WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (Full Version)

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



Message

jomni -> WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 3:53:27 AM)

I have both games and haven't gotten deep into playing any of them.
My gameplay experience:
Finished WITP Coral Sea campaign.
Played WITP Grand Campaign for two weeks of game time.
Played AE Grand Campaign for almost 1 week of game time.

AE is basically is potentially more historically accurate in outcomes. But I'm really bothered about the added detail in AE. They are nice but seems to be a micromanagement nightmare for a newbie like me.

Do you recommend that I stick with WITP for a while and play through the whole campaign and then go to AE when I feel ready? Or stick with AE and brave through all the micromanagement "hell"?

I'm not actually bothered by micromanagement of military units but micromanagement of the economy is really my problem. Is there a way to make it simpler?



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 3:59:06 AM)

AE hands down. Take all the great Mods over the last 5 years and make them work as 1 and add 40 mile hexs and real ship repair, real air groups, real Army commands with broken units and add in a hell of annoying AI and then add 5 to the great mods guys gave us over the years and you have AE.

Worth every single penny I spent on it. I spent 20 dollars on a movie a few weeks ago and went "huh?" I can't stop playing AE 100 hours already easy.

WITP in any form going all the way back to 2002 and UV is a micromanagement nightmare and god send to some of us. You have to stick with it, the first 2 weeks are boring as hell, the first two months can be boring as allied. But it ramps up constantly gets faster and faster.

I am Feb 9th 1942 and I can't stop playing. Like Crack



jomni -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:00:59 AM)

Hehe. I guess since I have already gotten my foot in the water might as well immerse my self fully in AE.

Any other ideas?



Crimguy -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:06:14 AM)

Stick with AE. The added features (waypoints, auto-adding of ships to TF's to meet cargo requirements, etc) more than offset the added complexity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I have both games and haven't gotten deep into playing any of them.
My gameplay experience:
Finished WITP Coral Sea campaign.
Played WITP Grand Campaign for two weeks of game time.
Played AE Grand Campaign for almost 1 week of game time.

AE is basically is potentially more historically accurate in outcomes. But I'm really bothered about the added detail in AE. They are nice but seems to be a micromanagement nightmare for a newbie like me.

Do you recommend that I stick with WITP for a while and play through the whole campaign and then go to AE when I feel ready? Or stick with AE and brave through all the micromanagement "hell"?

I'm not actually bothered by micromanagement of military units but micromanagement of the economy is really my problem. Is there a way to make it simpler?





Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:08:04 AM)

Want some action? I will send you my 2-9 game haha. Rangoon is a roll of the dice but I doubt you will get the full feel because the work and cringing to get those units into Burma was interesting.

I have 60,000 troops in Rangoon, Japanese have 30,000 in Rangoon and 14000 in Pegu one hex away. I may lose I am debating on sending the fine, the best Division in the Allied Command in all of the Pacific to Rangoon and that is the 6th Australian Division it is without a doubt the finest, best lead, best trained, most experienced division in all of the pacific for the allies but I will not throw them away easily. I am debating their fate they are on ships now at Colombo and I debate to throw them into Burma or hold them. They could be the needle to break the camels back or I could put them in Rangoon and it fall the next day and they get decimated retreating. Those are the choices in AE and they only get better as I go. I don't know what to do I am like Percival trying to decide to pull back and defend or give everything to Japan. If I move them in they may tip the scales becaues I don't think I can hold right now againt the IJA at Rangoon but the 6th Aussie may give me a victory that will set the stage for winning in 1943. Who knows but with so many low moral and low exp Division in Pacific I am afraid to throw them away. Yes I am strange but that choice may bother me for hours before I decide :)

That is what AE is to me. Perfect.



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:11:32 AM)

To send them or not to send them.


[image]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c234/fwarleader/6th.jpg[/image]



jomni -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:15:36 AM)

I guess trying to fully grasp the inner workings of AE (and also WITP) in order to be able to create gamey strategies (like in other games) is not even worth it.   Maybe a better point of view for me is to just play and experience the difficulties of running the war and learn along the way.  The ultimate goal is not winning the game, but just experiencing the war (which is kinda working).



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:17:29 AM)

I have a long history with the 6th also, they were the tip of the spear in retaking Singapore in several WITP games. :)

They are the ace in the hole but now I am not sure I want to burn them out in Burma if it goes bad. Could be a hell of a Amphib landing to retake Rangoon in a year or so. :)



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 4:19:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I guess trying to fully grasp the inner workings of AE (and also WITP) in order to be able to create gamey strategies (like in other games) is not even worth it.   Maybe a better point of view for me is to just play and experience the difficulties of running the war and learn along the way.  The ultimate goal is not winning the game, but just experiencing the war (which is kinda working).



