RE: Historical based vs Historical (Full Version)

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



Message


Time Traveller -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 5:30:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I'm sure I'll be attacked by the usual fanboys here, but I'm going to post this anyways. For quite awhile now I have been watching all the apologists trying to blindly defend very serious design flaws in AE edition. Much of the improved AI difficulty in AE is just more cheats enabled? Historical game play was thrown out the window due to all the pleas from the hardcore players wanting more of a challenge? I have no problem with massively cheating AI if it's an optional setting or scenario. Unfortunately from what I have read, all this AI cheating occurs even on normal or historical settings in all scenarios. That is a major turn off for me. And for that reason I will not be purchasing AE version. Flame away.



Nothing to attack you for (except that you totally ignore the possibility of playing the game PBEM against a live opponant).

The majority of players who play only against the AI requested that it be more challenging..., and the designer's responded. If that isn't what you wanted, then you are right not to buy it. But you will miss out on a truly great gaming experiance by not trying it against a real thinking opponant.




I understand what you are saying. I agree that more challenging game play has now replaced historical game play against the AI in AE. Human opponents are always the best for sure! But PBEM really isn't my cup of tea at the moment. [:'(]




Gary D -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 6:17:40 AM)

****SPOILERS****


Time Traveler;

I respect anyones decision on how they spend their hard earned dollars or yen or whatever. Like you I am an AI type of player and "historical" is my personal style.

I was a bit puzzled why the development team would put such a huge effort into the most detailed OOB yet seen in a wargame, yet design an AI that plays "ahistorically". After a few months of play I think I have enough experience to make a few observations that may encourage you to change your mind. I am certainly glad that I took the plunge.

What I have found is that by having the AI challenge you early for "ahistorical" locations like Canton, Noumea, and NZ it actually results in a more historically accurate build up of the Line Islands, Samoa, NZ, and OZ. The thrusts by the AI are not brutal strokes that cannot be parried with the tools the allies have at the game start. The time and resources you have to spend, do slow the "ahistorical" behavior you used to be able to get away with in WITP by neglecting to build strong outposts along the LOC from the US West Coast to OZ. By June in WITP I would be already on Guadalcanal, ahead of the IJN and roll on from there.

In July in AE, I hold all the historical allied positions against the AI and am just getting setup on Luganville. By August my well prepped Guadalcanal invasion should be ready. The AI has kept most of its striking power intact, having only lost a few CVLs it used to try and screen Samoa. The allied move up to Rabaul should prove a nice challenge as it was historically since the AI has had time to get setup.

Those folks who play aggressively against the AI are able to achieve much better results than I have, but just reaching historical milestones is interesting to me and gives the AI a bit of a breather.

If you have invested any part of your life playing WITP do not miss this one, it is a superb effort by a very dedicated team. Once your hooked you'll find yourself spending more money on dusty old books, visiting arcane military websites, and fitting right in here with a very good group of individuals.

All the best!




wdolson -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 7:59:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Nope. The Japs were going down ... in a radioactive dust cloud if necessary. 1950 isn't on the cards. Not even close [:D]

Phil


I exaggerated a bit, but it would have been at least mid-1946 before more than the first two nukes were available. They used up the entire stock of fissionable materials making the test prototype and the two live drops. The US was sort of bluffing with the first two dropped.

If the War in the Pacific hadn't stabilized when it did, the war in Europe would have lasted longer too. The deal was that the US would pour resources into the Pacific until the Japanese offensive was blunted, then the bulk of resources would go to Europe until Germany was out of the way.

Still, there are few scenarios which would make the war last past sometime in 1946 or 1947.

Bill




Time Traveller -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 8:07:29 AM)

Gary D, thanks for the reply. When I say play historically, I mean things like blockading the Japanese home islands. Apparently, it's pretty pointless doing this now when playing as Allies against Japanese AI due to the practically unlimited supplies, resources and aircraft production bonuses the AI gets. And don't even get me started on the teleporting ships. [:@] I want the choice to play on normal difficulty settings without the AI getting such ridiculous cheats/bonuses that the human player doesn't get. If the Allied side will usually win with a more historically-balanced game, then so be it. I just don't agree with the concept of making game play more challenging at the cost of historical accuracy. [;)]




Valgua -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 1:34:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Valgua


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And BTW, all AIs EVERYWHERE cheat.


