Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
.

Not sure where the AFB get the ideas the IJA was a push over , with air support and well supplied they pushed over the Australians in Malaysia ( who did quite well in North Africa against Rommel who in turn gave the US a run for their money) , they also did ok in teh Solomans with pretty bad supplies also with Ichi Go they thrashed China.. Its just historically they chose not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I fear a lot of this criticism comes from people not fully upstanding, or taking the time to get a good grounding in the mechanics of this game. AE is not the game for every wargamer, it is a very complex game to play, and learn to play. It is a big operational level game, representing a big theater of World War Two military operations. Above all I think that it punishes bad generalship, and does this realistically, the hard way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
.

Not sure where the AFB get the ideas the IJA was a push over , with air support and well supplied they pushed over the Australians in Malaysia ( who did quite well in North Africa against Rommel who in turn gave the US a run for their money) , they also did ok in teh Solomans with pretty bad supplies also with Ichi Go they thrashed China.. Its just historically they chose not to.

Go back and read what I wrote.

Did they take Singapore in early January and inflict 10X the casualties that they received? In the Solomons they died in droves.

In this game they can steamroll anything in a couple days and be no worse for wear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
.

Not sure where the AFB get the ideas the IJA was a push over , with air support and well supplied they pushed over the Australians in Malaysia ( who did quite well in North Africa against Rommel who in turn gave the US a run for their money) , they also did ok in teh Solomans with pretty bad supplies also with Ichi Go they thrashed China.. Its just historically they chose not to.

Go back and read what I wrote.

Did they take Singapore in early January and inflict 10X the casualties that they received? In the Solomons they died in droves.

In this game they can steamroll anything in a couple days and be no worse for wear.

Hi mjk428.........

First, I must say that I have loved WitP and even more so AE....I have played them every day since release...........but can understand some frustration with them.....

Some of this I think is because there is no real FOW in the game system....it is both (in some ways) a simulation and also a 'what if 'game......

However the fact that the start is based on an Historical OOB means that a Japanese player will be able to move quicker than in RL....the same is true for an Allied player when it comes time for their offensive.......

The thing is.....if you play the game over the 3-ish war years intended...it sort of evens itself out.....which makes the game fun.....the Allies suffer early....the Japanese....from late '42 on.......which makes it also a simulation......and also a 'what if ' game........

On a wider note....on the issue of this being the 'Tojo Edition'..I'll be intrigued to see how many AE games will end in Japanese victory...if the allied player sticks to the end of the war......I suspect....much like Nimitz....if you hang in and fight it out ......you will win......but we will only know in a few years time when the first AE PBEMs are fought out......

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Hi mjk428.....


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend......

I play only PBEM......and in WitP I have played both sides.........in WitP you could slow the Japanese advance........and have while playing Japanese I have been slowed by Allied gameplay....

I'm only just learning AE's complex gameplay..........so I'm not in a position to offer advice.........perhaps in a years time...when I know the game well.......I could enter into a detailed discussion on the game system...........although I do feel the game has moved on since vanilla WitP.....

Let's see.

quote:

However, when it's because the combat system simply doesn't reward any attempts at delaying the enemy then it's on the combat system. Simply pulling everybody back to India because you can't slow down the Jap advance in Burma becomes the only reasonable strategy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Looking at this logically, you can clearly see the whole "debate" is essentially pointless:

1) The land war in China is an aberration in the overall mechanics of a "War in the Pacific" game. It should be obvious to everyone that the devs spent their time - and rightfully so - in upgrading the coding of the Air-Naval-Amphib portions of the game. And they succeeded spectacularly, IMHO. Seriously. Anybody who compares AE to WitP and says those aspects are now worse is flat-out lying. Elimination of air carnage, island stacking restrictions, and near-real-life loading/unloading times are just a few examples among a host of similar logistics and warfare improvements, all of which put AE light years ahead of its predecessor.

2) And that's important because, as in real life - the fate of China HAS NO STRATEGIC impact on the war. Go ahead and watch as Japan takes the whole thing (which probably isn't even possible, but let's accept the premise for a moment). What does Japan have? Answer: Absolutely nothing that will impede the cross-island onslaught from the USA. The war can only be won by preventing Allied conquest of the critical "island highway" leading straight at Japan. And every Manchurian Air Unit and all the "Artillery Death Stars" in the world won't keep that from happening.

3) So why - one must ask - is the debate focusing on an "over-powered" Japan? Simple. Admiral's Edition takes a long time to play and few of the complainers have played it long enough to see that all the Japanese success in '42 is ephemeral and fleeting. Whether the Allied player is facing the AI or a human, you WILL be taking it on the chops, and you WILL be taking it on the chops for MANY MONTHS of real-time game play! Is that frustrating as hell? You betcha. Which is just one more way in which the devs nailed the "real life" aspect of playing as the Allies in the early part of the war. Just like King and Nimitz and MacArthur, you'll feel angry and PO'd for a very long time. But just like they did, if you are patient and bear the blows and don't surrender (which, after all, was the real-life Japanese "war winning plan"), then you too will see the tide begin it's slow but inexorable turn. And it WILL turn.

