Matrix Games Forums

Just curious. Are there still hardcore WITP fans who have not jumped over the AE bandwagon? Or those who have played AE and decided to go back to WITP?

If you are one of these, please tell me why you love WITP so much over the improved AE.

Well i'm only playing WITP because I have 2 current Campaign's going. Other then that i'm going to be glad to switch over, AI is practically a joke in WITP.

I've already dedicated so much time to WITP im not about to jump into something else....and besides my wife would kill me if I bought AE!!!! lol [:-]

ORIGINAL: Bondo16

I've already dedicated so much time to WITP im not about to jump into something else....and besides my wife would kill me if I bought AE!!!! lol [:-]

Oh sure, to scared to say "No" to her when she asks for new pair of shoes. But when it comes to AE? bring out the Noose.

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: Bondo16

I've already dedicated so much time to WITP im not about to jump into something else....and besides my wife would kill me if I bought AE!!!! lol [:-]

Oh sure, to scared to say "No" to her when she asks for new pair of shoes. But when it comes to AE? bring out the Noose.

Omg dont get me started on shoes, until I got married I didn't understand fully how REAL that was!! I mean come on how many is enough!!! [X(] Anyways I still have other games I'd play before buying AE, like Ageod's American Civil War. Plus now that I just started using tracker it makes me spend even more time analyzing, stategising and such.

I'm still with WITP because my ageing wreck of a computer won't run AE[&:]

Ok by the sound of your comments... everyone want to jump into AE once they get an opportunity.

ORIGINAL: jomni

Ok by the sound of your comments... everyone want to jump into AE once they get an opportunity.

For me AE isnt even on the radar...I'm 100% in WITP

Playing Japan, I remain committed to a CHS scen. 157 (Nik Mod) PBEM campaign in WitP. I am getting a lot of enjoyment out of this, so I see no reason to stop playing WitP classic.

I am also engaged in a Guadalcanal scenario PBEM in AE, so I can claim to have had limited exposure to AE as well. Once again I'm playing Japan, and even after making allowances for FOW I believe I have so far come out on top after the major carrier battle that took place in the last turn played. Although you might think that this would make me an ardent enthusiast of AE, I still have strong reservations about involving myself in an AE grand campaign. Why should this be so?

In the first place there still appear to be a number of rough edges to AE. The development team address these with commendable speed as they are identified, but problems still seem to be coming out of the woodwork, and it's unclear to me whether a satisfactory solution to some of them has yet been found. Before I commit a large proportion of my precious free time to a game, I want to be confident that it has attained a stable state such that my decision to proceed can take account of showstopper issues such as the pilot bug was in WitP . I don't feel AE has yet reached that state.

Second, AE is, in relation to WitP, 'much more of the same'. It is an entirely personal take with which many will doubtless disagree, but I think this was a mistake. Two obvious examples of the increased micromanagement burden are the setting of search arcs and aircrew training, now possible down to the level of the individual pilot. Yes, I know that you don't have to manage pilot training on an individual basis, but in a PBEM game the pressure upon you to wring the utmost from your assets makes it difficult to avoid doing so. And then you have to set the search arc for every damn search plane on two oceans - give me a break!

I am not saying that such matters are unimportant. But in reality it wasn't the Naval General Staff in Tokyo that set the disastrous Japanese air search plan at Midway, nor even was it V Adm Nagumo in Akagi's negligible flag plot. No, the search plan was down to Nagumo's air officer, Genda, but in AE you now have to shoulder his tasks as well as those of his immediate superior Nagumo and the NGS. Thus the design of AE takes you further down the path to tactical command decisions on which WitP had already embarked, and, as with WitP, there is no apparent design consistency in the extent to which you are permitted to interfere in such tactical decision-making. For example, you get detailed control over the altitude at which your aircraft engage, but no control whatsoever over the conduct of, say, a surface action - e.g. ship formation, evade or close, torpedo launch range, etc. Why is it that considerations such as aircraft altitude should be treated as being so much more important than the tactical formation adopted by your surface action group that you can control one but not the other?

I've long thought that the WitP design can be criticised for putting under player control an arbitrarily selected range of tactical decisions in what should have been exclusively a strategic/operational level wargame. It is a shortcoming that has been exacerbated in AE. The ability to re-assign Sakai Saburo from the Tainan Ku to some training outfit in Japan as an instructor may be a control freak's delight, but it's a poor substitute for the ability to devise and implement an effective pilot training organisation for Japan and assign to it an appropriate proportion of the national defence budget. In this respect AE compounds shortcomings in WitP's design and in the process obliges me to spend a disproportionate amount of time managing details that should be the responsibility of the staff rather than the commander in chief.

