Matrix Games Forums

Two points I feel to make as I started to experience how the game is vs the AI playing both ends.

Chinese production seems very abundant, and their troop quality is the same as the Japanese.
I've not reached that far in the game but I can see a lingering problem there where the Chinese will turn into a mighty beast over time unless Japans go for them.
Given that is with the US lend lease. This is a first impression and may be wrong over time but in general math by itself is not an opinion.

The 2nd point is more about 'feel' of the game. The Chinese fighters - and soon enough into the game the US too reach lvl 2 in Fighter technology.
I understand the Chinese business to an extent which is meant to be limited to 1 unit; unless one plays with 'soft' limits, then I'd churn soon enough a 2nd fighter unit (which benefit of some supreme 8 skill HQ!).
But the US had Wildcats / P40s at the start (roughly inferior to Zeros and Oscars); go to Hellcat later (roughly matching / slightly superior to the Jap counterparts of then)... to have in early '42 the Japs already outgunned in air technology seems iffy.
Not to mention the Brits which start with Air Tech 1 - in a sector where their air units were receiving 2nd tier type of flying machines for a long while.
I'd feel it'd be more suited to have UK and US starting at Fighter Tech 0 (and US gets up to 1 soon, instead of getting up to 2).

AlbertN wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2024 11:34 am Chinese production seems very abundant, and their troop quality is the same as the Japanese. I've not reached that far in the game but I can see a lingering problem there where the Chinese will turn into a mighty beast over time unless Japans go for them. Given that is with the US lend lease. This is a first impression and may be wrong over time but in general math by itself is not an opinion.

I'd have to concur with this at least against the Japanese AI. By 1945 with careful and conservative Chinese play I've managed to squeeze Japan's fast dwindling army back to the Manchurian border with a mighty host.

The Chinese Communists in particular seem to punch above their weight as a guerilla army. Mao's historical policy was "the more land Japan takes, the better." I realize those kinds of cynical politics are hard to simulate in a game but they probably shouldn't be too cooperative with the Nationist goals.

Hellcats and Corsairs were clearly superior to outright dominate to the Japanese fighters, not 'roughly matching/slightly superior'.

Taxman66 wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:01 pm Hellcats and Corsairs were clearly superior to outright dominate to the Japanese fighters, not 'roughly matching/slightly superior'.

The Corsair certainly.
I may argue on the Hellcat but I am not here for the micro detail, considering the scope and purpose of the game.
Planes that anyhow made it in late '43 to 'the map'.

It's the early stages / starting era that sees already aerial parity or Japanese inferiority.

___

On the China note, glad that I am not the only one experiencing the idea of a too strong China.

AlbertN wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:16 pm On the China note, glad that I am not the only one experiencing the idea of a too strong China.

I was thinking it might not be a bad idea as in War in the Pacific to have some Chinese resource sites start the campaign game damaged at low strength. Prior to December 1941, heavy and often unopposed Japanese bombing attacks on Chungking, Kunming, and other major towns had really set back the Chinese industrial base.

AlbertN wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:16 pm

Taxman66 wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:01 pm Hellcats and Corsairs were clearly superior to outright dominate to the Japanese fighters, not 'roughly matching/slightly superior'.

The Corsair certainly.
I may argue on the Hellcat but I am not here for the micro detail, considering the scope and purpose of the game.
Planes that anyhow made it in late '43 to 'the map'.

It's the early stages / starting era that sees already aerial parity or Japanese inferiority.

___

On the China note, glad that I am not the only one experiencing the idea of a too strong China.

Hellcat had a 19:1 kill ratio
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 20fighters.

This is about to get interesting...

Feinder wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:07 pm This is about to get interesting...

I do not believe there is much of interest.

My point is about '41 starting situation and about gameplay.
Someone else has an interest in speaking of which airframe is better, which is not why I've made the thread.

It is natural, as part of the thread, that by the late years - assuming the US superior production - that US technology will surpass Japanese.

But Strategic Command is not a game where individual planes or even aces are monitored.
Units have experience, a single tier of 'Doctrine' - that represent the average pilot quality and training in the end of the day for a given unit; and tech level which determines which type of planes a unit can have.

I'll keep to technicalities of the game; I believe Japan should start with an advantage.
Intel tech should help US catch up as they can (supposedly) invest more in technology, which means they can pursue both Fighter tech and Spying&Intel Tech.
Simply that should mirror the natural recouping and gradual distancing that happened - or at least that's how I envision it.
Last is obviously player decisions; since to invest in a technology, and when, is entirely down to the player volition and their power economics.

People can argue as much as they want about individual fighter stat models, if they were piloted by aces, monkeys and thus were flying targets.

Said that, point was made - I hope the message reaches the right ears.