Matrix Games Forums

A little surprised to activity still in here, especially when there are all the games by 2by3 games(WitP, AE, UV).I figured all you guys would have moved on to War in the Pacific or something like that.But it's nice to see that even old games still have life in them.[:)]

well I have the all the games you mention.

But the taste of Pacific War never gets sour.

And if you play PAC WAR. eventually you appreciate Witp AE much more.

Regards

And you can't beat the price! [:D]

Who says cheap is the worse. currently the simple game but it really hurts when you lose a CV. [:@]

One advantage is that a turn can be done in 1/2h.

Witp is wonderful if you love mine warfare [8|]

Seriously, I have tried to learn and play Witp, and I admire those who have conducted the games described in the forums. I just have not been able to love it. I ran the Guadalcanal campaign and found it plenty of additional work, but not a lot of additional fun. There is a trade-off between detail and playability. I guess those of us hanging out here like the playability of Pacwar.

Sounds like AE reduced mine warfare by a significant margin.   Thank goodness, since I just bought it - how could I turn down that $20 discount [:D]

I'm playing! [/align] I got War in the Pacific admirials edition and can't do anything with it. [/align] [/align]I played this in the 90's as the Japs up to the series of A bomb attacks! [/align] [/align]Is it possible to ever win this game as the Japanese?[/align]

It depends how you define "win".  Usually that means lasting longer than Japan did historically - which is "possible" ...

Is it possible to ever win this game as the Japanese?

It used to be possible because of the Kill Point Multiplier. But in the latest version, the KPM doesn't start until 1945, and doesn't reach the 2.0 X level until 1946. A very poor decision, IMHO.

I define win as being able to hang onto Fiji, New Caladonia and American Samoia into 1946. Wish there was a easier way to move planes around.

I have started plaing this game.
I can't stand WitP's level of detail and micro management in a Grand Campaign Setting.
But for PacWar, the level of detail is just right.
Just have to live with the quirky AI of old Gary Grigsby games.
I also recommend Gary Grigsby's Carrier Strike for some detailed carrier action.

Hi jommi,
the AI is lousy but human opponents are not! [;)]

I still play this occasionally and enjoy it

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I still play this occasionally and enjoy it

I bet you find it allows you to play incognito and away from all the turmoil currently going on the WITP:AE forum regarding simultaneous/CAP flak.[:D]

Alfred

ORIGINAL: guctony

Who says cheap is the worse. currently the simple game but it really hurts when you lose a CV. [:@]

I got the SSI version as a Christmas gift circa 1997 in the 20 Classic Wargames collection. So I'm free all the way around.

Before that, paid $10 for Grigsby's Carrier Strike. Between those two games, the best leisure time value I've ever encountered.

And you can't beat the price!

Oh, yes.

Wish I could have somehow saved the surface battle where I managed to catch an IJN CV task force with a few of the "Pearl Harbor survivor BBs" and a mess of cruisers... damn, do those 16" guns ruin a flight deck in a hurry.

Silly AI.

Forget AI only human enemies count [:D]

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Forget AI only human enemies count [:D]

I agree. A first time PBEMer commented to me that he decided AI was only useful for learnign the mechanics of the game.

Running some test games of my new scnerio I've discovered such things as

1) Combined Fleet grabs all the TKs and kills the oil supplyl.

2) Combined Fleet will send multiple replenismnet TFs along with the carriers, sometimes with as many as 15 TKs.

3) Combined Fleet hogs the MCS at its HQ base.

4) IJ AI can't optimize the airgroup selection at a base, typically doint things like including aircraft that don't have enough range to reach any targets.

5) Matrix recommends all scenarios be played with Max Help for AI. Maybe taking out what they called AI "cheats" was a bad idea.

6) AI places subs not much better than randomly.

7) AI converts airgroups as long as there are enough aircraft in the pool to do it, enough in the pool to cover losses being irrelevant.

9) IJ AI refuses to retain A6M2s meaning late int he game G3Ms/G4Ms often fly without escort fighters.

10) If IJ player has air coverning a normal ship route, Allied AI will not route around it, continuing to do things like sending combat ships to Australia past islands with strong air where they can be easily sunk.

11) Mid game, if Allied player holds Port Moresby, IJ AI will destroy the IJN trying to take it.

12) AI can have thousands of usable aircraft in the pool but will let airgroups atrophy because of a shortage of the most modern aircraft.

In summary, learn the mechanics in a couple of AI games, then find a human opponent. Perferably one who has only placed a few PBEM games. But not none. Then when you think you're good, arrange a game with Zeke99 for a big surprise. <G>

11) Mid game, if Allied player holds Port Moresby, IJ AI will destroy the IJN trying to take it.

Interesting: that hasn't been my experience, and I've managed to hold Port Moresby for at least the last three games I played against Japanese AI. I did note one thing: Once I managed to put enough troops on Timor to hold it. (The Dutch division eventually went to an exp. of 90 from the repeated ground combat.) The AI continually ran in light SCTF's, but never committed more than one or two heavy cruisers. Most of the time it was CL's only, which were merrily dealt with by Boise, Houston, and the Dutch cruisers.