With the exception of Galactic Civilizations II, but of course it is not nearly as complex as WitP.
However, many of the complaints are NOT about the AI cheating, but about HOW it cheats. There are cheats, like an infinite amount of airplanes, that actually ruin many historical strategies for the human player. I refer what I read on the forums. Personally, I am avoiding the issue with PBEM.


Again, all AI's cheat. Without exception.

Anybody who thinks differently needs to wake up.


How is that an answer to my argument?




dorjun driver -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 3:10:04 PM)

[sm=character0085.gif] If this game is so damn accurate, where is the Lanikai? [:)]




Tomcat -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 3:41:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I play WITP, and yes, I know the AI cheats some in the original. But the cheating isn't nearly as bad as I have been reading about AE. At least I can play half-way historical style and still win. I would purchase AE if there was a way to turn off many of the AI cheats or bonuses with the scenario editor. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. Anyone?


Using the editor you can make changes that reduce or nullify several of the "cheats", if you want to. For example, if you want to be able to attrit the number of Japanese pilots then this is an easy mod because you can set the number of pilots in the pool at the start of the game as well as the number that goes into training each month. With patch 2 the training of pilots is supposed to be improved so that they gain experience faster than they do now, but in the meantime you could also set the starting level that trained pilots attain. I'm not recommending that you do or don't do these things, I'm simply pointing out that there are options if you use the editor. Whether or not the cheats annoy me I almost always play with a modified version of this game, or just about any other game. One person pointed out on another thread that he didn't want to be limited by stupid choices the Japanese commanders made, and I don't like to start the game with the same choices that allied commanders made. I like to think that I would have responded better to the allied intel that was available, and the editor allows me this option.




Terminus -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 3:54:10 PM)

Maybe "Time Traveller" should consider who's been writing about how "badly the AE AI cheats", instead of just accepting it as gospel.





Time Traveller -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 5:31:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe "Time Traveller" should consider who's been writing about how "badly the AE AI cheats", instead of just accepting it as gospel.




I really dont know who is who on this forum because I really dont spend much time here. Are you saying the players who are reporting the cheating AI are not trustworthy? Just trying to get all the facts before deciding to buy or pass. Thank you.




Time Traveller -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 5:33:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomcat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I play WITP, and yes, I know the AI cheats some in the original. But the cheating isn't nearly as bad as I have been reading about AE. At least I can play half-way historical style and still win. I would purchase AE if there was a way to turn off many of the AI cheats or bonuses with the scenario editor. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. Anyone?


Using the editor you can make changes that reduce or nullify several of the "cheats", if you want to. For example, if you want to be able to attrit the number of Japanese pilots then this is an easy mod because you can set the number of pilots in the pool at the start of the game as well as the number that goes into training each month. With patch 2 the training of pilots is supposed to be improved so that they gain experience faster than they do now, but in the meantime you could also set the starting level that trained pilots attain. I'm not recommending that you do or don't do these things, I'm simply pointing out that there are options if you use the editor. Whether or not the cheats annoy me I almost always play with a modified version of this game, or just about any other game. One person pointed out on another thread that he didn't want to be limited by stupid choices the Japanese commanders made, and I don't like to start the game with the same choices that allied commanders made. I like to think that I would have responded better to the allied intel that was available, and the editor allows me this option.


Thanks for the that helpful info, Tomcat. Its much appreciated. [:)]




Erik Rutins -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 5:39:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe "Time Traveller" should consider who's been writing about how "badly the AE AI cheats", instead of just accepting it as gospel.



I really dont know who is who on this forum because I really dont spend much time here. Are you saying the players who are reporting the cheating AI are not trustworthy? Just trying to get all the facts before deciding to buy or pass. Thank you.


That was an odd remark open to lots of interpretation, I agree. I believe that what he meant was that the developers have not confirmed these reports or speculations.




Knavey -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 6:32:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The US was sort of bluffing with the first two dropped.

Bill


Ouch! If you consider that bluffing, I am NOT playing you in poker! [:D]




wdolson -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/3/2009 11:49:06 PM)




quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The US was sort of bluffing with the first two dropped.

Bill


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey
Ouch! If you consider that bluffing, I am NOT playing you in poker! [:D]


[:D]

As far as what Erik said. The developers are looking into the AI and seeing what can be done.

We take tech support seriously. We can't fix every issue, some are too complex, and some are matters of opinion one way or the other, but we do look at the issues and do what we can to fix the problems.

