japanese expansion in all directions

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are many changes that also benefit the Japanese player

I see a benefit for IJB's from the info posted here. Since their pilot training is 1 year long too, if you use your pilot training correctly, you can start the pilots graduating in the 4Q in unit training at a better skill level than you could in WITP.

Does this sound correct?

[Dili]

I've been playing wargames for longer than most forum members have been alive - and I usually wind up playing the side no one else wants to play - because I just like to play. So I play the Italians - or the French in 1940

Me too, i very much like to play the French in 1940. True that some of that cames from the fact that many of French problems are not very well simulated in Games, so they get usually better chances in Wargames. Another that i also like to play but it is not comon are the Polish in 1939.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: rroberson

is there any fun left in the game for Japanese players? No one will have fun playing France in the game "France 1940". Yes I am a worry wart

I've been playing wargames for longer than most forum members have been alive - and I usually wind up playing the side no one else wants to play - because I just like to play. So I play the Italians - or the French in 1940 - or the Russians in 1941 - and I love it! And if I win - then oh boy - do I have the bragging rights!!! [:D]

So far I've only been able to play the Japanese in WITP PBEM campaign games. I've also played both sides in AE testing. I think both sides are harder. Maybe the Allies in AE are as hard as the Japanese in WITP and the Japanese are harder still. But - I do not think even the AE team has enough data to say for sure how much or whether - the PBEM play balance has shifted. I think we will have to get the game out there - and let the really imaginative players (which I am not - being too constrained by historical thoughts) take a shot at it. I think taking out Russia or India will be a lot tougher - but my Japanese opponent invaded Oz and seemed to be making it stick through late 42 - and I diverted all the good Aussie units to Oz to help defend - and still I was not kicking him out.

I will say that all players should expect a learning curve. AE is not WITP - and the strategies and tactics that work in WITP will probably not work in AE - so do not assume they will. Do not play the same old WITP game in AE - try to understand the fundemental differences - like the new importance of ports and naval support units - and play accordingly. Think out of the box - and you will be more likely to be successful. Those who play the same old game - will likely lose regardless of which side they play.

I would say that is my concern as 99 percent of the games that I have played WITP PBEM I have been the Japanese...It seems the bulk of PBEMers are Japanese-phobic[:D]. I more then understand that I will lose each and every game either through my typical boneheaded moves or through the fact that it was in fact a national banzai charge that led them to war. I would still, like to be able to keep the game interesting for my opponents...I see a lot of drive towards making things more realistic and I do support that, but I also fully understood the original design of the game by making things a bit more even for the two players so you could give you opponent a game as the Japanese (and I wont deny the designers probably went too far in the other direction).

I am a worry wart...because I invest an awful lot of hours in each of my games...

Worry not you won't lose a sale at least from me. I am patiently waiting for Erik to open the download so I can get my hands on this.

So what's the point in pre-sale of worrying if you are deadset on buying it? Instead, you ought to worry that the game has become little more than an AFB lovefest and that you won't even enjoy much of the first year. I posed the question before, which naturally everybody ignored, that since the Zero bonus was gone, had the 4E's lost their great anti-shipping ability. Now you have 35 pilots instead of 80's, what's not to worry about? Sounds like an awfuly one-sided game, more one-sided than history anyway.

This whole issue of the IJ pilots seems very unclear anyway. YH spoke of 80 pilots and 35's, as though the system is the same, whereas a lot of other people seem to think IJ has a unique training school the other nations don't have, where if left in long enough you could get 80 pilots. It sounds like it's a sub-system of the WITP system, but I would hope at game start, if in fact this isn't an illusion, that the fair thing happens and you already have pilots ready to come out of that school which if you pull them out are 80 ranked (there were 100 of these starting out in WITP).

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rroberson




I am a worry wart...because I invest an awful lot of hours in each of my games...

Well, as the player Joe is referring to at present, i can assure you the Japanese were unable to expand indefinately in all directions. Then again.....i am Mac reborn. [;)]

[anarchyintheuk]

If an afb lovefest is defined as a more accurate map, oob, air and asw model count me in. For the sake of continuity I'll ignore the 4e question.

