RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness

RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (Full Version)

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

Message

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 3:21:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna 1) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce the Japan VPs for various bases not in the "inner core" (Manchuria/Korea, E/NE China, Taiwan, Okinawa, Bonins) that Japan can expect to hold onto until at least the middle of 1945 in a "historically comparable performance" (or close to it) game - this means reducing Manila, Singapore, Rangoon, etc. They're the big ones and you need a big change. In exchange, you then increase the points of the "inner core" areas I just mentioned. As such, I think that the VP values of Singapore, Bangkok, and Saigon should remain mostly unchanged (or even possibly increased for both players). It seems to make more sense, if we wish to use history as the guide, to reduce the VP value of Manila and Rangoon (for both sides), and reduce the value of bases such as Noumea, Luganville, Moresby, and Chungking for Japan to offset increases in the Home Islands. One other thought on the value of Singapore, Bangkok, and Saigon. Removing value from these bases may have the opposite effect of that intended. If we wish to reduce the overwhelming influence of strategic bombing on the final victory calculations or at least increase the amount of strategic bombing necessary for victory, lowering the value of these western bases may serve only to increase the allied desire to ignore most of these now secondary objectives and move directly through CentPac or the DEI to the Phillipines and Okinawa and to the bombing of Honshu as quickly as possible.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 5:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Question: Will all of the efforts to nerf VPs for Allied strategic bombing of Japan in late game to make Japan more competitive in the late game only result in a common strategy implementation of Japanese players exploiting VP gains by strategic bombing Australia early when the Allies have no effective countermeasure? This happens anyway and is largely inconsequential. There is only one example of MrKane doing it with any measure of success, and I'd argue that Jocke was already well on his way to getting AV'd in that one because MrKane played him perfectly. The raw number of VPs available is nowhere near as many as the Allies can gain. It is also extremely important to note that Japan can't really conduct a strategic bombing campaign of Australia that can't be countered - if it comes via LBA, there are ways to defend against that (plus it takes time); if it comes via KB, then the KB is ripe to be pounced upon by USN CVs as the carrier air groups can't be set to naval attack at all if they are set to city attack. City attack can only be a primary mission, so you can't naval primary/city secondary. quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Scenario: Unscrupulous Japanese player mercilessly exploits VP gains strategic bombing Auatralia in '42 and then thumbs his nose up at his opponent going "na, na, na, na you'll never overcome this VP deficit because we nerfed your ability to harvest them through strategic bombing". p.s. I have no vested interest here as I don't play PBEM and would never play a mod that nerfs the Allies to make playing Japan more enjoyable. I'm just acting as devil's advocate since I perceive you may find yourselves investing considerable time in gaming mods that may be headed off the rails. As I already mentioned, for various reasons the amount of industry in Japan shouldn't be reduced. It would require an immense amount of time to modify all of the centers, it would require modifying in-Japan Resources even if you only touched LI, removing demand for Resources would change the calculus of ship movement/fuel used for xAKs and escorts, and so on and so on.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 5:28:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: I think we all agree that the Allies should have a number of viable routes to victory, including one similar to the historical model, which did rely heavily on strategic bombing and the atomic bomb. The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so. The Japanese Player doesn't have to feed any of its workers. Apparently the grass recipes featured in the Tokyo Times were adequate nourishment to keep the wheels of war turning without interruption. These advantages won't go away in the early part of the game or the late part of the game. It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment. These are not idle concerns. Also, your "grass recipes" bit is nonsense - the game does not in any way model non-military supplies or food for civilians. For either side - which includes non-home territory for the Allies at any point in the war.

spence -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 2:21:56 PM)
quote: It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment. The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints

Dili -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 2:43:46 PM)
When Japanese wanted - with troops from Kwantung - in 1944 they advanced in China. And this was done in 1944 when fortune wasn't favoring them.

