RE: AE is for AFBs

RE: AE is for AFBs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Terminus -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 9:14:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Just consider that all the photographs in the game have to come from open, non-copyright sources, and that good quality pictures of Japanese subjects are, shall we say, difficult to come by when that's all you have. It's easy to cry about stuff like this when you don't know the whole story. I have a feeling those intro pictures are not old WW2 era pictures. Looks like they are just hired models posing for a photo shoot. They all look like the same persion(s) in different roles. I might be wrong though but they really don't look vintage. You not only might be wrong, you ARE wrong.

JeffroK -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 9:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf You guys realize YH was banned... I did not know that Yamato Hugger had been banned either. I fail to understand why you inform us about him being banned. When you say above that Yamato Hugger is banned, does this then mean that we should not post in his threads ? Well, Yamato Hugger I hope you will be back soon. I played UV, and WITP for long time before I signed up at this forum, but I have always been a "reader" of it, and your posts have always made a lot of seance to me... I always saw you Yamato Hugger as a Pioneer within the testing, (officially testing of AE and un-officiall of WITP). IMHO you seemed to be the most "balanced" tester, so it makes me very sad to here that you are gone. I feelt confident that AE would be "realistic" from a operational perspective (using more restricted commands, to force Allied to use PP... to delay the Allies to more realistic time frames)... and I saw you Yamato Hugger as a tester who could give the game development team more "balance" and that your presence there would aid the development to make AE a better game, and more realistic. I used to decline all thoughts I used to have about AE being for Allied Fan Boys... until for a few days ago when I completed a series of testings, taking me through more then 150 hours of constant testing. (I wanted to make a mod... so I tested a lot) I want to make a Mod, by using the Editor to limit the Allied reaction time, as I think IMHO this is the biggest problem of AE. I hope you Yamato Hugger will be back soon. PHausser, One option to use to limit the Allies is to lower their active squads at start and on arrival on map. Just the Australians, all 3 Mid East Divisions had to rebuild on return to Australia, while at reasonably full strength they all took on a lot of reinforcements before leaving the Mid East & on arrival in Australia, I would say 6,7 & 9 Australian Divs would be at about 60-75% strength. The Australian Militia was at about 25% of TOE on 7/12/41, most were at 50% by the end of Dec 41 but it was only around the end of April 42 that they approached 100% (The Bdes in Queensland were at a Higher level) By having better strength levels, and having a few more in restricted command (In India, failure to keep garrisons should be a lot higher at start, you shouldnt take lightly stripping a garrison below the required levels, how about giving the base a chance of changing sides[8D]) Keep looking, there are a lot of areas in AE which meed tweaking. PS I didnt know YH got outed, and dont see the relevance of making the post in this thread. The artwork is 100% Allied, maybe it could rotate or change based on the side you choose!

P.Hausser -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 10:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK PHausser, One option to use to limit the Allies is to lower their active squads at start and on arrival on map. Just the Australians, all 3 Mid East Divisions had to rebuild on return to Australia, while at reasonably full strength they all took on a lot of reinforcements before leaving the Mid East & on arrival in Australia, I would say 6,7 & 9 Australian Divs would be at about 60-75% strength. The Australian Militia was at about 25% of TOE on 7/12/41, most were at 50% by the end of Dec 41 but it was only around the end of April 42 that they approached 100% (The Bdes in Queensland were at a Higher level) By having better strength levels, and having a few more in restricted command (In India, failure to keep garrisons should be a lot higher at start, you shouldnt take lightly stripping a garrison below the required levels, how about giving the base a chance of changing sides[8D]) Keep looking, there are a lot of areas in AE which meed tweaking. PS I didnt know YH got outed, and dont see the relevance of making the post in this thread. The artwork is 100% Allied, maybe it could rotate or change based on the side you choose! I totally agree Jeffk in what you are saying.

SuluSea -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 5:12:44 PM)
I dug up the thread because after two months of playing this game I can disagree with it. If that causes moistened panties my only suggestion is change them or suffer a rash.

AW1Steve -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 5:52:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea I dug up the thread because after two months of playing this game I can disagree with it. If that causes moistened panties my only suggestion is change them or suffer a rash. What a charming way with words you have.

m10bob -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 6:24:43 PM)
Now, kids....................[sm=00000924.gif]

Coupon -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 7:08:54 PM)
If the AAR thread in Paradox OT forums has any merit, the current version is certainly balanced toward the allied player. Two Japanese players in a row quit the game very early, because of heavy losses [:D].

bspeer -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 7:19:49 PM)
Are we looking for play balance or realism? The Japs had no chance to win the war. I consider it a victory just to hang on into late 45 or early 46!