People need to understand - and I mean REALLY UNDERSTAND - that the devs had to make hundreds of thousands of things function perfectly here. And the end product of that is a game which mimics the real "War in the Pacific" to an amazing degree. And if there are some aspects which aren't "just so", well, that's what happens when you are building a massively complicated monster like this. What's surprising isn't that some things may be wrong - the REAL miracle is that so much of it is exactly RIGHT!

Besides, if we've learned anything from watching these guys work over the past few years, it's this: If it can be tweaked and improved, they will do it.

WITP-AE, WITE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Looking at this logically, you can clearly see the whole "debate" is essentially pointless:

1) The land war in China is an aberration in the overall mechanics of a "War in the Pacific" game. It should be obvious to everyone that the devs spent their time - and rightfully so - in upgrading the coding of the Air-Naval-Amphib portions of the game. And they succeeded spectacularly, IMHO. Seriously. Anybody who compares AE to WitP and says those aspects are now worse is flat-out lying. Elimination of air carnage, island stacking restrictions, and near-real-life loading/unloading times are just a few examples among a host of similar logistics and warfare improvements, all of which put AE light years ahead of its predecessor.

2) And that's important because, as in real life - the fate of China HAS NO STRATEGIC impact on the war. Go ahead and watch as Japan takes the whole thing (which probably isn't even possible, but let's accept the premise for a moment). What does Japan have? Answer: Absolutely nothing that will impede the cross-island onslaught from the USA. The war can only be won by preventing Allied conquest of the critical "island highway" leading straight at Japan. And every Manchurian Air Unit and all the "Artillery Death Stars" in the world won't keep that from happening.

3) So why - one must ask - is the debate focusing on an "over-powered" Japan? Simple. Admiral's Edition takes a long time to play and few of the complainers have played it long enough to see that all the Japanese success in '42 is ephemeral and fleeting. Whether the Allied player is facing the AI or a human, you WILL be taking it on the chops, and you WILL be taking it on the chops for MANY MONTHS of real-time game play! Is that frustrating as hell? You betcha. Which is just one more way in which the devs nailed the "real life" aspect of playing as the Allies in the early part of the war. Just like King and Nimitz and MacArthur, you'll feel angry and PO'd for a very long time. But just like they did, if you are patient and bear the blows and don't surrender (which, after all, was the real-life Japanese "war winning plan"), then you too will see the tide begin it's slow but inexorable turn. And it WILL turn.

People need to understand - and I mean REALLY UNDERSTAND - that the devs had to make hundreds of thousands of things function perfectly here. And the end product of that is a game which mimics the real "War in the Pacific" to an amazing degree. And if there are some aspects which aren't "just so", well, that's what happens when you are building a massively complicated monster like this. What's surprising isn't that some things may be wrong - the REAL miracle is that so much of it is exactly RIGHT!

Besides, if we've learned anything from watching these guys work over the past few years, it's this: If it can be tweaked and improved, they will do it.

Excellent post !

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I haven't gotten far enough in AE to say anything on this, but in CHS I was able to stop Chez cold at Mandalay. Well.... I stopped him there and kept waiting for him to retry with more troops but he never did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Looking at this logically, you can clearly see the whole "debate" is essentially pointless:

1) The land war in China is an aberration in the overall mechanics of a "War in the Pacific" game. It should be obvious to everyone that the devs spent their time - and rightfully so - in upgrading the coding of the Air-Naval-Amphib portions of the game. And they succeeded spectacularly, IMHO. Seriously. Anybody who compares AE to WitP and says those aspects are now worse is flat-out lying. Elimination of air carnage, island stacking restrictions, and near-real-life loading/unloading times are just a few examples among a host of similar logistics and warfare improvements, all of which put AE light years ahead of its predecessor.

2) And that's important because, as in real life - the fate of China HAS NO STRATEGIC impact on the war. Go ahead and watch as Japan takes the whole thing (which probably isn't even possible, but let's accept the premise for a moment). What does Japan have? Answer: Absolutely nothing that will impede the cross-island onslaught from the USA. The war can only be won by preventing Allied conquest of the critical "island highway" leading straight at Japan. And every Manchurian Air Unit and all the "Artillery Death Stars" in the world won't keep that from happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Looking at this logically, you can clearly see the whole "debate" is essentially pointless:

1) The land war in China is an aberration in the overall mechanics of a "War in the Pacific" game. It should be obvious to everyone that the devs spent their time - and rightfully so - in upgrading the coding of the Air-Naval-Amphib portions of the game. And they succeeded spectacularly, IMHO. Seriously. Anybody who compares AE to WitP and says those aspects are now worse is flat-out lying. Elimination of air carnage, island stacking restrictions, and near-real-life loading/unloading times are just a few examples among a host of similar logistics and warfare improvements, all of which put AE light years ahead of its predecessor.

