Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[worr]

ORIGINAL: denisonh

The Allies did not go on the offensive historically until late 42 until AFTER they deep sixed the KB near Midway.

Exactly.

The IJN was convinced a major battle had to be engaged and soon. This conivinction sped the war up considerable. Enough of here know the history of the battle of Midway. We got lucky. Imagine if we didn't get lucky? Or imagine if KB was never commited to Midway?

Worr, out

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Here we have a game supposedly designed for grognards but I don't know of too many grognards who are happy with it. It is too complicated for the average gamer and too historically bogus for the hardcore.

When are grognards happy with anything [:)] That's what the word means - grumbler [:D]

The land combat seems to be a serious problem as does the pace at which you can deploy LCUs, air and naval forces from one theate to another. But the tweaking in the editor could help reduce all these problems. Not the design, that I agree isn't great, but the effects.

If China is too easy for the Japanese to take out then the IJA forces in China can be weakened, fatigued and disrupted to slow them down. Russia can be given a selection of powerful and experienced units at the back bases to keep them in the game etc. As for the Betty's and Nells why are they given such high experience? That goes for much of the initial Japanese forces. They will be attacking and winning for the first few months and so boost their stats anyway. Because their enemies are spread out they can always get local number superiority too. There is no need for nearly every squadron to start so good. A fall of 10 experience off every squadron would still give the Japanese a big edge.

If the Japanese need a boost or two then let them have it when they should need it in '43 and '44. It would be a lot less unhistoric to give the Japanese a boost there than have them ruling the Pacific and Asian mainland until late 43.

We have seen some AARs and from our own experiences can see some unhistoric stuff. But it may be that there are counters to the Asian blitz and that the USN need not hide until the Hellcats come. I don't want to hear about how the allies can win if they hide till mid '43 no matter what they lose. That's just reinforces that the standard scenario leads to a dull and unhistoric game for all concerned. But there may be decent allied tactics to hold the line to create a more historic game. I have not given up hope [:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

That's part of my point I guess. It's the only game of its' type so it wins the "best of" category. Does not mean that it is adequate. The house rules needed to get this game to sort of function properly are beginning to rival pry's list of OOB changes (poor bugger[8D]) and this is not OK. The detail of the OOB is wasted on a half baked design, and actually becomes part of the problem with asset management later on.

[Hoplosternum]

I must point out to any of my email opponents that the above observations are not based on our games. I richly deserve the beatings I am taking as the allies [:D] I have a happy knack (for my opponents) of losing CVs early and often [:D] Both good play on their part (Saratoga off Fiji - Belfegor) and retreating too slowly (Enterprize off Rabaul - Belfegor again) or ludicrious rashness (Lexington off the Philippines! - Drex) has led to some unfortunate downgrading of allied Naval assets [;)]

I'll be a bit put out if the game allows you to march through China and India, but I deserve what I'm going to get in the Pacific if I don't mend my ways soon. Thank god for the respawning CVs [;)][:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I must point out to any of my email opponents that the above observations are not based on our games. I richly deserve the beatings I am taking as the allies [:D] I have a happy knack (for my opponents) of losing CVs early and often [:D] Both good play on their part (Saratoga off Fiji - Belfegor) and retreating too slowly (Enterprize off Rabaul - Belfegor again) or ludicrious rashness (Lexington off the Philippines! - Drex) has led to some unfortunate downgrading of allied Naval assets [;)]

I'll be a bit put out if the game allows you to march through China and India, but I deserve what I'm going to get in the Pacific if I don't mend my ways soon. Thank god for the respawning CVs [;)][:D]

LOL India is scary. Japan can march all over the darn place. Freeboy gave me a taste of that. Guess they have access to a very confusing Indian train schedule. Basically chasing units all over the place...hollow units (para dropped segments) cutting off all supply to Burma and withstanding 10000:1 shock attacks....ridiculous.

[Nomad]

I am actually sorry now that I started a PBEM game. This game has so many flaws that I really do not think it is worth it anymore. There are just too many bugs yet, too many bad design decessions, and the clunkist user interface I could imagine. It really is too bad, this game had a lot of promise but I will be shelving it when the bugs hit my game hard enough to call it quits.

[jnier]

I think people are right to point out that the game has flaws. But all things considered WITP is NOT a bad game - I think this is a very, very good game despite its imperfections. I think people are missing the forest in the trees - focusing on the games flaws (which are not, IMHO, game breakers) and ignoring all the things the game does very well.

[Tankerace]

The UI is a bit clunky, but IMO it is not a game killer for me. It is fairly buggy, but again, not a game killer. The only thing that IMO is a game killer is the leader bug. But I like the game well enough that I am going to continue my games, and just replace leaders when I have to.