The dedication and sheer effort of a group of WitP enthusiasts in bringing its AE incarnation to market is magnificent, but do not entitle them to uncritical approval of their product. WitP was a flawed masterpiece from which I have got much pleasure whilst being aware of its shortcomings. In order to do justice to an AE game I anticipate having to spend a great deal more time dealing with similar minutiae to those for which I think its predecessor can be criticised. As a result, I fear it becomes more of a test of my capacity to absorb and manage detail than my ability to devise and implement sound economic and military strategies. And, frankly, I want a game that tests me as a strategist rather than as a micro-manager. Consequently I remain ambivalent about AE.

(very well said Lokal Yokel).

I'm committed to finishing my CHS 156 vs. Bilbow as far WitP goes (we're in about June 44). I also have an old flogging vs. Erstad (late 43) that, if he wishes to continue/complete I will offer (I had to suspend the game, because I only had time for one game).

I have already bought AE, and played the AI in a few scenarios, but nothing serious. Frankly, I'm monitoring the boards and watching the patches to see things tweaked or mods available, before jumping into a full campaign PBEM (because I don't want to have to restart to fix some OB issue).

I expect I'll be in WitP for the next 6 months or so, maybe longer.

-F-

Precisely.  Witp AE has so many little things that I don't care about.

BTW, how "lacking" is the AI in vanilla Witp?
I'm quite impressed with AE's AI. That's because the AI handles one unified theater (no more delegation possible) unlike in WitP where they are divided into smaller sectors with the benefit of delegation.

It's been a while since I've played the AI in WitP but...

Play it on "hard" level. At first it's a little frustrating for you, because the primary help for the AI is that it ignores supply considerations. So there's no such thing as bombing the crap out of a base until they're eating roots, and THEN invading. If there's a division on Tarawa (doubtful), that division will always be in full supply). However, this "advantage" for the AI is actually very important for its longevity, esp because it has so many other shortcomings.

Also, play a "reasonably" historic game. Don't over-fortify the heck out of Singaport/Manilla/Rabaul/Port Moresby. The AI will try to follow basically a historical script. If you stick a division on Rabaul, it will only commit piecemail to the attack, and will never succeed in capturing (meanwhile, impaling itself on a fruitless effort). Pretty much leave the at-start units where they are, and play a "reasonably based historical offensive" time-table (as in, look to defensive thru June/July 42; then some *modest* offensives thru Dec 42, then escalation in 43, etc.).

I actually wish the "hard" setting would allow the AI to exempt fuel and sorty/ammo issues as well (it currently IS constrained by fuel/ammo). I've "found" the AI TFs stuck in the middle of nowhere out of gas. Just letting the AI TFs sail around and blow stuff up would go a long way to prolonging it's usefulness. Whatever.

-F-

I switched to WitP last year after spending a couple of years enjoying UV. The features available in WitP plus the expanded theater of war compelled me into the purchase. Plus at one point, I thought you would need the original WitP in order to add AE, which was in development at the time. (That's what I remember, not sure, but it was released as a stand alone game.)

That said, I have a campaign against the AI which I plan to conclude before I would consider moving to AE. For the most part, I think I would enjoy the extra control available in AE, even though Local's assessment of the tactical inequalities is valid.

I also agree with Local about waiting a sufficient time for the patches to correct the problems that are SLOWLY being uncovered as current games inch along toward completion. This more than anything would cause me to stay with the original before getting AE.

Like Bondo, I too would like to try one of the ACW games, probably War Between the States, prior to learning the nuances of AE. Has anyone played WBtS enough to tell me if it has the same strategic-level control we enjoy in WitP?

Still playing 2 long campaigns (one Japanese, one Allied) in WitP. These are my second long campaigns for each side, with a more aggressive approach in each following lessons learned the first time around.

When the current campaigns are finished (maybe 6 months) I would like to try the Russian short campaign again, and play some War Plan Orange and other titles.

I considered AE for a long time, but decided to give it a miss. The original WitP has more than enough micromanagement for me, and a lot of the "improvements" like 40-mile hexes just seem to add more complexity. The number of messages about AI cheating have also discouraged me from buying AE.

I love the avatar Mobeer, but as a long-time volunteer at the North Carolina Zoo, I've only seen zebras pull a wheely on ATVs, never on motorcycles.

Interesting points.

As for me, I've already gone deep into AE and enjoyed it but got quite tired of the details. I like a fair bit of micromanagement but AE is maybe a bit too much. No long experience with WitP though so no point of comparison except for forum members. That's why I started this thread.

Having both of the games, I think I will try and run two consecutive games of WitP and WitP AE and see what I prefer. Nothing to lose except time.

Keep the opinions coming. [:D]

Really jomni, you like micromanagement but you find AE to be too much? That desn't sound promising. Could you elaborate on the specifics that tire you?

Too many conditions for repair / resupply
search arcs
pilot training
Japanese economy
partisan activity
etc.

Dunno.  Clearly the level of micromanagement is AE is a notch above WitP.
But I know WitP is still a monster.  If the difference is just small then I think AE is the way to go.
But I don't know for sure until I've immersed myself in WitP for a while.

i got a game running on my desktop(AE).
but on my laptop i still play witp.

-F-