"Tojo Edition" (Full Version)

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



Message

Erik Rutins -> "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 5:41:54 PM)

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=391563&mpage=1

Well, opinions vary and I've seen much the same discussion here. For the record, I disagree. I was part of the development team and I know that there was absolutely no attempt to balance this in favor of the Japanese. I'm posting this here in the hopes that some of you who have played WITP AE can post _civil, polite_ responses to the original poster to try to convince him to take a second look. Please do not look at this as any kind of call to arms, I'd just like him to hear from more WITP players with whatever your opinion may be, since he doesn't seem to want to post here. I respect that he had a negative experience, but I think he's jumped to the wrong conclusion here.

Regards,

- Erik



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 5:50:06 PM)

Been burned in china i would guess and then throws toys out of pram ! we have enough insta-reacion folks here to recognise a single issue poster who is blinkered too much.

There are some good followup comments there though so its not all AE bashing going on. In fact its rather reminicient of a certain forum i know well [;)]



jwilkerson -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:01:41 PM)

Yeah certainly there are at least as many that hold the opposite position - that AE = "Allied Edition" - if you're really getting yelled at by both sides of an issue - then you know you got it right - and you're "in the middle"! [:)]



khyberbill -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:14:22 PM)

Erik,
I very much disagree with the gent about buying the game and said so on the Wargaming forum. Buying AE is money well spent. That being said he does have a point about the Kwangtung Army. From reading the AAR's most games now have HR regarding bombardments etc either globally or in China. I personally don't know yet if the changes in Patch 2 will have an effect on the game play in China but I do intend to have HR in place for China. I like the idea of not buying out any Kwangtung Army units unless enough are bought out to activate Russia-at least in 1942.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:16:11 PM)

The title to the thread actually made me laugh. Nothing particularly new about the criticisms. I did like the shot about criticism being smothered tho. My feelings are officially hurt.



Shark7 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:24:20 PM)

Isn't it funny though, as a JFB myself, I tend to see it as the MacArthur Edition... [:D]

Point of view is everything. [;)]



Terminus -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:26:00 PM)

Preconceived notion is everything. We've said it a billion times, and it won't matter if we say it ten billion more: AE is not biased towards either side.



Nemo121 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:26:08 PM)

Over-arching point... I think it is interesting that much of the commentary is about whether he is right or wrong, a binary reaction if you will, as opposed to being more nuanced and looking at each aspect of his posts and taking what is useful within them.

I'd also point out that once you label someone else as having "preconceived notions" that's the first step to mentally ignoring everything they say even if some of what they has worth. Sure he might have preconceived notions but if the dev team dismisses his input out of hand then they've just messed up as badly as he has ( and he has ).


The reality is that:

1. There are some questionable judgement calls but they tend to cut both ways from what I've seen... Also questionable judgement calls are a part of any game design. When something's pretty much a 50/50 call then you'll always end up on the wrong side of a few of those calls. ( Or at least be perceived to be on the wrong side ).


2. His idea about de-linking AV from Soviet activation isn't half bad. I think, though, that linking it to load cost isn't the right way to go as the load cost for a squadron of 30 planes is paltry --- possibly 1,000th of the cost of a division.

However what about linking it to political cost? In that way you achieve the following:
a) no longer can the Japanese player remove artillery, AAA etc with impunity.

b) currently linking it with AV undervalues engineer units which are highly valuable in-game but typically have low AV values. Their political cost is much more in keeping with their utility - not perfect but a much better measure than a pure AV measure. Currently Manchuria pretty much ends up denuded of AAA, arty and engineers, all of which are hugely useful elsewhere but are pretty much "free" at present due to their low AV cost.

c) It would make planes appropriately expensive to move. If you move planes out you would pay the political cost  "number of planes x 4 " such that moving a few squadrons out would have as much impact as moving an entire division - which seems reasonable to me.



The AFB/JFB stuff is pointless but his idea of decoupling from AV has merit. His suggestion of coupling it to load cost doesn't work out in reality due to disparities in load costs between naval and air units but the overall concept has merit if a more equitable basis for determing "value" not based on AV or load cost can be found.