2) And that's important because, as in real life - the fate of China HAS NO STRATEGIC impact on the war. Go ahead and watch as Japan takes the whole thing (which probably isn't even possible, but let's accept the premise for a moment). What does Japan have? Answer: Absolutely nothing that will impede the cross-island onslaught from the USA. The war can only be won by preventing Allied conquest of the critical "island highway" leading straight at Japan. And every Manchurian Air Unit and all the "Artillery Death Stars" in the world won't keep that from happening.

This is incorrect. China is an important part of the war in AE. Moreover, China's fate could have a devastating impact on the game if the Japanese player is clever, determined, and unconstrained by house rules. We've been through this many times before in other threads, but just for the record:

a) Through the use of strategic bombing and Artillery Death Stars the Japanese can destroy China. The Artillery Death Stars can wipe out any base no matter how many fortifications and no matter how many troops are there. [This is supposed to have been modified by Patch Two, but early results in my PBEM indicate this isn't the case]. Strategic bombing will easily wipe out China's infrastructure meaning that China will have no supplies. Also, the Chinese cannot replace their losses (both too few men and not enough supplies) so that their army gets smaller and smaller and smaller. There is no reason that the Japanese can't overrun the entire country. None of us have gone far enough into the game to experience that, but quite a few of us were on the brink and had to request ceasefires as the Japanese had already blasted through the major Chinese bases and were on the way to Chungking.

b) China out of the game throws the entire game out of whack. Once China falls there's nothing to prevent the Japanese player from diverting those countless troops and Artillery Death Stars to India or Russia. While none of us has gone far enoguh to see that happen it's clearly a possibility. As the Allied player, though, I'd prefer for the Japanese player to pursue one of those two options as opposed to pulling all those troops out of China and using them to reinforce Luzon, Formosa, Okinawa, Hokkaido, Timor, Java, and Celebes. Doing so would slow the Allied advance tremendously and make it far, far more costly.

House rules can probably address the situation in China, but House Rules are symptoms of imperfections in the game. We need to fix the Artillery Death Stars, ability to strategic bomb in China, and the worthlessness of fortifications. Note that two of these three fixes will also benefit the Japanese later in the war.

In closing, I am bringing forward these concerns I have about the game based upon the several hundred hours I have invested in my current PBEM game. I love the game and appreciate the work that went into designing it and the way the designers are addressing problems. So don't take the easy way out and dismiss me as a "complainer." Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In closing, I am bringing forward these concerns I have about the game based upon the several hundred hours I have invested in my current PBEM game. I love the game and appreciate the work that went into designing it and the way the designers are addressing problems. So don't take the easy way out and dismiss me as a "complainer." Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yeah, I just got clobberd (I mean REALLY clobbered) by a totally out-of-whack bomb/sweep mission. So totally whacked that it goes beyond "fortunes of war" and rises to the level of "this is nerfed."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for many helpful posts, especially those by LoBaron and Elf. I can see now that my own orders (having my Sweeping squadrons set at different altitudes, and at altitudes different from the bombers) was the main cause of my woes. I set the fighters so high because I had read a number of posts that players were having success running Hurricanes at max altitude, but in retrospect those Hurricane sweeps were going in by themselves (not with bombers).

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

China is as important as the combination of actions of both players make it. The ressources that Japan has to invest to overrun China are so big that I started to suspect long ago if it isnt a better strategy to deploy those valuable units elsewhere and just clean up the front to prevent successful Chinese counterattacks.
Also the ammount of garrison required nearly outweights the advantage of not having a frontline (at least after initial conquests), and you can redeploy the units earlier.

What you are all talking about is that IF the Chinese player chooses to he CAN overrun China. But he needs to invest in a full blown campaign that eats up supplies (and ressources/fuel to replace those units) like a beast. We have not enough examples of what the impact is on late war but I quite sure the effect on other possible campaigns is negative on the long run and could even speed up the allied counteroffensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

China is as important as the combination of actions of both players make it. The ressources that Japan has to invest to overrun China are so big that I started to suspect long ago if it isnt a better strategy to deploy those valuable units elsewhere and just clean up the front to prevent successful Chinese counterattacks.
Also the ammount of garrison required nearly outweights the advantage of not having a frontline (at least after initial conquests), and you can redeploy the units earlier.

