"Tojo Edition"

[Erik Rutins]

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx? ... 63&mpage=1

Well, opinions vary and I've seen much the same discussion here. For the record, I disagree. I was part of the development team and I know that there was absolutely no attempt to balance this in favor of the Japanese. I'm posting this here in the hopes that some of you who have played WITP AE can post _civil, polite_ responses to the original poster to try to convince him to take a second look. Please do not look at this as any kind of call to arms, I'd just like him to hear from more WITP players with whatever your opinion may be, since he doesn't seem to want to post here. I respect that he had a negative experience, but I think he's jumped to the wrong conclusion here.

Regards,

- Erik

[Rob Brennan UK]

Been burned in china i would guess and then throws toys out of pram ! we have enough insta-reacion folks here to recognise a single issue poster who is blinkered too much.

There are some good followup comments there though so its not all AE bashing going on. In fact its rather reminicient of a certain forum i know well [;)]

[jwilkerson]

Yeah certainly there are at least as many that hold the opposite position - that AE = "Allied Edition" - if you're really getting yelled at by both sides of an issue - then you know you got it right - and you're "in the middle"! [:)]

[khyberbill]

Erik,
I very much disagree with the gent about buying the game and said so on the Wargaming forum. Buying AE is money well spent. That being said he does have a point about the Kwangtung Army. From reading the AAR's most games now have HR regarding bombardments etc either globally or in China. I personally don't know yet if the changes in Patch 2 will have an effect on the game play in China but I do intend to have HR in place for China. I like the idea of not buying out any Kwangtung Army units unless enough are bought out to activate Russia-at least in 1942.

[anarchyintheuk]

The title to the thread actually made me laugh. Nothing particularly new about the criticisms. I did like the shot about criticism being smothered tho. My feelings are officially hurt.

[Shark7]

Isn't it funny though, as a JFB myself, I tend to see it as the MacArthur Edition... [:D]

Point of view is everything. [;)]

[Terminus]

Preconceived notion is everything. We've said it a billion times, and it won't matter if we say it ten billion more: AE is not biased towards either side.

[Nemo121]

Over-arching point... I think it is interesting that much of the commentary is about whether he is right or wrong, a binary reaction if you will, as opposed to being more nuanced and looking at each aspect of his posts and taking what is useful within them.

I'd also point out that once you label someone else as having "preconceived notions" that's the first step to mentally ignoring everything they say even if some of what they has worth. Sure he might have preconceived notions but if the dev team dismisses his input out of hand then they've just messed up as badly as he has ( and he has ).


The reality is that:

1. There are some questionable judgement calls but they tend to cut both ways from what I've seen... Also questionable judgement calls are a part of any game design. When something's pretty much a 50/50 call then you'll always end up on the wrong side of a few of those calls. ( Or at least be perceived to be on the wrong side ).


2. His idea about de-linking AV from Soviet activation isn't half bad. I think, though, that linking it to load cost isn't the right way to go as the load cost for a squadron of 30 planes is paltry --- possibly 1,000th of the cost of a division.

However what about linking it to political cost? In that way you achieve the following:
a) no longer can the Japanese player remove artillery, AAA etc with impunity.

b) currently linking it with AV undervalues engineer units which are highly valuable in-game but typically have low AV values. Their political cost is much more in keeping with their utility - not perfect but a much better measure than a pure AV measure. Currently Manchuria pretty much ends up denuded of AAA, arty and engineers, all of which are hugely useful elsewhere but are pretty much "free" at present due to their low AV cost.

c) It would make planes appropriately expensive to move. If you move planes out you would pay the political cost  "number of planes x 4 " such that moving a few squadrons out would have as much impact as moving an entire division - which seems reasonable to me.



The AFB/JFB stuff is pointless but his idea of decoupling from AV has merit. His suggestion of coupling it to load cost doesn't work out in reality due to disparities in load costs between naval and air units but the overall concept has merit if a more equitable basis for determing "value" not based on AV or load cost can be found.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx? ... 63&mpage=1

Well, opinions vary and I've seen much the same discussion here. For the record, I disagree. I was part of the development team and I know that there was absolutely no attempt to balance this in favor of the Japanese. I'm posting this here in the hopes that some of you who have played WITP AE can post _civil, polite_ responses to the original poster to try to convince him to take a second look. Please do not look at this as any kind of call to arms, I'd just like him to hear from more WITP players with whatever your opinion may be, since he doesn't seem to want to post here. I respect that he had a negative experience, but I think he's jumped to the wrong conclusion here.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

I'm not registered to the OP forum that you cite. Would you like it if I did register in order to post said civil discourse? If it helps you guys out, it's the least I can do.