Chickenboy -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:32:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=391563&mpage=1

Well, opinions vary and I've seen much the same discussion here. For the record, I disagree. I was part of the development team and I know that there was absolutely no attempt to balance this in favor of the Japanese. I'm posting this here in the hopes that some of you who have played WITP AE can post _civil, polite_ responses to the original poster to try to convince him to take a second look. Please do not look at this as any kind of call to arms, I'd just like him to hear from more WITP players with whatever your opinion may be, since he doesn't seem to want to post here. I respect that he had a negative experience, but I think he's jumped to the wrong conclusion here.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

I'm not registered to the OP forum that you cite. Would you like it if I did register in order to post said civil discourse? If it helps you guys out, it's the least I can do.



sven6345789 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:39:30 PM)

Question i have is has anyone seen a pbem in which every chinese city has been conquered?
I havn't up to now and i doubt i will.
Where the japanese historically capable of pushing the front beyond of what they had already taken in 1941?
I would say yes if the wanted to. But they didn't want to. In 1944 the wanted to and where capable of crushing the kuomintang in the south. They couldn't control the whole territory, true, but they concentrated on major cities and roads anyhow, even in the territories they had occupied since 1937.
If players start an aggressive campaign in china they can crush the Kuomintang. No problem to it. But there ain't no such thing as a peace treaty.
Question is further how much supply china sucks up when on offensive operations. It doesn't seem to be little from what i have read here, so the economic balance might just be a negative one over the long run. The supply spend in China might be supply the japanese player will be missing in 1944.
regarding freeing japanese divisions to fight elsewhere, well, the garrison requirements have risen for both sides, meaning that keeping the population quiet will be expensive for the japanese. And even if you get more Divisions out, will they help you (in Rabaul, over 100000 japanese were stuck when the war ended without affecting the outcome of the war)?
Ground forces are important, but navy and air is more important. And in these parts, the US player will get more than he can deploy in 1944. The Japanese will be outproduced. The Japanese players will probably get more out of their production than the japanese did historically, using hindsight. But i doubt that the japanese can outproduce or outtrain the allies.
Both sides have one advantage. Players have a unified command. No IJN/IJA Army thing. no Nimitz/MacArthur/King Thing. No ABDA thing. ONE supreme commander. means a lot.
I consider the gane well balanced from what i have seen in the AARs.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:44:18 PM)

Haven't and probably won't play an ae pbem game for a while, if ever; but imo hrs are preferable than recoding something without a consensus, even if the end result is more realistic. At the least I'd like to see how the new patch changes things with respect to the arty units.



moonraker65 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:46:14 PM)

Well I've no complaints. I usually play as the Allies vs Jap AI and it's all about planning I think. As far as a simulation (Game is a bit harsh IMO) there really is nothing better out there that the covers the PTO.



mjk428 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:48:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=391563&mpage=1

Well, opinions vary and I've seen much the same discussion here. For the record, I disagree. I was part of the development team and I know that there was absolutely no attempt to balance this in favor of the Japanese. I'm posting this here in the hopes that some of you who have played WITP AE can post _civil, polite_ responses to the original poster to try to convince him to take a second look. Please do not look at this as any kind of call to arms, I'd just like him to hear from more WITP players with whatever your opinion may be, since he doesn't seem to want to post here. I respect that he had a negative experience, but I think he's jumped to the wrong conclusion here.

Regards,

- Erik


Everything he posted was accurate - at least up to the latest patch.

But I can understand why you dislike the thread title.



Canoerebel -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 6:58:43 PM)

AE is a massive and incredbily complex undertaking that is in the process of producing the most wonderful game any WWII buff could ever imagine.  As I've stated before, this may be the only game I play for the remainder of my years.  Since I'm 48, I hope that will be a long time.  An exaggeration?  Well, UV/WitP/AE are the only games I've played since 2002 and feel like I'm just getting started.

At this point, however, it is clear that the game has some major issues that affect game balance.  We are fortunate that the developers are (1) players devoted to the game; (2) conscientious; (3) talented; and (4) demonstrate a love of quality and pride in workmanship.  These problems are being addressed, but it takes time.