Bill




ny59giants -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 12:26:21 AM)

quote:

Gary D, thanks for the reply. When I say play historically, I mean things like blockading the Japanese home islands. Apparently, it's pretty pointless doing this now when playing as Allies against Japanese AI due to the practically unlimited supplies, resources and aircraft production bonuses the AI gets. And don't even get me started on the teleporting ships. I want the choice to play on normal difficulty settings without the AI getting such ridiculous cheats/bonuses that the human player doesn't get. If the Allied side will usually win with a more historically-balanced game, then so be it. I just don't agree with the concept of making game play more challenging at the cost of historical accuracy


IMO, your premise is false. You have the foreknowledge of what is likely to happen with either side before the game even begins. The AI does not have that to the degree you have. Japan AI still has to get Resource and Fuel/Oil to the Home Islands to keep her economy running. The AI will get some advantages depending on the "Difficulty" setting you choose. You seem to be looking for the AI to give you the same challenge that an actual human opponent will, but still have it be the AI. When you find such a game, please let me know. [;)]




treespider -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 1:13:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

[sm=character0085.gif] If this game is so damn accurate, where is the Lanikai? [:)]



In the Mod Don is working on...was she in Manila on Dec 7/8 or was she in the China Sea?




JeffroK -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 4:10:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

[sm=character0085.gif] If this game is so damn accurate, where is the Lanikai? [:)]



In the Mod Don is working on...was she in Manila on Dec 7/8 or was she in the China Sea?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/misc/Lanikai.gif

Up a creek wihout a paddle?




JeffroK -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 4:11:52 AM)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/dafs/misc/Lanikai.html

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
Naval History Division • Washington
USS Lanikai (Yacht)
A village on Oahu, north of Honolulu.
(Yacht: t. 150; l. 87'3"; b. 9'0"; s. 7 k.; cpl. 19; a. 1 d-pdr., 2 .30 cal. mg.)
Lanikai, a schooner-rigged diesel powered yacht built in 1914 at East Oakland, Calif., was taken over by the Navy at Cavite Navy Yard, Philippine Islands, under charter from Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., 5 December 1941; and commissioned the same day, Lt. Kemp Tolley in command. Late in November 1941 it became apparent to the American Government that Japanese forces were tactically deposed for major operations in Southeast Asia, but her precise target was unknown. A large convoy was steaming south from Formosa Straits, and it was hoped that learning the destination of these ships might reveal Japan's intentions. On 2 December, President Roosevelt ordered through Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. H. R. Stark, that Commander in Chief, Asiatic Fleet, Adm. T. C. Hart "charter three small vessels to form a defensive information patrol . . . to observe and report by radio Japanese movements in the west China Sea and Gulf of Siam." Lanikai, which had been seen by millions in the movie "Hurricane", was one of the small ships chartered to learn of Japan's intentions. Fitted out at Cavite with the greatest dispatch, the schooner lay at the entrance of Manila Bay in the wee hours of 8 December (7 December east of the International Date Line) awaiting daylight to thread her way through the dangerous minefields which guarded the harbor. Tolley's orders read: "Patrol off the entrance of Camranh Bay and report the direction taken by the Japanese Fleet when it emerges." However at 0300 word of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor arrived with orders to return to Manila. In ensuing weeks, the schooner patrolled the approached to Manila Bay and served as dispatch vessel within the harbor. On 10 December she survived the devastating Japanese air raid which destroyed Cavite Navy Yard. On Christmas Day, she assisted in the evacuation of Manila, carrying Army Officers and equipment to Corregidor. As a result of plans and actions of Lt. Comdr. Charles Adair, Flag Lieutenant to Admiral Hart, approval was obtained for Lanikai to attempt to escape to the Netherlands East Indies. On the evening of 26 December, carrying as passengers one Dutch and three American officers, Lanikai, with her Filipino crew, got underway from Mariveles harbor, Luzon, "destination unknown." Heading generally south, hiding in friendly coves during daylight, and traveling principally at night, the schooner sailed from island to island as enemy forces spread across the East Indies with explosive speed. Heaven-sent storms covered her as she crossed the three large stretches of open water which lay between Luzon and Australia and offered no coves for daylight concealment. When, as happened all too often, enemy aircraft approached the lightly armed schooner, they were preoccupied for the most part, with bigger game; but, at Soerabaya, Java, 3 February 1942, three Japanese bombs straddled the schooner so close aboard that Lanikai crewmen put off in a skiff to pick up a large quantity of stunned fish. In late February, under full sail despite heavy seas, Lanikai headed due south from Tjilatjap, Java. This course was taken to avoid enemy forces which might be searching the direct route from Java to Darwin, Australia. On 1 March, while about 200 miles east of Christmas Island, a large Japanese task force was sighted on the port bow. Evasive action by Lanikai was successful. On 18 March, 82 days after departing Mariveles, the schooner arrived at Fremantle. After replenishment and repairs there, she got underway 4 April, to cruise along the northwest Australian coast and search for possible Japanese coast watchers. Lt. Comdr. Adair relieved Lt. Comdr. Tolley of command of the vessel 27 April and continued the search into mid-May. Lanikai decommissioned at Fremantle 22 August and was transferred to the Royal Australian Navy which she served on harbor defense throughout the war. After peace returned, Lanikai was brought back to the Philippines for later return to her owner. However, while anchored in Leyte Gulf off Samar, Lanikai sank during a typhoon. Lanikai received one battle star for World War II service.