This game was not meant to appeal to all people, and it doesn't. I do think because of the UI, and its several bugs, it will appeal to an even fewer audience, but to those it does appeal to, it is worth the money, and more.

[Tankerace]

I should also note, that I still hold my position that WitP, great as it is, was released too early. With that in mind, if Matrix/2by3 continue to support and improve it this game will be the best, bar none. But, if they stop supporting it like has been rumored.... well, it could be ugly, and a lot of people will feel they wasted 80 bucks.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

The UI is a bit clunky, but IMO it is not a game killer for me. It is fairly buggy, but again, not a game killer. The only thing that IMO is a game killer is the leader bug.

"Leader" bug is a game killer? I have been playing for months against human opponents and I don't even know what the 'leader" bug is. And I'm not losing any of my games......

[Tankerace]

Its not a game killer for me (too much), but there are several people that won't play, simply because they are tired of seeing Halsey, Nimitz, Spruance, and all the good Admirals get replaced by WOs.

[pasternakski]

It's not just that. The problem is what this bug says about the entire game system. If there is some significance to leader ratings and the categories of command leaders are qualified for, if the game still limps on with WO Hackyourdaddy, stated to be best suited to "command a carrier," competently driving a PT boat around, there has been a whole lot of lying going on about how "sophisticated" this game engine is.

I try not to speculate on what else is just salad dressing on the dry lettuce.

[dtravel]

All of the following is IMHO:

I don't think it is so much that WiTP was released early. I think that Mr. Grigsby had basically written the game some years ago (others have compared it to a slightly spiffyed up PacWar) and was not willing to let anything get changed. And then there was some kind of failure in Quality Control. Even setting aside game balance and arguments over historical accuracy (which will NEVER end), I am really confused as to how some of the bugs could have not been found, let alone fixed. Leaders, bases not staying under the control of the side that just captured them, aircraft dropping bombs from 15,000 feet but the ship gets hit by a torpedo, as well several others. I don't like the idea of beating up on the developers but I really get the feeling that the whole story is just begging to be written up as an expose book.

The game has great potential. I don't think we will ever see it fulfilled, though. Not enough effort in the right places, I think. Or something fell apart or got bleeped up, I don't know. I'm still going to wait for the 1.4 patch (and hopefully a 1.5 after that). But the experience has been demoralizing. No QC, too much information kept from the player, too much deliberately wrong information given to the player, too many Grigsby Gotcha's. Too much ego somewhere I suspect.

If you want to reach for the stars, learn to stop tripping over your own feet first.

*sigh* [:(]

[WiTP_Dude]

Not to play Monday Morning Quarterback but I think this game could have used more knowledgable, independent advisors during the software development and quality assurance process. The batch of testers they used were OK but they seemed to miss some obvious stuff. Of course these testers probably signed non-disclosure agreements so it's very possible they didn't actually miss these things. We will never know.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Not to play Monday Morning Quarterback but I think this game could have used more knowledgable, independent advisors during the software development and quality assurance process. The batch of testers they used were OK but they seemed to miss some obvious stuff. Of course these testers probably signed non-disclosure agreements so it's very possible they didn't actually miss these things. We will never know.

I know. That's one of the reason why I don't like beating up on the testers and programmers about this. Yes, I'm unhappy about some things. But they can't really defend themselves against accusations.

(I've also been in their position. Its not easy.)

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Not to play Monday Morning Quarterback but I think this game could have used more knowledgable, independent advisors during the software development and quality assurance process. The batch of testers they used were OK but they seemed to miss some obvious stuff. Of course these testers probably signed non-disclosure agreements so it's very possible they didn't actually miss these things. We will never know.

I know. That's one of the reason why I don't like beating up on the testers and programmers about this. Yes, I'm unhappy about some things. But they can't really defend themselves against accusations.

(I've also been in their position. Its not easy.)

What has been particularly telling is that the amount if info from Matrix/2x3 has been dropping off at an exponential rate just as the number of serious problems has been growing at a surprisingly rapid rate.

Dave Baranyi

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: dtravel

I know. That's one of the reason why I don't like beating up on the testers and programmers about this. Yes, I'm unhappy about some things. But they can't really defend themselves against accusations.

(I've also been in their position. Its not easy.)

What has been particularly telling is that the amount if info from Matrix/2x3 has been dropping off at an exponential rate just as the number of serious problems has been growing at a surprisingly rapid rate.

I wouldn't read too much into the recent Matrix/2by3 silence. For several reasons. One, the end of the year with the holidays is always the worst time to get tech support. People are on vacation, have been temporarily assigned to other things before the books close, etc. Two, as the number of complaints rise the natural, human, thing to do is hunker down and be quiet. Sarge's rule number something-or-other, "Don't look important. The enemy may be low on ammo." Three, in a situation where money has changed hands, the lawyers get involved. When there are an increasing number of complaints, you really, really, REALLY are not allowed to say anything to the customer. Except, maybe, if the lawyers are feeling generous, "Here is the fix for your problem. Please test it thoroughly and let us know the results."