What you are all talking about is that IF the Chinese player chooses to he CAN overrun China. But he needs to invest in a full blown campaign that eats up supplies (and ressources/fuel to replace those units) like a beast. We have not enough examples of what the impact is on late war but I quite sure the effect on other possible campaigns is negative on the long run and could even speed up the allied counteroffensive.

That's pretty much my feeling too. There seem to be a lot of lower level details that aren't playing out EXACTLY the same as they did in real life. But unless those "incorrect" details rise up to the level where they impact the strategic balance, then they really don't amount to much. Nobody wants to be playing "Fantasy in the Pacific", but a few ahistorical outliers are a small price to pay so long as they they don't impact the overall realities of the 1940s. Which were that, over time, the Allied Production Avalanche will ultimately overwhelm almost anything the Japanese do earlier in the game.

I have zero problems with folks pointing out questionable situations, but let's not turn ourselves into the Blind Men of India who touch one tiny aspect of the game and proclaim it a "wall" or a different part and insist it's a "snake" or a third part and proclaim it a "tree". All are small pieces of a vast whole, and need to be considered in that context.

quote:


And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Looking at this logically, you can clearly see the whole "debate" is essentially pointless:

quote:

1) The land war in China is an aberration in the overall mechanics of a "War in the Pacific" game. It should be obvious to everyone that the devs spent their time - and rightfully so - in upgrading the coding of the Air-Naval-Amphib portions of the game. And they succeeded spectacularly, IMHO. Seriously. Anybody who compares AE to WitP and says those aspects are now worse is flat-out lying. Elimination of air carnage, island stacking restrictions, and near-real-life loading/unloading times are just a few examples among a host of similar logistics and warfare improvements, all of which put AE light years ahead of its predecessor.

quote:

2) And that's important because, as in real life - the fate of China HAS NO STRATEGIC impact on the war. Go ahead and watch as Japan takes the whole thing (which probably isn't even possible, but let's accept the premise for a moment). What does Japan have? Answer: Absolutely nothing that will impede the cross-island onslaught from the USA. The war can only be won by preventing Allied conquest of the critical "island highway" leading straight at Japan. And every Manchurian Air Unit and all the "Artillery Death Stars" in the world won't keep that from happening.

quote:

3) So why - one must ask - is the debate focusing on an "over-powered" Japan? Simple. Admiral's Edition takes a long time to play and few of the complainers have played it long enough to see that all the Japanese success in '42 is ephemeral and fleeting. Whether the Allied player is facing the AI or a human, you WILL be taking it on the chops, and you WILL be taking it on the chops for MANY MONTHS of real-time game play! Is that frustrating as hell? You betcha. Which is just one more way in which the devs nailed the "real life" aspect of playing as the Allies in the early part of the war. Just like King and Nimitz and MacArthur, you'll feel angry and PO'd for a very long time. But just like they did, if you are patient and bear the blows and don't surrender (which, after all, was the real-life Japanese "war winning plan"), then you too will see the tide begin it's slow but inexorable turn. And it WILL turn.

quote:

People need to understand - and I mean REALLY UNDERSTAND - that the devs had to make hundreds of thousands of things function perfectly here. And the end product of that is a game which mimics the real "War in the Pacific" to an amazing degree. And if there are some aspects which aren't "just so", well, that's what happens when you are building a massively complicated monster like this. What's surprising isn't that some things may be wrong - the REAL miracle is that so much of it is exactly RIGHT!

Besides, if we've learned anything from watching these guys work over the past few years, it's this: If it can be tweaked and improved, they will do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
I don't doubt the sincerity of all those who work so hard to make AE (and WitP before it) the best that it can be. Sadly all their hard work and good intentions mean nothing to me if I'm unable to enjoy the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
I don't doubt the sincerity of all those who work so hard to make AE (and WitP before it) the best that it can be. Sadly all their hard work and good intentions mean nothing to me if I'm unable to enjoy the game.

And that's the crux of your entire argument. Because YOU don't enjoy it, the game sucks. Sorry Charlie, but from what I can see, most of us beg to differ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
I don't doubt the sincerity of all those who work so hard to make AE (and WitP before it) the best that it can be. Sadly all their hard work and good intentions mean nothing to me if I'm unable to enjoy the game.

And that's the crux of your entire argument. Because YOU don't enjoy it, the game sucks. Sorry Charlie, but from what I can see, most of us beg to differ.

Sorry Sparky but that's the crux of your argument. Because YOU enjoy it, the game is the greatest thing ever and those that disagree are whiners and complainers.

I've cited the areas where the game falls short for me. It's those shortcomings that cause me to not enjoy the game. You're willing to overlook them. I'm not.

BTW, please show me where I ever said AE "sucks". Otherwise don't put words in my mouth.