[sven6345789]

Question i have is has anyone seen a pbem in which every chinese city has been conquered?
I havn't up to now and i doubt i will.
Where the japanese historically capable of pushing the front beyond of what they had already taken in 1941?
I would say yes if the wanted to. But they didn't want to. In 1944 the wanted to and where capable of crushing the kuomintang in the south. They couldn't control the whole territory, true, but they concentrated on major cities and roads anyhow, even in the territories they had occupied since 1937.
If players start an aggressive campaign in china they can crush the Kuomintang. No problem to it. But there ain't no such thing as a peace treaty.
Question is further how much supply china sucks up when on offensive operations. It doesn't seem to be little from what i have read here, so the economic balance might just be a negative one over the long run. The supply spend in China might be supply the japanese player will be missing in 1944.
regarding freeing japanese divisions to fight elsewhere, well, the garrison requirements have risen for both sides, meaning that keeping the population quiet will be expensive for the japanese. And even if you get more Divisions out, will they help you (in Rabaul, over 100000 japanese were stuck when the war ended without affecting the outcome of the war)?
Ground forces are important, but navy and air is more important. And in these parts, the US player will get more than he can deploy in 1944. The Japanese will be outproduced. The Japanese players will probably get more out of their production than the japanese did historically, using hindsight. But i doubt that the japanese can outproduce or outtrain the allies.
Both sides have one advantage. Players have a unified command. No IJN/IJA Army thing. no Nimitz/MacArthur/King Thing. No ABDA thing. ONE supreme commander. means a lot.
I consider the gane well balanced from what i have seen in the AARs.

[anarchyintheuk]

Haven't and probably won't play an ae pbem game for a while, if ever; but imo hrs are preferable than recoding something without a consensus, even if the end result is more realistic. At the least I'd like to see how the new patch changes things with respect to the arty units.

[moonraker65]

Well I've no complaints. I usually play as the Allies vs Jap AI and it's all about planning I think. As far as a simulation (Game is a bit harsh IMO) there really is nothing better out there that the covers the PTO.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx? ... 63&mpage=1

Well, opinions vary and I've seen much the same discussion here. For the record, I disagree. I was part of the development team and I know that there was absolutely no attempt to balance this in favor of the Japanese. I'm posting this here in the hopes that some of you who have played WITP AE can post _civil, polite_ responses to the original poster to try to convince him to take a second look. Please do not look at this as any kind of call to arms, I'd just like him to hear from more WITP players with whatever your opinion may be, since he doesn't seem to want to post here. I respect that he had a negative experience, but I think he's jumped to the wrong conclusion here.

Regards,

- Erik

Everything he posted was accurate - at least up to the latest patch.

But I can understand why you dislike the thread title.

[Canoerebel]

AE is a massive and incredbily complex undertaking that is in the process of producing the most wonderful game any WWII buff could ever imagine.  As I've stated before, this may be the only game I play for the remainder of my years.  Since I'm 48, I hope that will be a long time.  An exaggeration?  Well, UV/WitP/AE are the only games I've played since 2002 and feel like I'm just getting started.

At this point, however, it is clear that the game has some major issues that affect game balance.  We are fortunate that the developers are (1) players devoted to the game; (2) conscientious; (3) talented; and (4) demonstrate a love of quality and pride in workmanship.  These problems are being addressed, but it takes time.

I haven't had Patch Two installed long enough to know if the biggest kinks through Patch One have been addressed, but I had four major concerns after playing into October '42 in a PBEM match:

1) The China model was clearly broken.  The Japanese player could destroy China at his will, absent mercy or major house rules.  He could accomplish this by strategic bombing and bringing artillery death stars into the theater.  There is (was, if Patch Two happened to fix this?) no way that the Allies could counter this strategy.

2)  Artillery Death Stars.  Artillery is hyper in the game, reducing armies to jelly and negating fortifications.  This problem will eventually be visited on the Japanese, but at the start of the game it's a one-sided problem for the Allies.  Hence Manila, Bataan, and Singapore are easily taken and, as noted above, China is toast.

3)  Wimpy Fortifications.  Fortifications are no good.  Chinese troops behind as much as eight forts are decimated by enemy artillery fire.  Even after installing Patch Two I've taken more than 1,000 casualties a day from bombardment in a hex that has eight forts.  Given the squads destroyed, the enemy can inflict more losses in that one hex than the Allied player can replace.  [Perhaps there are modifications that will limit the Japanese player's ability to bombard every turn, but I haven't gone far enough to see it yet].

4)  Sub War on Steroids:  In my PBEM game, the Japanese player has consistently operated his subs in and adjacent to the biggest Allied bases (Pearl, San Francisco, Noumea, Sydney, etc.) with near impunity.  The presence of dedicated ASW and air-ASW patrols have been ineffective.  At first the Allies scored some ASW success, but over the past four months ASW prosecutions have been virtually nil while Japanese subs have managed to sink nearly a dozen ASW craft - mainly AMs and DDs with a KV thrown in for good measure.  That these sinkings occur in or adjacent to basews with ASW patrols is a-historical.  Subs should have success against juicy transport TFs (and their escorts) on the high seas, but rarely in or adjacent to big bases that have major ASW activity.  One time, a Japanese sub even surfaced at Luganville during the daytime and torpedoed a docked AKL loading supplies...while an ASW TF and ASW aircraft didn't do a thing.

I know these and other problems are being addressed, so I have great expectations for AE and hold the creators in the highest regard.

[JWE]

It seems that wargame bashing is a favorite activity of wargamers. Unfortunate, but probably unavoidable.