I haven't had Patch Two installed long enough to know if the biggest kinks through Patch One have been addressed, but I had four major concerns after playing into October '42 in a PBEM match:

1) The China model was clearly broken.  The Japanese player could destroy China at his will, absent mercy or major house rules.  He could accomplish this by strategic bombing and bringing artillery death stars into the theater.  There is (was, if Patch Two happened to fix this?) no way that the Allies could counter this strategy.

2)  Artillery Death Stars.  Artillery is hyper in the game, reducing armies to jelly and negating fortifications.  This problem will eventually be visited on the Japanese, but at the start of the game it's a one-sided problem for the Allies.  Hence Manila, Bataan, and Singapore are easily taken and, as noted above, China is toast.

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.



JWE -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:01:29 PM)

It seems that wargame bashing is a favorite activity of wargamers. Unfortunate, but probably unavoidable.

Speaking as a developer, all of the game aspects, that I have been involved with, are completely uniform, as to side. There are a very few, very focused, exceptions (i.e., long lances and radar) that have specific annual changes, but that’s about it. I have worked with Erik, Joe, Don, Ian, Andy, Kristian, Thomas, …, they all feel the same way.

We have always approached this project in terms of operational research – what works for Bill, must also work for Beavis. This has been successful to the extent that the basic AE game system is used by several notional units at Camp Pendleton for CP eXercises. Indeed, many USMC personnel were instrumental in defining concept and testing results, during the development process. These people are not fanbois, they are professionals.

Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests. But understand there’s nothing to justify



mjk428 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:02:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yeah certainly there are at least as many that hold the opposite position - that AE = "Allied Edition" - if you're really getting yelled at by both sides of an issue - then you know you got it right - and you're "in the middle"! [:)]


Not necessarily.

I don't much care if I'll be able to retake the Pacific in '43 quicker than was done historically. It doesn't change the fact that the Japs can take Singapore, Burma & the PI well ahead of schedule - PLUS invade the South & Central Pac in unprecedented ways. In fact I don't want an easier time of it when it's my turn. I want a realistic conflict from start to finish. Otherwise I can't get past "start".

The single biggest problem with the game IMO, which was equally true with the original, is that Japanese Army units are overpowered. Sure they did OK against mediocre (and worse) opponents. Against modern & semi-coordinated opposition what they did best was get killed.

I appreciate all your efforts in trying to polish the original and eventually I'll give AE another try but it stopped being fun for me much too quickly. For now I'll play COD Modern Warfare 2 where I can see guys running around at warp speed knifing people that are firing at them with automatic weapons. ;)





mjk428 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:05:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests. But understand there’s nothing to justify



He was polite and accurate in his criticisms.

It's "jerkpimples" like you, Terminus & Mynok that make this forum for Fanbois Only.




Rob Brennan UK -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:06:32 PM)

quote:

2. His idea about de-linking AV from Soviet activation isn't half bad. I think, though, that linking it to load cost isn't the right way to go as the load cost for a squadron of 30 planes is paltry --- possibly 1,000th of the cost of a division.

However what about linking it to political cost? In that way you achieve the following:
a) no longer can the Japanese player remove artillery, AAA etc with impunity.

b) currently linking it with AV undervalues engineer units which are highly valuable in-game but typically have low AV values. Their political cost is much more in keeping with their utility - not perfect but a much better measure than a pure AV measure. Currently Manchuria pretty much ends up denuded of AAA, arty and engineers, all of which are hugely useful elsewhere but are pretty much "free" at present due to their low AV cost.

c) It would make planes appropriately expensive to move. If you move planes out you would pay the political cost "number of planes x 4 " such that moving a few squadrons out would have as much impact as moving an entire division - which seems reasonable to me.


Good point , admittedly i did post knee jerk before i read the entire thread. and he wasn't half as opionated as i thought he would be in later replies. In actual fact he does have a point about Manchuria garrisons.