Buck Beach -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 7:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 YH has a point. I for one would not mind having one of the loading screens have a pic of a stunningly beautiful Geisha. Or a more neutral one so none of the fanboys can be upset.....LargeSlowTarget's island girls! Speaking of that: I have found my old sigpic on one of my ancient computers - here it comes! And AE is for AFBs - what do you expect when the developer calls himself "Henderson Field Designs"? [;)] And BTW, that offends me as being biased!! I think there should be an option to call it "Tokyo International Airport" creations for the JFBs.[sm=00000028.gif]

AW1Steve -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 7:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Now, kids....................[sm=00000924.gif] [:D][:D][:D]

pmelheck1 -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 7:57:26 PM)
To quote bspeer "Are we looking for play balance or realism? The Japs had no chance to win the war. I consider it a victory just to hang on into late 45 or early 46!" That hits the nail on the head. Problem is their are some folks who really think Japan had a chance to win the war. Realism and Play balance are mutually exclusive. Japan had NO chance to win a military victory over the allies. The allies were producing to much stuff. Japan was whipped with a minor percentage of allied production. Even if Japan had done better than she did historically the allies could have shifted more production to the pacific (although it would have slowed down the war with Germany). As has been pointed out several times on other threads a sure loss by Japan is not fun for a game but it is historical.

witpqs -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 8:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard A strike against the USSR would have drained Soviet resources from the crucial summer 1942 campaign which may have allowed Germany to win there, forcing significant diversion of Allied assets from the Pacific to Europe. I don't know. Frankly? There was even more room to trade in the far East than in the West. Had Japan struck in the Far-East, considering a more important Soviet involvement in Siberia, I believe war may have been even shorter... The IJA was simply not up to the task of undertaking modern warfare anywhere else than in the heart of the jungle or in China, especially not hundred of miles away from any source of supply in the middle of Siberia. The T-34 was a nasty surprise for the German army. Imagine the impact on the IJA with the state of their armor at the time.

witpqs -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 8:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser 24th + 25th has 2 Regiments out, pay PP and you got 2 div (Pacific command) Against a PBM opponent, he would know you left PH basically open. Plus, with all the other units you mentioned wouldn't you basically be putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, by putting all your reserves on the line?

JWE -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 8:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard A strike against the USSR would have drained Soviet resources from the crucial summer 1942 campaign which may have allowed Germany to win there, forcing significant diversion of Allied assets from the Pacific to Europe. I don't know. Frankly? There was even more room to trade in the far East than in the West. Had Japan struck in the Far-East, considering a more important Soviet involvement in Siberia, I believe war may have been even shorter... The IJA was simply not up to the task of undertaking modern warfare anywhere else than in the heart of the jungle or in China, especially not hundred of miles away from any source of supply in the middle of Siberia. The T-34 was a nasty surprise for the German army. Imagine the impact on the IJA with the state of their armor at the time. Well, it's probably not philosophically relevant to talk about the evil, wicked, mean, and nasty Sov stuff when viewing the Far East. I mean there's a wealth of data that can show whatever the presenter wants, particularly internet data directed towards 6th graders. Maybe take a peek at Alvin Coox's seminal works on the state of USSR and Japanese forces, their OOB, training, operational readiness, over the period at issue. Think Mr. Pollard is pretty much on the playing field. The T-34 was a non issue till fairly late war. Whether the USSR did or did not come into play, is so speculative, that it's irrelevant in terms of the game. The game was devised to represent a conflict between a group of Allied powers and the Japanese Empire, in the Pacific Theater. Oddball, what-if's, don't cut it.

witpqs -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 9:10:10 PM)
True as it went, John. But if the IJA moved in, the USSR would have done something different, eh? I wasn't trying to go too far with speculation. My comment was meant pretty much at face value - any T-34's the IJA did face would have been more significant against Japanese armor of the day than they were against the Wehrmacht. And no, no web-site-stats-wars for me, thanks!

JWE -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/23/2009 11:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs And no, no web-site-stats-wars for me, thanks! Oh, jeez. Web-site-stat-wars. I have these visions of Boba-Fet clones overrunning the eastern provinces. [:D] Sorry, lost it for a bit, there. Probably spending too much time wading through the usual postings. Think I'll just leave these threads, altogether. May look in, from time to time, in the Mod forum.