Don't know how it could be more one-sided than history. History was an afb lovefest. Midway rarely happens in the game so IJA/IJN expansion doesn't halt in 6/42 unlike WitP.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



I've been playing wargames for longer than most forum members have been alive - and I usually wind up playing the side no one else wants to play - because I just like to play. So I play the Italians - or the French in 1940 - or the Russians in 1941 - and I love it! And if I win - then oh boy - do I have the bragging rights!!! [:D]

So far I've only been able to play the Japanese in WITP PBEM campaign games. I've also played both sides in AE testing. I think both sides are harder. Maybe the Allies in AE are as hard as the Japanese in WITP and the Japanese are harder still. But - I do not think even the AE team has enough data to say for sure how much or whether - the PBEM play balance has shifted. I think we will have to get the game out there - and let the really imaginative players (which I am not - being too constrained by historical thoughts) take a shot at it. I think taking out Russia or India will be a lot tougher - but my Japanese opponent invaded Oz and seemed to be making it stick through late 42 - and I diverted all the good Aussie units to Oz to help defend - and still I was not kicking him out.

I will say that all players should expect a learning curve. AE is not WITP - and the strategies and tactics that work in WITP will probably not work in AE - so do not assume they will. Do not play the same old WITP game in AE - try to understand the fundemental differences - like the new importance of ports and naval support units - and play accordingly. Think out of the box - and you will be more likely to be successful. Those who play the same old game - will likely lose regardless of which side they play.

I would say that is my concern as 99 percent of the games that I have played WITP PBEM I have been the Japanese...It seems the bulk of PBEMers are Japanese-phobic[:D]. I more then understand that I will lose each and every game either through my typical boneheaded moves or through the fact that it was in fact a national banzai charge that led them to war. I would still, like to be able to keep the game interesting for my opponents...I see a lot of drive towards making things more realistic and I do support that, but I also fully understood the original design of the game by making things a bit more even for the two players so you could give you opponent a game as the Japanese (and I wont deny the designers probably went too far in the other direction).

I am a worry wart...because I invest an awful lot of hours in each of my games...

Worry not you won't lose a sale at least from me. I am patiently waiting for Erik to open the download so I can get my hands on this.

So what's the point in pre-sale of worrying if you are deadset on buying it? Instead, you ought to worry that the game has become little more than an AFB lovefest and that you won't even enjoy much of the first year. I posed the question before, which naturally everybody ignored, that since the Zero bonus was gone, had the 4E's lost their great anti-shipping ability. Now you have 35 pilots instead of 80's, what's not to worry about? Sounds like an awfuly one-sided game, more one-sided than history anyway.

This whole issue of the IJ pilots seems very unclear anyway. YH spoke of 80 pilots and 35's, as though the system is the same, whereas a lot of other people seem to think IJ has a unique training school the other nations don't have, where if left in long enough you could get 80 pilots. It sounds like it's a sub-system of the WITP system, but I would hope at game start, if in fact this isn't an illusion, that the fair thing happens and you already have pilots ready to come out of that school which if you pull them out are 80 ranked (there were 100 of these starting out in WITP).

That would be the point of worrying [:D]. If the game is about to become so inbalanced that the Japenese PBEM player gets even less of a high point then WITP (or historically) then it is about to become even harder to find Japanese players online who are willing to subject themselves to two or three years of having their asses handed to them. That doesnt sound like a lot of fun [;)]

I buy every pacific war game I can get my hands on to support companies willing to take a chance in an often ignored theatre of world war 2....in that it is an automatic sale for me.

[Nikademus]

One thing that will help Japan players is to resist a tenancy to treat the beginning part of the game as a preliminary to the "real war"

Completing the conquest of the SRA and the original defense line in good or better time is a challenge of itself.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

Many players, including myself, felt like one of the major weaknesses of WITP was the unrealistic tempo of operations. The Japanese players created uber-hyper first turns and tried to conquer half the world by May of 1942. Then the allied counterattack was also with too rapid a tempo. The Japamese had to hit hard and fast because the Allies would hit back hard and fast.

It sounds to me like the AE team has really tried to develop a game with a more realistic tempo. I expect the Japanese expansion to be slower, but the allied ability to counter the Japanese will develop slower as well. I think this is a huge improvement and I am looking forward to a game with a more realistic tempo of operations.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

One thing that will help Japan players is to resist a tenancy to treat the beginning part of the game as a preliminary to the "real war"

Completing the conquest of the SRA and the original defense line in good or better time is a challenge of itself.

Not sure I am following you. As the Japanese player I am under the gun to have DEI Burma and a nice defensive line set up in the south southwest and central pacific prior to May 42. After that the allied bum rush begins.