However when playing the AI i havn't noticed any massive reinforcement of China by the AI so I'll assume its an artifact of PBEM. Many if not most PBEM games are now limiting Manchirian movements by house rules so is a code change needed ? This 'issue' may well just go away on its own. WitP had many and varied house rules depending on players opinions and pre-concieved notions of what-ifs that may have been possible. So long as PBEM players find like minded opponents then i dont see any need to do a huge code change. One example would be a 'lunacy' game, popular in WitP and in current AE quite do-able too. Changing the rules on garrison levels would remove this option as a game type. Personally the more ways a game can be played is a good thing as it's naturally a more inclusive product allowing for a larger player base.

so in conclusion, Can the Manchiria garrison be better represented by changing the relative 'weight' of units ? resounding yes. Should it be implemented though ? i'm in the no camp here, not because i feel any great need to chush china, but because the option should be open to players who do.

discuss [;)]



Andy Mac -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:16:07 PM)

I guess all I can say on this one is yes we did look at other ways of managing soviet activation but it didnt make the cut - in fact we looked at it several times but always something more important was on the list.

The starting presumption then as now is these units are RESTRICTED we said pre releasem, during release, pre patch 1, post patch 1 and I am saying it again now.

If you ignore restricted commands and move either japanese units out of Manchuria or even India Command units out of India you WILL upset the game its quite simple don't do it its an exploit.

Thats why we have PP's if you pay PP's to transfer a unit to or from China thats fine - if you just move them then sorry thats not the design intent, its not what we recommended and its not what you should be doing.

If modders want to change that they can make the units unrestricted OR increase the number of PP's via the editor both are fine for different play styles but the core scenarios are based on the assumption that neither side will game the system by removing surplus forces without paying PP's

Andy



Nemo121 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:29:52 PM)

quote:

Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests.


Jerkpimple? Way to foster mature debate.

The guy got a bit worked up but he actually made a few points of value. Labelling him as a "jerkpimple" is unnecessary and unprofessional and indicative of a serious case of NIHS ( Not Invented Here Syndrome ).

I'm shocked to see you name-call like this JWE as you've normally been extremely gracious and problem/solution-focussed as opposed to getting personal.



Terminus -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:37:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests. But understand there’s nothing to justify



He was polite and accurate in his criticisms.

It's "jerkpimples" like you, Terminus & Mynok that make this forum for Fanbois Only.




Then why do you keep coming back?



JWE -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:51:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Jerkpimple? Way to foster mature debate.

The guy got a bit worked up but he actually made a few points of value. Labelling him as a "jerkpimple" is unnecessary and unprofessional and indicative of a serious case of NIHS ( Not Invented Here Syndrome ).

I'm shocked to see you name-call like this JWE as you've normally been extremely gracious and problem/solution-focussed as opposed to getting personal.

So nothing else in the post matters, just one choice of a single word. Darn. I kinda think this makes Eriks point is a sideways fashion.



mjk428 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:51:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


Respond – politely – to the jerkpimple, as Erik requests. But understand there’s nothing to justify



He was polite and accurate in his criticisms.

It's "jerkpimples" like you, Terminus & Mynok that make this forum for Fanbois Only.




Then why do you keep coming back?


I guess cause I paid for the game (twice now - three times counting UV) and still hold out hope that it will someday be worth all the time and money I spent.

BTW, I've also been here longer than all three of you unpleasant noobs. Maybe y'all should leave?






Erik Rutins -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 7:55:58 PM)

Good grief. There is no need for insults here and I specifically asked for civility and politeness. The original poster over there is not a "jerkpimple" or another name and I respect that people can disagree on this subject here, there or anywhere. I hoped that he could hear from some other gamers as I know there are opinions that disagree with his and folks who have had no problem working with house rules for areas that are of issue (not to mention the quiet China variants we added in the first update for those who didn't want to deal with China).

My main objection personally was to the idea that we had somehow deliberately biased the game one way or another. That's completely false, but the game is complex enough that there are certainly balance issues that have needed work since release.

Getting back on track, I very much appreciate the posts here that provide information on what they see as the main issues leading up to the just-release second update. It's always helpful to have summaries like that directly from gamers and I know the team has been listening to you all throughout. With that said, everything can't be done all at once and sometimes the fix is potentially worse than the problem and thus gets left for another day. In any case, we are listening and I'd like to hear more - and I'd like to hear from you all again after you've had a chance to put the second update through its paces to make sure we know what to investigate for the third update.