Mynok -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 3:24:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mullk Problem is their are some folks who really think Japan had a chance to win the war. Realism and Play balance are mutually exclusive. There are? I don't know of any. Realism and play balance are not mutually exclusive by any means. 'Simulation' and 'game' are more apt IMO in that statement. Perhaps that is what you intended and I'm just being picky about semantics. No worries. WITP is about as realistic as it gets in a theatre-constrained wargame. It isn't perfect by any means, but the research and effort put into making the playing experience realistic is far and away the best I've seen yet in 25+ years of wargaming. But it is, in the final analysis, a game not a simulation, advertising to the contrary notwithstanding. Since I play PBEM exclusively, and Japan exclusively, I'm interested in being able to choose differently than the Japanese historically did, within reasonable constraints. There will be endless debate on what 'reasonable constraints' are, but so far, I'm quite comfortable with what AE has improved here. Some of the out-of-bounds economic improvements that could be accomplished in Witp are gone, as are the unhistorical vast hordes of transport ships.

m10bob -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 3:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard A strike against the USSR would have drained Soviet resources from the crucial summer 1942 campaign which may have allowed Germany to win there, forcing significant diversion of Allied assets from the Pacific to Europe. I don't know. Frankly? There was even more room to trade in the far East than in the West. Had Japan struck in the Far-East, considering a more important Soviet involvement in Siberia, I believe war may have been even shorter... The IJA was simply not up to the task of undertaking modern warfare anywhere else than in the heart of the jungle or in China, especially not hundred of miles away from any source of supply in the middle of Siberia. The T-34 was a nasty surprise for the German army. Imagine the impact on the IJA with the state of their armor at the time. The Japanese got their wake up call at Khalkin Gol, and were soundly trounced by Russian tanks before 1941. The Japanese also failed to provide their infantry with a sub machine gun, (except for the paratroopers.) Throughout the war, they really were sold on the idea that they could win on the spirit of the individual soldier alone. As a result,most of their fighting men became spirits, literally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

witpqs -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 4:03:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob The Japanese got their wake up call at Khalkin Gal, and were soundly trounced by Russian tanks before 1941. The Japanese also failed to provide their infantry with a sub machine gun, (except for the paratroopers.) Throughout the war, they really were sold on the idea that they could win on the spirit of the individual soldier alone. As a result,most of their fighting men became spirits, literally. Yeah - up on that. I'm not sure if they faced T-34's at Khalkin Gal, though (do you happen to know?). Not implying T-34's were any kind of magic. They were a big step up for Russian armor.

m10bob -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 4:06:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob The Japanese got their wake up call at Khalkin Gal, and were soundly trounced by Russian tanks before 1941. The Japanese also failed to provide their infantry with a sub machine gun, (except for the paratroopers.) Throughout the war, they really were sold on the idea that they could win on the spirit of the individual soldier alone. As a result,most of their fighting men became spirits, literally. Yeah - up on that. I'm not sure if they faced T-34's at Khalkin Gal, though. Not implying T-34's were any kind of magic. They were a big step up for Russian armor. No, my comment was backing yours up...The best at that campaign was the BT 7, and if it trounced the best Japan had, the T 34 would have been totally incomprehensible to the Japanese.. The BT 7 was of course a direct descendent of Christies' tank, the one the U.S.Army passed up, and the BT series were the ancestors of the T 34..Too bad the U.S. did not have that technology at Kasserine.

witpqs -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 4:17:07 AM)
Most of what I know about Kasserine Pass is superficial. My understanding is that the biggest issues were training, leadership (if there's a training issue there's automatically a leadership issue, eh?), and maybe some 'troop seasoning' (lack thereof) thrown in. How close to the mark is that?

Mike Scholl -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 5:32:00 AM)
Training, equipment, and "seasoning" were certainly factors at Kasserine..., but leadership was the key. What training the Americans had was as Divisional Units..., and the idiot running II Corps had broken up the formations and scattered them all over the landscape in "penny packets". And while destoying whatever cohesion the units had, he himself was hiding in a hole 50 miles behind the front.

P.Hausser -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 9:15:52 AM)
We are looking for realism, but it is not that simple... because the "game balance" programming comes in when the designer pick what unit to be on a (R) command and what to not be on a (R) command. Historical one can say that several of the US divisions could not leave the US until ... xxx date's, due to everything from fear of a Invasion of Hawaii to all sorts of other political or practical reasons. In my Opinion, the game is very realistic, but the "game balancing" programming, who comes into the game regardless of if we like it or not, could been tweaked to represent more realistic limitations for the Early Allied Reaction. Having 9 Allied Divisions able to react on "free" commands by 1st of March 1942 is IMHO to many, and faar to many compared to what was done and possible historically. Historically the Jap's took Manilla pretty easy as it was declared an Open City, I assume it can not be modelled in the game, but from a Military point of wiev, the Japs in AE has to fight for it unless a pre agreemant is made prior to the game, if you take into consideration that the Allies has another 9 Full Divisions, ready for depolyment within March (and 4-5 of them Already by January 18th).. Then IMHO it is Balanced heavely in favour of the Allies. Again, Game balance is a factor who is programmed regardless if we like it or not, and it is done when someone decide that XXX div is at XXX command.. Historically several of the Divisions connected to XXX command could not be moved until into 42 because of this or because of that or because of the other... (to see the list of the unit names, see my post on previous page)