The one thing I always hated was you are forced into a higher tempo of operations during those six months then would normally make sense (realistically) because you know come may 42 it begins to swing back the other way. My hope is that the tempo of the game has been slowed down alot ...but on both sides ....from the tidbits I have seen recently there has been a whole lot of defanging of the Japanese military but not so much with the allies.

[Canoerebel]

I'm not sure this will be an improvement in the game.  One of the real lures of WitP is that it's ahistorical enough to allow the Japanese to really put the Allies on the ropes.  The speed with which the game strikes and moves is breathtaking.  That's a good thing in my book.  If AE tempers that in the name of realism (I think it does and I realize that most players are very thankful that it does) the game may become a really slog-match.  For those who don't mind playing a real slog-match over three or four years of real time and six years of game time, it'll be satisfying.
 
I just dunno.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rroberson


Not sure I am following you. As the Japanese player I am under the gun to have DEI Burma and a nice defensive line set up in the south southwest and central pacific prior to May 42. After that the allied bum rush begins.

You answered your own question! [;)]

The one thing I always hated was you are forced into a higher tempo of operations during those six months then would normally make sense (realistically) because you know come may 42 it begins to swing back the other way. My hope is that the tempo of the game has been slowed down alot ...but on both sides ....from the tidbits I have seen recently there has been a whole lot of defanging of the Japanese military but not so much with the allies.

Players tend to see the SRA ops as an obstacle or necessary evil to the "real game" (fighting the US in 42)

In RL....the SRA was the goal of the war and it was important for the Japanese to secure it. Because this is game however, players stress themselves out trying to do it as fast as possible because they know what's coming later in the game. AE will slow down the operational tempo so Japan players who measure their success by how fast they can get the SRA ops (which encompass a huge mass of land, sea and air) are going to experience frustration.

If a player however sees it as a RL challenge as the Japanese did, they'll garner more enjoyment out of it as well as reap what they sow if they don't. I agree its harder to play Japan because of the reality that you know your "side" is bound to lose eventually or at the very least, be put on the defensive.......players like to "win" hence it can be hard to find a good natured Japan opponent willing to experience the full range of being player 1. One way to do that again.....is to not see the SRA as a necessary evil....but as the reason why you are fighting in the first place.

[Panther Bait]

If there is an overall slower pace of advancement, would that factor better into multiple day turns?  If you spend more time unloading/loading, building strength, etc. it might work well to mve 2days per turn.  Waypoints and patrol zones might help with this, too, by reducing some of the micromanagement inherent to TFs in stock.
 

[Nikademus]

Multi day turns will impart a tempo decrease of their own as well, at least that is if the player is cautious. Joe and I are currently playing a 3 day campaign game and it has made both of us think much much more carefully about our decisions vs. 1 day turns. It requires much better advance planning and willingness to use retirement options and safer commanders (which lead to less bloody fight to the death battles)

all in all it makes for greater realism as well as really gets you into the game. We are now in Aug42 averaging mostly 1 exchange per day and we only started about 2 months ago or less.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm not sure this will be an improvement in the game.  One of the real lures of WitP is that it's ahistorical enough to allow the Japanese to really put the Allies on the ropes.  The speed with which the game strikes and moves is breathtaking.  That's a good thing in my book.  If AE tempers that in the name of realism (I think it does and I realize that most players are very thankful that it does) the game may become a really slog-match.  For those who don't mind playing a real slog-match over three or four years of real time and six years of game time, it'll be satisfying.

I just dunno.

For concerned citizens there will also be an enhanced Japan scenario that will allow greater What if explorations.

[Andy Mac]

Ummm I would disagree with that RRoberson with the caveat that until two good players get their hands on it its hard to be certain. I mean I really want to see what Nemo or Pauk or PZB can do with Japan in AE for me thats the real test.
 
Is it slower yes, should expectations be lower yes, can the Japanese exceed history yes - will it be as easy to do by May 42 no.
 
Will the allied counterattack be as swift and vicious I don't think so.
 
Certainly the 1/43 turn around when Hellcats and Corsairs become available is more muted and the period of relative balance is longer - CAP is no longer impenetratable so late war on defence the allies need to pick thir targets more carefully.
 
My impressions so far
 
In CENTPAC an early offensive by the allies is tougher - they can take an atoll by almost coup de main where they can secure sea and air superiority BUT with a 6,000 man limit and no forts good luck holding it if you cannot maintain superiority - keeping a fleet in being for both sides is vital in CENTPAC IMO deep strikes at places like Iwo Jima or Okinawa or the Marianas by the allies are possible as raids but until the IJN is neutralised are basically just going to cost ships and men.
 