Regards,

- Erik



Nemo121 -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 8:09:39 PM)

JWE,

quote:

So nothing else in the post matters, just one choice of a single word.


No, I never said that. If I had thought the rest of the post was cr*p I would have rebutted it as well. I think the rest of the post is rational and backed by the facts as I know them.

So, why did I reply to the jerkpimple thing? Simple, if someone makes a reasoned, cogent point and then finishes it off by calling someone a n*gg*r am I expected to begin my response by saying. "Well, I'd like to thank you for the valid points you made and the clear and cogent way in which they were presented. I would also like to discuss how you ended your point."

No, it is quite reasonable that if you agree with what someone said but find their conclusion unpalatable that you discuss that conclusion. And just to be clear, yes I understand that jerkpimple isn't exactly the worst thing to call someone in the English language but the principle of the thing still stands.


So, just to be clear. I found the rest of your post quite reasonable and in keeping with the facts as I know them. I also found the ending of your post to be snide and unbecoming. I would expect no less from some of the people on this forum but I'm surprised because, previously, I'd never seen you actually stoop to confusing the personal with the professional. I held you in very high esteem professionally and felt that no matter what any time I'd dealt with you previously any issue I'd brought to the table ( re: WiTP or AE etc ) had been judged on its merits. I ask no more than that and because you did that I held you in very high esteem professionally and indeed personally as that quality is quite rare and spoke well of you. In short I expected better of you than this and have seen you act better in the past. THAT is why I commented in surprise.


I find it even more disappointing that your response was not to simply say, "Heat of the moment" or somesuch but actually to launch an attack on me by putting words into my mouth. In short you didn't deal with the issue but immediately got personal. You've changed since I last saw your posts in the WiTP forum ( I haven't read the AE forum over the past few months ) and the change is not, in my opinion, for the better. That saddens me.


Would I have posted at all if T or someone else had called someone a jerkpimple? No, because one cannot expect better from them and so they must be judged by the low standards they set. But I was surprised to hear this from you.


I'd like to be clear... I don't say ANY of that to attack you or anything. I have, until now, always found you gracious, professional, appropriate, open and reasonable.


P.s. I don't even understand what you mean by "makes Erik's point in a sidewys fashion"? My post didn't imply either side was intentionally favoured. I honestly don't even understand what you are implying here.



Terminus -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 8:31:52 PM)

While I appreciate that, Erik, I wonder why we on the development team aren't allowed to be frustrated at the situation. We've been accused of all sorts of falsehoods and lies, and even though we've told the truth again and again and again, it's without effect.

I think John was being kind, actually.



HansBolter -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 8:44:58 PM)

Let me state up front that I do not agree with the guy no matter what some of you may think.

I am concerned about two things.


1. No one seems to have answered his single greatest criticism, that almost the entire air force can be pulled without detriment.

2. Wargame developers would never, never survive the brutal design crits of an architecture school. One of the reasons I am as hard and blunt with criticism as I am is because I did survive those brutal design crits in architecture school. Criticism is a GOOD thing folks, it spurs us to improve. Too many devs and playtesters have not learned how to take criticism of their work without perceiving it as criticism of themselves.



jwilkerson -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 8:45:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

While I appreciate that, Erik, I wonder why we on the development team aren't allowed to be frustrated at the situation. We've been accused of all sorts of falsehoods and lies, and even though we've told the truth again and again and again, it's without effect.

I think John was being kind, actually.

You're allowed to be frustrated - just not publically!



Andy Mac -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 8:46:46 PM)

Thats fair Hans but all the air force is restricted so he is needing to pay PP's to withdraw those air units well thats game design - I would ask has he actually tried it ?

If he is basing them in Russia to bomb China there isnt much I can do about it.
Andy



JWE -> RE: "Tojo Edition" (12/10/2009 8:47:02 PM)

My goodness. So much fuss over a word.

Well, it is getting chilly in SoCal, and the winter storms are coming. Not quite ready to move the household yet, but still looks like a good time to take a looong vacation south of the line. They have this wicked gnarly stuff they make from pineapple that I've taken a liking to. And there's this restaurant that does a pistaccio soufle that's to die for.

Ya'll have fun now.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.796875