Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Well..., everyone's entitled to their opinion. [:'(] Mine will remain that the original game was horribly "skewed" in favor of the Japanese being able to "win" on "points" in 1/43..., and that most of the "fixes" since have been aimed at toning this down without making it impossible. [8D]

Then how to win? All Jap players are condemned to losing the game as in history?

no on two accounts... the first is good strategic play that beats the allies (and lots of luck... instead of losing your carriers at Midway perhaps you get lucky and sink the Allies?)

The second is why you give pre-game options to set the game up the way you want to play it... allow the player to limit the economies/or allow expansion of EITHER by setting an option. Why should I be foreced to play a game as the allies who are limited to historical events/economy while the Japaneese gets to play ahistorically? For example I would love to be able as the allies to skip some models of aircraft... how many versions of the P38 do I need??? I've been rereading some books on the Corsair and I'd love the option to replace the production of some other carrier based planes with just Corsair production runs... but I'm not able to... only the Japaneese get ahistorical fun.

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Well..., everyone's entitled to their opinion. [:'(] Mine will remain that the original game was horribly "skewed" in favor of the Japanese being able to "win" on "points" in 1/43..., and that most of the "fixes" since have been aimed at toning this down without making it impossible. [8D]

Then how to win? All Jap players are condemned to losing the game as in history?

Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.

You can win on points, which is after all winning the game. Auto victory.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.

You can win on points, which is after all winning the game. Auto victory.

The concept of "auto victory" is a crock! Even worse, it leads to "all or nothing" play and "quick quits" when the gamble doesn't succeed. It shouldn't be in the game at all. You start a war, you have to fight the whole war..., the Germans couldn't "win on points" (God knows the Russians lost enough)---they had to actually win or lose on the ground. The only "magic number" is the one on the scoreboard when the fat lady sings....

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The concept of "auto victory" is a crock! Even worse, it leads to "all or nothing" play and "quick quits" when the gamble doesn't succeed. It shouldn't be in the game at all. You start a war, you have to fight the whole war..., the Germans couldn't "win on points" (God knows the Russians lost enough)---they had to actually win or lose on the ground. The only "magic number" is the one on the scoreboard when the fat lady sings....

Well, going by that you don't like victory points at all, in any game? If there was a game about Stalingrad you can assume that the Axis would get some points for holding onto it for a certain length of time, meaning 'you win'. Whether they would then win the whole war is immaterial, really.

I'm not too bothered anyway, its not about the winning, but the journey. Besides, when it's a bunch of discrete campaigns, you can win or lose each in turn. I'm not worried about the Big Picture, myself. I'm sure Japan can win or at least draw individual campaigns even in the late war.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The only "magic number" is the one on the scoreboard when the fat lady sings....

So it's autovictory to whichever side is ahead the first time Kate Smith does a USO show?

I agree if Japan can win a war of attrition this needs to be fixed.    Japan could only hope to inflict enough damage so that the allies would sue for peace on favorable terms.  A lot of research went into AE and it shows, but the same level of research should have went into Japanese production.  I am only talking AI here however.  If you want to be Japan and produce more than Japan did historically that's great.  If you play vs. the AI as Japan you can win easily as you are totally unrestrained by history except for shipping.  As the allies however it is much more difficult as you are restrained by history but the AI player is not and the first thing it does is out produce the allies.  As has been pointed out the AI cheats, so I'm sure if the AI player is running low of oil it will just give it self some oil to keep presenting a challenge to the player.  I my self have seen that Japanese factories expand either with no damage or it's industry is instantly repaired with no supply cost.  I've seen Japanese AI increase factories 250 points in multiple factories and in mid January all factories are fully repaired and running full out producing aircraft.  A lot of very good things were done to make AE more accurate but the AI seems to ignore all these rules.  I can understand the AI not using the new repair routine but ignoring something as important as prep points and loading limits?  A lot was done with the AI to make it more aggressive and it works great, but it should also abide by the same rules as the player if it's possable to program the AI to use the rule or at least simulate the rule.

Auto victory is the only way japan could win.  This simulates all the intangibles in the war.  This to me simulates things like national morale, impact of excessive losses, national will to fight.  All those things not represented in the game yet that are vital to winning a war.  If Japan must occupy Washington D.C. to win as it would have historically Japan CANT win.  Japan seizing a bunch of islands in the pacific and then screaming the war is over would not have ended the war any more than Germany seizing a bunch of western Russia and screaming the war is over would have halted the Russians. 

ORIGINAL: jomni
But one thing that I fear is that playing Japanese with historical production is not winnable.

No one is really arguing that they reduce Japanese production. Only that they give the allies their historical capabilities. As it stands now the ONLY side that attrition war favors is Japan, and that flies in the face of history.

Jim

Can these restrictions be dialed up or are they hard coded?

I like to play with an eye on history I haven't got that far yet because I enjoy micromanging everything , if true some of these aircraft restrictions look to be a huge turnoff and I doubt gameplay would be fun if come '43 the allies have trouble filling out their fleet carrier airgoups especially if the japanese opponent is exploiting the training system.  People can argue the raw data all they like but make no mistake if carriers were sitting in port short of airframes the aircraft wouldn't be headed to Europe to sit on an airfield. I believe the numbers are skewed anyway because the USN was short of fleet carriers come fall of '42 so reality says it wasn't much need for carrier aircraft in comparison to game play when the allied player may have all or most of his carriers.

Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.

 So what you want is Japan in a better position and the US in a worst position? Isn't it what we have already?
For all its empire, Japan was a small country, its industrial capacity was lower than France's. If you want a challenge (i.e a game) you must help her in a significant way.

ORIGINAL: Hokum
For all its empire, Japan was a small country, its industrial capacity was lower than France's. If you want a challenge (i.e a game) you must help her in a significant way.

This is a game where history is agonised over, where killratios and surface engagements and every last xAP has been lovingly worked on and considered and matched up to history.

Allied aircraft production is supposedly as close to the real world figures as could be obtained. Air combat is supposedly as close to the real world as a game can manage.

...and yet Japanese aircraft production figures are orders of magnitude out in some cases.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


[
Allied aircraft production is supposedly as close to the real world figures as could be obtained. Air combat is supposedly as close to the real world as a game can manage.

...and yet Japanese aircraft production figures are orders of magnitude out in some cases.

Actually I disagree. I take the other side of that.

Boosting AI Japanese A/C production for play balance I could see. it's the Allied A/C prodcution rates that are silly. As I said, it would take 11 years at this rate to produce the numbers of F4Fs produced.

When I have looked at some of the production numbers for A/C primarily used in the pacific theater (f4f and others) allied production seems to be around 50% off.  As Beezle pointed out it would take 11 years for the player to produce the number of f4f's produced in real life where the Japanese AI produces more betties in one year than were produced in the entire war. I for one would like to see the Japanese AI restricted to what Japan produced historically if I'm playing a historical scenario. If I want a What if Scenario, and some time I do, I should pick a different scenario than historic. I don't want both those scenarios the same as they seem to be now. I don't know how difficult the AI programing is but maybe something like if production is at historic levels then don't expand. I haven't played Japan as yet but I always thought Japan should be able to increment factories at less than double amounts as it was WITP.

Make sure you include FM-1 and FM-2 production in that calculation. The production number I see most often for USN F4F-4s is 1169.

I don't have AE handy atm. If someone can find more accurate numbers feel free to modify. Imo a very approximate per month replacement rate for F4F-4 would be 50-60/month.

1169 F4F-4 produced
(36) Essex (1x36)
(84) CVLs (4x21)
(144) Marine squadrons (6x24)

905 available for replacements/12/41-2/43 production run = 60/month

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: jomni
But one thing that I fear is that playing Japanese with historical production is not winnable.

No one is really arguing that they reduce Japanese production. Only that they give the allies their historical capabilities. As it stands now the ONLY side that attrition war favors is Japan, and that flies in the face of history.

Jim

Very well said. This issue needs to be fixed with the patch.

I for one would like to reduce Japanese production IF your playing against the AI and it's production levels are above historical levels.  Again My issues with production isn't with 2 player but rather with the AI production figures.  Another alternative is give me control of the allied economy and I can crank out 300-600 P-40's a month.  Not historic but if the AI completely ignores history why should I forced to abide by it.

The high number (7000+) does include FM models.

so you are saying the F4F-4s (not FM etc) to USN and USMC only total ~1100-1200? And if you remove the F4Fs that show up in units (ie don't come from production pool) that is only ~900. 900/53 = 16 months. Better. What are the dates of F4F-4 production in the game? About 12 months?

What is a long-term sustainable rate of A/C production in AE for the Japanese?

That is an long calculation, anyone figure that out yet, given the HI commitments to merchant, navy, armaments, and certainly engines?

Is this potential significantly lower than in WITP?

Certainly in WITP, the Japanese could produce way beyond the historical capability.

The other factor is pilot training: How sustainable are pilot losses with the new training model?

I think both of these questions should have educated answers before addressing a play balance issue. I am assuming that the AE designers meticulously researched the air production figures, and I trust they put alot of effort into it. It's one thing to change combat routines, which is a "game" issue and not a historical data issue, but it's another to change historical data. Maybe Timtom can weight in on this, because this is certainly a topic with alot of passion around it.

ORIGINAL: Hokum

Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.

So what you want is Japan in a better position and the US in a worst position? Isn't it what we have already? For all its empire, Japan was a small country, its industrial capacity was lower than France's. If you want a challenge (i.e a game) you must help her in a significant way.

Then you shouldn't be able to call it "The War in the Pacific". How about "A Mind Fart in the Andromeda Galaxy"? Or "Pablum for Folks Who Can't Deal with Reality"?

Please understand me. I don't object to the "Tojo has a Wet Dream" scenario included in AE. Players should be able to explore this option if they want. But the rediculous production figures possible in the "Historical" scenarios, coupled with the reduction of Allied capabilities, means that there is no historical scenario at all. That I find objectionable.

As I pointed out before, give the Allies this kind of "production" capability and the Pacific would be overrun with hundreds of F4U's, P-38's, B-24's and B-25's before the end of 1942. Would anyone call this fair or realistic? I wouldn't, and I'm a dyed in the wool AFB. So why are we argueing that it's OK if Japan does it?