Speaking as a developer, all of the game aspects, that I have been involved with, are completely uniform, as to side. There are a very few, very focused, exceptions (i.e., long lances and radar) that have specific annual changes, but that’s about it. I have worked with Erik, Joe, Don, Ian, Andy, Kristian, Thomas, …, they all feel the same way.

We have always approached this project in terms of operational research – what works for Bill, must also work for Beavis. This has been successful to the extent that the basic AE game system is used by several notional units at Camp Pendleton for CP eXercises. Indeed, many USMC personnel were instrumental in defining concept and testing results, during the development process. These people are not fanbois, they are professionals.

Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests. But understand there’s nothing to justify

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yeah certainly there are at least as many that hold the opposite position - that AE = "Allied Edition" - if you're really getting yelled at by both sides of an issue - then you know you got it right - and you're "in the middle"! [:)]

Not necessarily.

I don't much care if I'll be able to retake the Pacific in '43 quicker than was done historically. It doesn't change the fact that the Japs can take Singapore, Burma & the PI well ahead of schedule - PLUS invade the South & Central Pac in unprecedented ways. In fact I don't want an easier time of it when it's my turn. I want a realistic conflict from start to finish. Otherwise I can't get past "start".

The single biggest problem with the game IMO, which was equally true with the original, is that Japanese Army units are overpowered. Sure they did OK against mediocre (and worse) opponents. Against modern & semi-coordinated opposition what they did best was get killed.

I appreciate all your efforts in trying to polish the original and eventually I'll give AE another try but it stopped being fun for me much too quickly. For now I'll play COD Modern Warfare 2 where I can see guys running around at warp speed knifing people that are firing at them with automatic weapons.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: JWE


Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests. But understand there’s nothing to justify

He was polite and accurate in his criticisms.

It's "jerkpimples" like you, Terminus & Mynok that make this forum for Fanbois Only.

[Rob Brennan UK]

2. His idea about de-linking AV from Soviet activation isn't half bad. I think, though, that linking it to load cost isn't the right way to go as the load cost for a squadron of 30 planes is paltry --- possibly 1,000th of the cost of a division.

However what about linking it to political cost? In that way you achieve the following:
a) no longer can the Japanese player remove artillery, AAA etc with impunity.

b) currently linking it with AV undervalues engineer units which are highly valuable in-game but typically have low AV values. Their political cost is much more in keeping with their utility - not perfect but a much better measure than a pure AV measure. Currently Manchuria pretty much ends up denuded of AAA, arty and engineers, all of which are hugely useful elsewhere but are pretty much "free" at present due to their low AV cost.

c) It would make planes appropriately expensive to move. If you move planes out you would pay the political cost "number of planes x 4 " such that moving a few squadrons out would have as much impact as moving an entire division - which seems reasonable to me.

Good point , admittedly i did post knee jerk before i read the entire thread. and he wasn't half as opionated as i thought he would be in later replies. In actual fact he does have a point about Manchuria garrisons.

However when playing the AI i havn't noticed any massive reinforcement of China by the AI so I'll assume its an artifact of PBEM. Many if not most PBEM games are now limiting Manchirian movements by house rules so is a code change needed ? This 'issue' may well just go away on its own. WitP had many and varied house rules depending on players opinions and pre-concieved notions of what-ifs that may have been possible. So long as PBEM players find like minded opponents then i dont see any need to do a huge code change. One example would be a 'lunacy' game, popular in WitP and in current AE quite do-able too. Changing the rules on garrison levels would remove this option as a game type. Personally the more ways a game can be played is a good thing as it's naturally a more inclusive product allowing for a larger player base.

so in conclusion, Can the Manchiria garrison be better represented by changing the relative 'weight' of units ? resounding yes. Should it be implemented though ? i'm in the no camp here, not because i feel any great need to chush china, but because the option should be open to players who do.

discuss [;)]

[Andy Mac]

I guess all I can say on this one is yes we did look at other ways of managing soviet activation but it didnt make the cut - in fact we looked at it several times but always something more important was on the list.

The starting presumption then as now is these units are RESTRICTED we said pre releasem, during release, pre patch 1, post patch 1 and I am saying it again now.

If you ignore restricted commands and move either japanese units out of Manchuria or even India Command units out of India you WILL upset the game its quite simple don't do it its an exploit.

Thats why we have PP's if you pay PP's to transfer a unit to or from China thats fine - if you just move them then sorry thats not the design intent, its not what we recommended and its not what you should be doing.

If modders want to change that they can make the units unrestricted OR increase the number of PP's via the editor both are fine for different play styles but the core scenarios are based on the assumption that neither side will game the system by removing surplus forces without paying PP's

Andy

[Nemo121]

Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests.

 
Jerkpimple? Way to foster mature debate.
 
The guy got a bit worked up but he actually made a few points of value. Labelling him as a "jerkpimple" is unnecessary and unprofessional and indicative of a serious case of NIHS ( Not Invented Here Syndrome ).
 
I'm shocked to see you name-call like this JWE as you've normally been extremely gracious and problem/solution-focussed as opposed to getting personal.