SOPAC mutually supporting bases make it harder for both sides but the lack of a good port (for eitherside) and the need to build up ports as well as AF's before a decent advance can begin or be supported makes it slower at some stage the tide will turn and the allies will gain the upper hand but without proper amphib ships in numbers or carriers its going to be a tough fight - IF the IJN commits in defence.
 
SWPAC - I will be interested to see how it works I think PM may be more important and the battle of PM will determin the speed of allied advance - PM if built up and supplied makes a lot of SWPAC difficult for the Japanese so I expect major battles in this area.
 
NORTH AUSTRALIA - I expect this to play out slightly differently supplies will be more difficult to maintain an early offiesive will to some extent depend on SWPAC - if PM is held perhaps an attack out of a supplied Darwin may be possible but there are a lot of bases that can be developed in southern DEI to defend against it.
 
PERTH - Very vulnerable to the Japanese but more bases and therefore harder to hold - a good area for a raid but on the other hand hard to free up LCU's to do it.
 
INDIA - a lot stornger than per stock as forces now arrive when deployed to India not to Assam so India is harder to conquer but large numbers of extra bases makes a raid more doable especially at places like Ceylon - Mid 42 Japan should be able to free up several Divisions and units and Japan will have choices not as many at the same time as stock but they will have options.
 
BURMA - the weak spot in the Japanese line IF the allies commit more force and amphib ships could cause problems earlier than history - will need carefull watching allies may be able to move faster - 1943 the Indian Army on its own probably not strong enough even the historic (failed) Akyab campaign will be very difficult by 44 I would anticipate real pressure in Burma - on the other hand a valid ALLIED choice is to throw 1st Aus Corps and some US forces into Burma could make a 1943 attack dangerous - but thats a choice for players to make - recon becomes vital identifying units in theatre very important. Supply is key in Burma again a LOT of bases to be built before a sustained offensive is doable.
 
CHINA - dynamic stalemate dangerous if either side gets on a roll (note AI is weakest in China play off the wall and the AI will struggle in that theatre) - Borders are not implemented so if you transfer units to Burma without paying PP's (either side actually) it will distort the theatre.
 
RUSSIA - <Laughs hysterically> anyone who wants to try that one please let me know when even the AI kicks your arse.
&nbsp;
Just my opinions so dont hold me to them but these are my general impressions.
&nbsp;
There is also Scenario 2 in that scenario Japan has a little more resources, a few more trained pilots, a few more ships (mostly light surface and transports), a few more frames, and a few more offensive and defensive LCU's (about an Armies worth of added LCU's and additional garrison forces for rear echelon defence)
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Erik Rutins]

Outstanding summary Andy. Folks, please read the post above two or three times, he knows what he's talking about.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rroberson



You answered your own question! [;)]

Players tend to see the SRA ops as an obstacle or necessary evil to the "real game" (fighting the US in 42)

In RL....the SRA was the goal of the war and it was important for the Japanese to secure it. Because this is game however, players stress themselves out trying to do it as fast as possible because they know what's coming later in the game. AE will slow down the operational tempo so Japan players who measure their success by how fast they can get the SRA ops (which encompass a huge mass of land, sea and air) are going to experience frustration.

If a player however sees it as a RL challenge as the Japanese did, they'll garner more enjoyment out of it as well as reap what they sow if they don't. I agree its harder to play Japan because of the reality that you know your "side" is bound to lose eventually or at the very least, be put on the defensive.......players like to "win" hence it can be hard to find a good natured Japan opponent willing to experience the full range of being player 1. One way to do that again.....is to not see the SRA as a necessary evil....but as the reason why you are fighting in the first place.

True. In my latest disaster as the Japanese I often lamented having to land troops throughout DEI. My attention has always been looking forward and coming up with new schemes to keep my playing partner off balance and in doing so put off the coming Allied Tsunami as long as I can. DEI while necessary to my war machine was in fact in the way.

The biggest issue I see "slowing" down the Japanese run through DEI is you have to conquer each and every base (much like the PI ((which I still haven't done 9/42))) because there is no government or commanding general to surrender all allied forces. That in itself slows your tempo down as you have to root the enemy out of each base.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Ummm I would disagree with that RRoberson with the caveat that until two good players get their hands on it its hard to be certain. I mean I really want to see what Nemo or Pauk or PZB can do with Japan in AE for me thats the real test.

