Andy Mac v PZB ....The Allies Fight Back

[Nemo121]

Good, I think the key for you is to concentrate all your power on just 1 or 2 objectives at a time and focus on achieving sequentially rather than serially.
 
However this ends you both deserve kudos for takign the game to its bitter end.

[Andy Mac]

Yeah after my decision (and I was so tempted) not to go for the HI I actually have a lot of combat power available. (Just not enough to take a base and get an AF dammed annoying but there it is)
 
Taking the bomber bases on Formosa is a good move I think because it wil allow me to bring the B24's back from India to help out against the HI.
 
My fighters are taking the easy kills while they can and rebuilding some XP (I was shocked when I ran out of USAAF pilots !!!)
 
In many ways this game stopped being fun when it became such a slaughter fest AE is going to be very different for both sides - it should if we have done our jobs right play out in a very different manner.
 
Andy

[Andy Mac]

I have exactly 4 objectives for now in no particular order
 
1. Bombay
2. Formosa
3. Continual Resupply PI
4. Get ready for resumption of strat bombing campaign
 
I am pulling forces out of Ananami back to the PI to rest up just in case but I suspect ground forces are going to have little to do outside of India and Formosa for the rest of the game

[Nemo121]

I think that, overall, it is interesting that facing up to the decision to invade Japan you are making the choice to "starve it out" - aka win on points.
 
I find it interesting that despite its many flaws WiTP has actually created such a historically plausible decision tree just prior to its end-point.
 
 
As to AE: Yes, I'll be interested to see how that works out. I have some concerns about what I've read as regards the modelling but I don't think my input would go down too well with various members of the team who are a bit "not invented here" syndrome about things so rather than have it shot down now when I can't offer anything more than concern re: the model I'll see how it pans out in-game and then offer coments.
 
The land model, though, looks like a major improvement from what I've read with few of the inherent, remaining, countervailing flaws inherent in the surface combat and aerial combat models. It seems to me that more work has been done on the code of the ground combat model than the surface combat model ( certainly ) and air combat models ( possibly ).

[Andy Mac]

Hadnt thought about it like that.
 
Interesting that your perception is that way perhaps its because I have a big mouth [:D][:D]
 
Actually land coding has probably had the least attention naval and air is where a LOT of work has happened the basics of land combat are unchanged except for a few key points
 
Forts, impact of terrain, pursuit, modes, ZOC - ermm maybe more has changed than I realised - the reduced scope is nice and I perosnally like the TOE changing and ability to group units by Corps and withdrawals i.e.t he database stuff others like the guts of it.
 
I don't think anyone is in not invented here mode but we are in no new features mode fix what we have mode so we may come accross that way sometimes - its not that we dont want to take feedback or ideas its just we cannot do much with it at this stage (I alone have a list of about 50 things I would like to get done but cannot - its the old lock it down so we can test it issue).
 
My main comment is that the game will appear to play a lot slower than stock combat will be quicker I think but movement will be slower and will take some getting used to unloading/loading routines are far more realistic, movement of LCU's is slower lots of things have changed
 

[Nemo121]

Aye, I think that when one analyses WiTP as it currently plays the problem is NOT that the combat is too quick ( which is the conventional wisdom ) but rather that the logitics which support the combat are too quick and easy.

With instant support operations which are logistically impossible due to lengthy SLOCs and non-existent LLOCs suddenly become not only possible but downright feasible.
 
 
As to which aspect has actually received more input in terms of coding. In the absence of fact the viewer's/reader's perception IS fact. There has been very little leakage surrounding WiTP II BUT perhaps there hasn't been enough authorised, unambiguous discussion either ( there has been much authorised discussion but when it has occurred it has rarely been unambiguous ).

[Andy Mac]

Well guys as I am sure you are aware from PZB's AAR this one is more or less over neither of us was really enjoying it that much at the end especially as PZB had no more ships to build. (end of the build options is a bit naff)

As Nemo said the game did provide a valid credible set of options at the end and I have thoroughly enjoyed the game.

I would like to thank PZB and all the people that read this and the other AAR its been a hell of a lot of fun (and provided me with a lot of nervous breakdowns along the way !!!)

Thanks

Andy

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I would like to thank PZB and all the people that read this and the other AAR its been a hell of a lot of fun (and provided me with a lot of nervous breakdowns along the way !!!)

Great AAR by the way Andy. You played quite the show with the hand you were dealt. Look forward to future AAR's. Possibly a rematch with PzB in AE? [:D]

[buzzz123]

So thats it???? No fireworks?? No welcome home parade?? What the $%^$%%$&!!! (Those Asterixian swearwords again!!)
 
I've followed the AAR since before you took it on Andy, and want to say thanks to all involved. An awesome effort.
 
Must say the ending is a bit anti-climatic, but most of my games have finished in the same way (albeit a few years earlier!) so no real complaints. You played the game very well (mostly!!), and i believe AE will be a greatly improved game as a result of your efforts here.
 
Cant wait till AE FINALLY hits the shelves. Will look forward to following your AARs in that one too.
 
Thanks again
Stu