treespider -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 10:58:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Historically the Jap's took Manilla pretty easy as it was declared an Open City, I assume it can not be modelled in the game, but from a Military point of wiev, the Japs in AE has to fight for it unless a pre agreemant is made prior to the game, if you take into consideration that the Allies has another 9 Full Divisions, ready for depolyment within March (and 4-5 of them Already by January 18th).. Then IMHO it is Balanced heavely in favour of the Allies. Not that I think anyone has noticed yet...but IIRC Bataan and Manila, in game, have the same Terrain Combat Modifier. Plus at Bataan you get a nice static unit with a bunch of BIG guns. My preference is to defend Bataan over Manila...but thats just me.

Reg -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 11:48:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coupon If the AAR thread in Paradox OT forums has any merit, the current version is certainly balanced toward the allied player. Two Japanese players in a row quit the game very early, because of heavy losses [:D]. If only Nagumo had that option on the 4th of June 1942!! I think that is more an indictment on player expectations than anything else.....

String -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 11:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Historically the Jap's took Manilla pretty easy as it was declared an Open City, I assume it can not be modelled in the game, but from a Military point of wiev, the Japs in AE has to fight for it unless a pre agreemant is made prior to the game, if you take into consideration that the Allies has another 9 Full Divisions, ready for depolyment within March (and 4-5 of them Already by January 18th).. Then IMHO it is Balanced heavely in favour of the Allies. Not that I think anyone has noticed yet...but IIRC Bataan and Manila, in game, have the same Terrain Combat Modifier. Plus at Bataan you get a nice static unit with a bunch of BIG guns. My preference is to defend Bataan over Manila...but thats just me. But Manila has the advantage of a semi-decent airfield and being a temperate zone hex. I guess it's down to personal preference and so on and so forth.

String -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 11:55:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coupon If the AAR thread in Paradox OT forums has any merit, the current version is certainly balanced toward the allied player. Two Japanese players in a row quit the game very early, because of heavy losses [:D]. To be fair, it has more to do with the Japanese players moving too fast and not escorting their invasion TF's (atleast some of them) properly than the game being biased.

Shark7 -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 3:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg quote: ORIGINAL: Coupon If the AAR thread in Paradox OT forums has any merit, the current version is certainly balanced toward the allied player. Two Japanese players in a row quit the game very early, because of heavy losses [:D]. If only Nagumo had that option on the 4th of June 1942!! I think that is more an indictment on player expectations than anything else..... There does come a point where it is pointless to resist. And Allied players are known to do the exact same thing, expectations too high maybe? This is where game balance comes in over historical accuracy, if the game becomes unfun halfway through, it will never get finished.

witpqs -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 4:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 There does come a point where it is pointless to resist. And Allied players are known to do the exact same thing, expectations too high maybe? This is where game balance comes in over historical accuracy, if the game becomes unfun halfway through, it will never get finished. True, it is about expectations. Yes, the game has to be fun. What is fun to that particular player? If the IJ player's idea of fun is holding on to his empire and winning in the purest military sense, that game is totally different from the one we have. My idea of fun is a great simulation that allows me to 'fight' the war and let the chips fall where they may. Sure I want to 'win', but for simulations that requires a very different definition than games require. Games are built from the ground up based on equality (perhaps in various forms). Simulations are built to simulate. Whether you regard AE as a game or as a simulation is really beside the point, because AE definitely is built on a historical baseline. As the Allied player you can capture Tokyo (far from certain, though!), but as the IJ player you have a snowballs chance in Hades of capturing San Francisco unless the Allied player conspires with you. IMO, to be able to enjoy AE (and WITP before it) you need two elements: 1) You must enjoy the process. There is way, way too much work to be done (playing to be played?) before you get to any concept of victory, so you simply must enjoy the journey itself or be miserable. 2) You must have your own concept of victory, and of course it must be possible within AE. Personally I have little faith in the point system. I wonder how it could possibly be properly balanced in a game this complex without thousands of iterations to tune it. If you play PBM you might still have your own victory conditions (you and your opponent could both win or both lose!) or you might coordinate with your opponent for a more traditional set of possible outcomes: win-lose, draw-draw, lose-win. My $.02

Mike Scholl -> RE: AE is for AFBs (10/24/2009 4:20:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 This is where game balance comes in over historical accuracy, if the game becomes unfun halfway through, it will never get finished. So then "beefing up" the Allies at start so they can "have fun" instead of being over-run is a GOOD idea? [&:] I thought that was the central point of this thread? The War in the Pacific was not an equal struggle. First one side had to fight with "smoke and mirrors", and in the end the other had to fight with with desperation and kamikazes.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875