have the advantage of reading the enemies plans like what happened in real life when the US Navy broke the Japanese codes.

Take your carriers and hide till 43. I'm sure there are some players who are good enough to take on Japan with American carriers in 42, but I'm not one of them.

Its easy to beat up on the AI. Against a good PBEM opponent its a different story. In 42 the allieds do possess many other advantages besides carriers...

I have many wise things I could say that would settle this debate to the complete satisfaction of one and all. But it is late, so I will try to remember to explain all tomorrow.

so? Why don't you go read the "Naval Gun" thread in the mod forum. JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

Read it again its like 1-2% on penetration ... big deal ie prob 0.1% impact as you penetrate most things anyway and you wont penetrate BBs. Most of these were just favorable roundings 237 to 240 and for the US 242 to 240.

Note the US gets a few massive bonuses
- Non Barbette Turreted 5"/38 like on all the carriers had about half the fire rate but in the game they get full fire rate ( this is like 2* the AA value on US CVs)
- US gets like ~10-20% bonus with its guns early in the war because it uses the late war fire control bonus on accuracy on the 5"/38 at the start ..See the accuracy threads.

Ben

BTW, why is gun penetration considered so relevant in the overall game?
I mean, this isn't a naval battle simulator, there are tons of other abstractions and approximations that have a much heavier impact on the game anyway.

Consider universal supply for example, you can conquer an enemy airbase, drop an AKE in port and magically reload your BB guns with captured avgas, food and 20mm (or .50) ammo... [:D]

If your goal is a simulation, IMO this is much worse than underrating/overrating penetration of a gun model. I mean, in the first case you have "they misrated penetration, but it's still being portrayed as a gun", in the second case you have "my BB guns fire Japanese midget subs, huzzah!"

deleted

Ok, you have me there ckammp. [:D] Now that I think about it it's hard to find reality anywhere nowdays.

ORIGINAL: Ayradon

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

If you say that, then nothing could have the name "historical", given that a historical movie about the American Civil War would certainly be un-historical if they portrayed anyone as Lincoln.

The way I see it, the attribute "historical" means that it is intended to be pretty close to historical facts, notwithstanding some degree of artistic freedom.

So, if a game has Nazis in 1941 and is built around historical events, with reasonable assumptions filling the gaps, then it is ok to call it a historical game. But if you add werewolves, an unsinkable Bismarck or a soy-powered Yamato, then it is certainly a fantasy or alternate history game.

Just my two cents [:D]

Cheers
fbs

I did not say that you can not use the name historical. A movie about Lincoln can still be historical if it portrays his life accurately. If it does not then it is not historical in the sense that you are using it in. A good example of un-historical is any movie about the Battle of the Alamo. Every single movie I have seen always shows Col Travis fighting to the bitter end when historically he was one of the first casualties of the battle.

I believe that you have taken my meaning out of context. Using AE as an example once the December 7th turn is run it is no longer historical in the sense that unless the exact same casulities and sinkings are reported then it becomes aternate history. Thus it is no longer historical in the sense of the actual results of WWII.

And you are right in the fact that every single game that claims to be historical is actually a alternate history game. This is because my original statement is true. After the first turn it is no longer following historical events and is thus alternate history.

Oh dear, we seem to starting to stray upon the edges of Simulation 101.

I think you guys are being a touch too pedantic on the definition of historical. There is a difference between historical recreation and historical simulation which provides the observer with a historically accurate framework where he(she) has the latitude to made alternative decisions. However, the consequences of those decisions MUST be modeled in a historically feasible manner for the simulation to have any claim at all to the term historical. The validation of your model (a very specific term in the field of simulation) is that actual decisions lead to the observed historical results.

The tricky bit is validating events that have no historical precedent or didn't occur often enough to generate a statistically significant sample, particularly if there are a large number of influencing factors involved. Whilst it is obvious that a single division invasion of the West coast will fail, it is not so obvious how the USS Iowa would fare in a surface action against the Yamato. Good judgment or consensus would have to apply here.

Using simulations give the opportunity to explore the consequences of alternative scenarios to a degree that which a book cannot do especially if you do not have any idea of the potential outcome. Simulations also have a nasty habit of throwing up things you never thought of.....

The game comes in when we go through this process for entertainment (and maybe simplify certain aspects to make it more enjoyable). Doesn't mean a well written program can't be both.

Martin get bent and enjoy the game. if you don't like it, quit, simple as that. As long as you're a gamer, at least once in a while you'll end up buying a game and finding that you don't like it. That's a risk you run buying products of any kind. if you don't like AE, quit. What do you think whining in such a negative manner will achieve anyways? Quit and spare us your nonsense.

This isn't a product lacking in quality, nobody flat out lied when they told you what the game was about and would include. You technically didn't get ripped off. Put the game on the shelf and move on. Flaming accomplishes nothing.

It seems to me, the main thing amongst your condescending and ignorant posts is that you seem to demand some kind of perfection in the historical factor of the game, which is totally ridiculous, I don't get why you weren't saying the same thing about WITP then.

Based on playing both sides rather extensively, I can conclude that they haven't really made the game biased in one way or another. Not to either side. But I won't even bother listing it all, what's the point?

The FACT is it wasn't just made biased towards the JFB players. Like Nik says, play the Japanese side and you'll see.

Why can't you just enjoy the game anyways? It doesn't make much sense, and that isn't merely speaking from a view of preferance. "oh this game isnt a total or close to a total historical simulation, what a pile of garbage"....regardless of anything, there is alot to enjoy in this game for any historical fanboy or strategy fanboy.

Wow what a topic. I play these game to see  what results my plans would have on history. Many people put in countless hours of hard work to improve WITP and I am happy with results even though the KB parks outside Pearl Harbor for a week and sinks every battleship and cruiser. I remember once in WITP when  I decided to take on the KB with the Lexington and Enterprise I got my butt handed to me, so I learned to let Land Based Bombers wear them out then  use my carriers to pounce. This a simulation so enjoy it

You'd have to give the Japanese nukes just to balance the effects of Deathstar Boise!

How can anyone claim the Japanese are favored when the allies have this uber ship killer?

I'm in the process of beginning a game as the Japanese and, on turn one, have diverted all four Kongo class BB's to the Tarakan/Balikpapan/Makassar/Kendari area just to try to take out Boise. When drastic measures like this are necessary to neutralize a single American CL, in what direction is the bias?

Obviously, my message has been lost in my initial delivery. For that I appoligize.

However, my points remain. I've suspended playing after running into a IJN surface combat TF between the HI and SF. I had no idea IJN DD's were so fuel efficent. [X(] I'll wait at see how patch two does, but for now it seems the reach of the dev team exceeded their grasp. Honestly, I believe they are stuck with an engine that simply is not up to the task, and no amount of bandaids, smoke and mirrors, or harsh words against their detractors will fix it. I hope I'm wrong, AE has so much promise.

And just to be clear, Andy, I believe you have done the best anyone could given the tools you had to work with.

-CJ