Is it slower yes, should expectations be lower yes, can the Japanese exceed history yes - will it be as easy to do by May 42 no.

Will the allied counterattack be as swift and vicious I don't think so.

Certainly the 1/43 turn around when Hellcats and Corsairs become available is more muted and the period of relative balance is longer - CAP is no longer impenetratable so late war on defence the allies need to pick thir targets more carefully.

My impressions so far

In CENTPAC an early offensive by the allies is tougher - they can take an atoll by almost coup de main where they can secure sea and air superiority BUT with a 6,000 man limit and no forts good luck holding it if you cannot maintain superiority - keeping a fleet in being for both sides is vital in CENTPAC IMO deep strikes at places like Iwo Jima or Okinawa or the Marianas by the allies are possible as raids but until the IJN is neutralised are basically just going to cost ships and men.

SOPAC mutually supporting bases make it harder for both sides but the lack of a good port (for eitherside) and the need to build up ports as well as AF's before a decent advance can begin or be supported makes it slower at some stage the tide will turn and the allies will gain the upper hand but without proper amphib ships in numbers or carriers its going to be a tough fight - IF the IJN commits in defence.

SWPAC - I will be interested to see how it works I think PM may be more important and the battle of PM will determin the speed of allied advance - PM if built up and supplied makes a lot of SWPAC difficult for the Japanese so I expect major battles in this area.

NORTH AUSTRALIA - I expect this to play out slightly differently supplies will be more difficult to maintain an early offiesive will to some extent depend on SWPAC - if PM is held perhaps an attack out of a supplied Darwin may be possible but there are a lot of bases that can be developed in southern DEI to defend against it.

PERTH - Very vulnerable to the Japanese but more bases and therefore harder to hold - a good area for a raid but on the other hand hard to free up LCU's to do it.

INDIA - a lot stornger than per stock as forces now arrive when deployed to India not to Assam so India is harder to conquer but large numbers of extra bases makes a raid more doable especially at places like Ceylon - Mid 42 Japan should be able to free up several Divisions and units and Japan will have choices not as many at the same time as stock but they will have options.

BURMA - the weak spot in the Japanese line IF the allies commit more force and amphib ships could cause problems earlier than history - will need carefull watching allies may be able to move faster - 1943 the Indian Army on its own probably not strong enough even the historic (failed) Akyab campaign will be very difficult by 44 I would anticipate real pressure in Burma - on the other hand a valid ALLIED choice is to throw 1st Aus Corps and some US forces into Burma could make a 1943 attack dangerous - but thats a choice for players to make - recon becomes vital identifying units in theatre very important. Supply is key in Burma again a LOT of bases to be built before a sustained offensive is doable.

CHINA - dynamic stalemate dangerous if either side gets on a roll (note AI is weakest in China play off the wall and the AI will struggle in that theatre) - Borders are not implemented so if you transfer units to Burma without paying PP's (either side actually) it will distort the theatre.

RUSSIA - <Laughs hysterically> anyone who wants to try that one please let me know when even the AI kicks your arse.

Just my opinions so dont hold me to them but these are my general impressions.

There is also Scenario 2 in that scenario Japan has a little more resources, a few more trained pilots, a few more ships (mostly light surface and transports), a few more frames, and a few more offensive and defensive LCU's (about an Armies worth of added LCU's and additional garrison forces for rear echelon defence)

I guess time will tell.

It is good to see that the Fighter Cap has been toned down. It is one of my opponents chief complaints (as well as mine in many of my losses) that carrier duels really come down to who can squeeze a bomber through the CAP (lately it has been me (we are playing CHS) ).

Understand, I'm not bitching about the upgrade, I welcome it. Finding myself playing as Japan in the bulk of the games I want to make sure I still have a chance to enjoy the game before the beat down begins.

End of June can't come quick enough.

[Andy Mac]

AE has this previously only ever allied player seriously considering playing Japan - I spent so much time getting the Japanese AI to work that its sorta go me interested and hooked. So its likely there wil be at least two of us playing Japan !!!!

[Andy Mac]

p.s [:-][:-]&nbsp;I am also expecting someone else to do an AE AI file so I can actually play against the&nbsp;AI (its kinda boring when you write the script as you know the shape of the AI and where the landmines are !!!)