stuman -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 5:17:22 AM)

Man. What a story. How has that not been made into a movie [:)]






Klahn -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 5:22:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Nope. The Japs were going down ... in a radioactive dust cloud if necessary. 1950 isn't on the cards. Not even close [:D]

Phil


I exaggerated a bit, but it would have been at least mid-1946 before more than the first two nukes were available. They used up the entire stock of fissionable materials making the test prototype and the two live drops. The US was sort of bluffing with the first two dropped.

If the War in the Pacific hadn't stabilized when it did, the war in Europe would have lasted longer too. The deal was that the US would pour resources into the Pacific until the Japanese offensive was blunted, then the bulk of resources would go to Europe until Germany was out of the way.

Still, there are few scenarios which would make the war last past sometime in 1946 or 1947.

Bill


That isn't true at all. The US had material for a third bomb ready for release by the 3rd week in August, and would have 3 more available in September and 3 more for October. The shipment of the heavy material for Fat Man 2 to Tinian had already been started when the Japanese surrendered. Target was being debated but Tokyo, Sapporro, and Kokura were high on the list. Gen. Marshall gave clearance for the delivery of bomb 3 to Tinian with the explicit instructions that it was not to be used without a direct order from President Truman. These would all have been Fat Man bombs. There wasn't expected to be another Little Boy available until December.




aspqrz02 -> RE: Historical based vs Historical (10/4/2009 9:00:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Nope. The Japs were going down ... in a radioactive dust cloud if necessary. 1950 isn't on the cards. Not even close [:D]

Phil


I exaggerated a bit, but it would have been at least mid-1946 before more than the first two nukes were available. They used up the entire stock of fissionable materials making the test prototype and the two live drops. The US was sort of bluffing with the first two dropped.


Nope. In Allen and Polmar's "Codename Downfall" they cite the Manhattan Engineering District reports and the numbers I gave are correct ... there was a bottleneck, a very temporary one, just after the third bomb (the one that was, IIRC, assembled and ready but never dropped), but by the end of 1945, no later, they estimated that the production rate would be ramping up and they would have *on hand* around 12 bombs, minimum ... with a rate of 5 bombs a month, rising to 10 bombs a month by the end of the first quarter of 46 and then 10/15/20 or more a month thereafter. (FYI: Average production rate throughout the period 1946-end of cold war was an average of 4 per day).

The "alternative" Olympic-Coronet plans (assuming a more realistic 1946 invasion as it would have really been impossible to manage an effective one in 1945) proposed attacking when there would be at least 20 bombs available (very early 46) and using at least a dozen tactically against the invasion beaches [X(]

Allied troops would advance through the blast zones in M3 Halftracks under canvas covers and standard trucks likewise "protected" ... the invasion of the Kanto Plain, should it have become necessary, would have been later in the year and, well, with between 10-20 bombs coming off the line every month, I wouldn't want to be the Japanese with that sort of attitude to usage [:)]

Normally I could give page cites, but I am currently in the middle of packing up to move house after 50 years and, well, everything's in boxes.

Really, truly, though, the bottleneck was gonna be well and truly over by the end of 45 ... Halsey would have been right if the Japs continued into 46, Japanese would have been a language "spoken only in hell ..."

Phil




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875