I have never finished a game in WITP or any other besides UV. The fun is getting there. As the allies you must get through Dec and Jan and then you start seeing a difference the turns come much faster some turns I finish in 1 min others in 30 mins some may take hours but on average after Dec I start turning about 3 or 4 minutes each. If I did my work in Dec.

Edit to add: In WITP in late 1943 it is just a movement thing I hope AE is different the Japanese fight to the end.



Sonny II -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 10:19:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I guess trying to fully grasp the inner workings of AE (and also WITP) in order to be able to create gamey strategies (like in other games) is not even worth it.   Maybe a better point of view for me is to just play and experience the difficulties of running the war and learn along the way.  The ultimate goal is not winning the game, but just experiencing the war (which is kinda working).



Yep - just play it. You'll learn a lot quicker that way.



medicff -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 11:30:22 AM)

I dont think the allies troops are equivalent to Japs at this stage of game. 60k militia vs 45k well trained japs no match for japan. You will probably lose the battle. the 18th div and 7 aus are you best troops be careful not to waste them.

just my 2 cents.



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 6:00:53 PM)

Yes I agree I am holding out and that is what it is like Militia vs Hardened Vets. Tough but the militia is slowly learning.



Crimguy -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 8:13:20 PM)

Scott - wait till you have lost all semblance of air cover. Any TF that comes near will sink in the harbor. Supplies will run out. Morale will hit the floor, and the Japs will wipe their arses with your Aussie banners.

At least that's how it always happened to me!



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 8:19:19 PM)

Well I should no tonight when I get home, unless they take port blair I will continue to bomb hell out of them from now until the end. :)



AttuWatcher -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 8:30:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN
Yes I am strange but that choice may bother me for hours before I decide :)

That is what AE is to me. Perfect.


Where else are you going to send them? [8D]

I'm a new player that jumped right into AE, I reccomend it! Just be prepared to give them game some time and effort and the payoff will follow.



Scott_USN -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 8:46:04 PM)

True not much more to do wth them huh... Not for a couple of years if Rangoon falls!



bradfordkay -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 9:00:22 PM)

jomni.... for me the pleasure is in playing the game as if I were commanding real troops (as opposed to looking for ways to "beat the game". Doing it this way adds to the immersion factor, and creates some real tension (especially in PBEM).

In my CHS PBEM the 6th AUS Div has been instrumental in the retaking of northwestern Australia. I first rushed them to hold Perth and they have since been involved in landings at Exmouth and Broome. Darwin is the only Aussie base that is still riddled with the little vermin (June '44).



Hornblower -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/5/2009 11:31:01 PM)

My 2 cents.  I’m about to hit 1/1/44 in my current game of WiTP.  The Brits are about to take Malaya back,  NG is lost to Japan, Truk and Rabaul are isolated.  The Pacific fleet is about to hit the Marianas.  And for good measure SWpac is about to advance up from ambon and re-establish LOC with the Philippines.. Granted the game is won, but I’d like to see this out to ’44 and perhaps some – if any – bugs in AE will be cleared up before I take the plunge, which will be knowing me, in @ a week



Terminus -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/6/2009 12:33:22 AM)

My two cents as a long time stock WitP player (albeit a poor one), and AE co-developer.

AE is far from perfect (no game ever could be), but because of all the extra detail, the different map scale, the much-improved AI and so on, and so forth, I feel it's the superior game.

We're working hard on the first patch already, and if things go the way they're supposed to, you won't have to restart an ongoing game once you apply it. Jump in, the water is fine, and there's not THAT many sharks.



IndyShark -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/6/2009 12:49:31 AM)

There are never enough Sharks.....



TSCofield -> RE: WITP vs AE: which one to continue playing? (8/6/2009 2:02:21 AM)

You know, the first couple of days I almost put the AE version away since it was so different from the orginal game. The game almost is overwhelming in its complexity. The first WiTP was a micromanagers dream, this sometimes bordres on a nightmare.

The AI is substantially better in AE. In the first two months of combat in the Full scenerio the AI has made moves that I have never expected. It reacts to me so much better than the old AI. WiTP holding Wake after the initial assault usually meant keeping the island. Not this time. The Japanese come back to try to take it. The Phillipines look like they are going to fall despite all of the maneuvers that worked well in the past. China is a lot of work.

This is great.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375