(I'd put a smilie after all that, except its all true.)

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The Allies weren't really on the offensive much in 1942. They had a fight at Guadalcanal but didn't do much more. The real "problem" is that the Japanese could have done more if they had so desired. The fact that they didn't isn't going to stop most gamers from doing so however.

Coral sea, Midway, Guadalcanal campaign. All pretty bold moves for an outnumbered side that was on the back foot after being slapped around in DEI, Malaya and the Philippines.

Yes the Japanese could have done more. But not to the point of conquering mainland Asia. Nor could they dominate the Pacific in the way that WitP KB does.

Of course without Midway Guadalcanal would probably not have been attempted. But at no time did the allies order their CVs to abandon the Pacific in the way some people seem to advocate. To do so dooms all Pacific bases bar possibly Pearl should the japanese want them.

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Why the Japanese were so cautious is hard to explain. They seemed to of had the idea this was going to be some kind of "limited war" where the Allies would agree to give the Japanese concessions in exchange for lost territory. Gamers don't have this flawed thinking; they know right from the beginning this is going to be total war.

LOL. You really can't be serious here [:D] Those lame brained Japs [;)] Thank god they didn't have a few WitP players on hand to advise them or it would have all worked out differently [8|] Is this really your argument [X(]

Maybe the Japanese land, sea and air units were not quite so deadly compared to their allied opponents as WitP suggests. Nor perhaps did they have quite enough supply, men and materials to pull off all that they can in WitP (easily if any allied player keeps his head down till mid '43).

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
WiTP uses the victory level system to "bribe" the Japanese player not to be too aggressive. A high rate of losses will pretty much prevent Japan from winning in 1943 no matter how much they end up capturing. The only way to get the automatic victory as the Japanese is to inflict a lot of damage on the Allies without suffering much yourself.

Like I have said the actual Victory Point situation is of little relevence. I want to play a game that plays like the war did but where I get to make the decisions. I thought everyone did? Not one where the Japanese conquer far beyond their historical limits easily but it's OK because the allies still win. Can't you see that a game which MAKES the allies (otherwise they lose) not fight for the first 18 months is not in fun for either side.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: dtravel

I know. That's one of the reason why I don't like beating up on the testers and programmers about this. Yes, I'm unhappy about some things. But they can't really defend themselves against accusations.

(I've also been in their position. Its not easy.)

What has been particularly telling is that the amount if info from Matrix/2x3 has been dropping off at an exponential rate just as the number of serious problems has been growing at a surprisingly rapid rate.

I wouldn't read too much into the recent Matrix/2by3 silence. For several reasons. One, the end of the year with the holidays is always the worst time to get tech support. People are on vacation, have been temporarily assigned to other things before the books close, etc. Two, as the number of complaints rise the natural, human, thing to do is hunker down and be quiet. Sarge's rule number something-or-other, "Don't look important. The enemy may be low on ammo." Three, in a situation where money has changed hands, the lawyers get involved. When there are an increasing number of complaints, you really, really, REALLY are not allowed to say anything to the customer. Except, maybe, if the lawyers are feeling generous, "Here is the fix for your problem. Please test it thoroughly and let us know the results."

(I'd put a smilie after all that, except its all true.)

I make my living in a different kind of industry - one in which if you don't immediately tell your customers that you suspect that you have goofed up, you will go to prison for a long, long time. So that sort of slants my opinion on how I feel that customer service ought to be handled. I do realize that this is a different industry. But if things aren't addressed in some satisfactory manner, it will be a very long, long time before the Matrix/2x3 teams get any more of my money.

Dave Baranyi

(not a happy customer at all)

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42

Countering the IJN offensive.

A counter is defensive in nature.

Worr, out

OK - nice word play - [:)]

But lets be clear the allies were not driven from the Pacific by the Japanese. Not by the larger number of IJN carriers. Nor by the long range Nells and Bettys. The allies took on the IJN twice before they had equalled the numbers.

i.e. They could and did counter the IJN offensives. They did not hide away in San Fransisco until the Essex carriers and Hellcats arrived.

Nor did they sit and watch the IJA take China and India while consoling themselves that such loses would not help the Japanese in the long run.

Is it just me who wants to see some clashes? Some actual fighting where the outcome is in doubt before it starts. Where one side may have an advantage but the other has a fighting chance? When people say the allies should not risk anything before mid '43 that does not sound like either a realistic game or one many people would like to play. Can't you see that it may be the game rather than the Allied and Japanese commanders in the war who has the balance of power wrong?