AI to easy.

[Sid]

Actually, the AI is too aggressive, and predictable, and so easy to beat.

I am a long term student of the IJN and a sailor of the Pacific. I don't need the databases - I have memorized the details of the planes and ships involved. I seek opponants for email campaign games - either side.

I have developed an "optimum" Allied strategy I want to test. Anyone think the Japanese "have to" win in this game (where they get too many ships too early)?

I love to play the Japanese. If anyone is really confident, they can try to stop me. This is really not fair - the game gives Japan too many ships - but if you are really a great Allied player, give it a go.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

"If anyone is really confident, they can try to stop me."

Don't get too cocky just from beating the ai heh.

[Sid]

In 1942 Japan has the best warships in the world. Giving the player virtually all of them, and more than ever entered the South Pacific, while not allowing the Allies either comparable forces nor enough merchant shipping, is an awful handicap. In the hands of a good player, Japan must win the campaign. This is not related to being cocky. Japan also has a significant range advantage on its naval aircraft. The AI allows Japanese submarines to engage targets they would not shoot at with subs, and does not limit them in the number of fish fired. [For example, a tanker rates only a single torpedo!] So the game really stacks the deck for the Japanese. On top of that, I am a long term student of the IJN, so in my hands, giving me almost all the fleet is a very dangerous thing. And I do play human players in Seattle. Just hope to find more on the net.

[MatrixFan]

Wow are you ever full of yourself kinda sick how much you think of yourself. As far as the ships go maybe read the next time and chose the battle after midway so its histrorical but i guess thats to hard for most people.

BTW Jap sub doctrine is there for a reason but IMHO somebody realy needs to teach you a lesson.

[Sid]

It appears you do not grasp the meaning of English language constructions. It never occurs to you that I might actually be making relatively objective statements. In this brief forum I have greatly simplified and understated the case. But go ahead - assume you are right: teach me a lesson. Give me your address and I will send you a Japanese first move (required by UV).

I am an old man. As a YOUNG man, more than 30 years ago, I was able to go on any warship, of any nation, in any port, and discuss the history of every ship in history with the same name. More tha 20 years ago, I was working on a computer at a remote Navy base, when FLASH traffic requested identification of two Lybian frigates which were on fire after an encounter in the Gulf of Sidra. "I can identify them" I said. "By the radar antennas above the smoke." The CO wanted to know if I could verify my identification. "I have a prepublication copy of Combat Fleets of the World in my room which I am proofreading" I replied. "Let me get this strait. You have a book that is not yet published. But you don't need it - you have it all in your head?" "I guess so." This is not ego - it is a simple fact of life. I live in a library and I don't spend my time watching television. I developed the first sucessful missile defense system to work in combat, in an age before modern computers, when many things had to be done in your head. I find strategic campaigns the most challenging - because you must decide with many unknowns long ahead of time - tactical being much easier. I learned that simulations and research are useful both operationally and for analysis. They develop your mind. Do anything for 40 years and you might get fairly proficient at it yourself. It may not imply one is brilliant - just practiced.