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 8:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment. The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints Prior to Dec. 7th 1941, the Japanese were hoarding war materials, conquering Thailand and preparing 12 divisions for operations in the DEI, Luzon, and Malaysia. I doubt that you have ever played Japan and have no idea what you are saying. In scenario 1, Japan is absolutely limited by supply and significantly so. The supply use to conquer China is enormous and a full-scale offensive in China that lasts through 1943 nearly precludes any 2nd tier Japanese movements into India or Australia, unless the allied player is very careless and somehow allows Japan to capture enormous amounts of supply in India with a limited Indian offensive, which would be bad play by the allied player. The game was carefully designed to allow the Japanese player sufficient flexibility to choose 1 2nd-tier attack and no more. This is based upon historical parameters. That many Japanese players choose China is a strategic decision, not a game-design flaw. In the actual war, Yamamoto proposed, in March 1942, 2nd-tier landings in Ceylon and CentPac, with the objective of capturing the Hawaiian islands. The High Command rejected his proposals as too bold and risky. The Midway operation was a reduced version of Yamamoto's original plan. Japan's 2nd tier offensive never occurred in the real war because of Midway and because Yamamoto's plan was rejected by an overly cautious Japanese High Command. What is more, Japan did launch an offensive in China in 1944. The historical name of this operation was Ichi-go. By then, however, Chiang Kai Shek's army was in mcuh better condition than in 1942, having received training, equipment, and supplies from British and U.S. forces in India. So, the idea that Japan was so constrained by supply that they could not launch a Chinese offensive is counter-factual. If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.

obvert -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 8:55:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment. The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints Prior to Dec. 7th 1941, the Japanese were hoarding war materials, conquering Thailand and preparing 12 divisions for operations in the DEI, Luzon, and Malaysia. I doubt that you have ever played Japan and have no idea what you are saying. In scenario 1, Japan is absolutely limited by supply and significantly so. The supply use to conquer China is enormous and a full-scale offensive in China that lasts through 1943 nearly precludes any 2nd tier Japanese movements into India or Australia, unless the allied player is very careless and somehow allows Japan to capture enormous amounts of supply in India with a limited Indian offensive, which would be bad play by the allied player. The game was carefully designed to allow the Japanese player sufficient flexibility to choose 1 2nd-tier attack and no more. This is based upon historical parameters. That many Japanese players choose China is a strategic decision, not a game-design flaw. In the actual war, Yamamoto proposed, in March 1942, 2nd-tier landings in Ceylon and CentPac, with the objective of capturing the Hawaiian islands. The High Command rejected his proposals as too bold and risky. The Midway operation was a reduced version of Yamamoto's original plan. Japan's 2nd tier offensive never occurred in the real war because of Midway and because Yamamoto's plan was rejected by an overly cautious Japanese High Command. What is more, Japan did launch an offensive in China in 1944. The historical name of this operation was Ichi-go. By then, however, Chiang Kai Shek's army was in mcuh better condition than in 1942, having received training, equipment, and supplies from British and U.S. forces in India. So, the idea that Japan was so constrained by supply that they could not launch a Chinese offensive is counter-factual. If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan. Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war. The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions. In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.

HansBolter -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 8:58:17 PM)
That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China. Its an apples and oranges argument. The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer. Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 9:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan. Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war. The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions. In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder. Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.

obvert -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 9:42:34 PM)
My point is not about rader v Greyjoy. I don�t think the IJA could have taken all of China historically. Also, I do think the Japanese in game can take it quickly enough without SL (which make a massive difference defending China as the Allies) to then have a chance to still move on India, Russia or Australia if they would want to extend that far and burn that supply/fuel.

mind_messing -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 10:22:09 PM)
When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success. A more pertinent question is "Could the IJA have held all of China", to which the answer is generally negative. You could make the argument that if it was apparent that the KMT cause was broken then the warlords would have came to some accommodation with Japan and the RGC, but it's hard to justify considering how far the KMT were pushed without breaking. The game gets China very wrong in several key areas, but within the scale of the game it's perfectly excusable. In truth, the Chinese theater of war is one I don't think any game has managed to portray with any real accuracy.

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 11:25:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China. Its an apples and oranges argument. The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer. Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments. As per Canoerebel's quest, the comment as been deleted.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 11:34:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer. The game, or a lazy Allied opponent? [8\|][8\|][8\|] And please - IRL Japan conquered more than half of what the game allows them to conquer. Well more.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 11:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan. Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war. The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions. In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder. Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike. I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 11:39:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China. Its an apples and oranges argument. The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer. Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments. Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools. If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer. I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave. We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context. I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.

Canoerebel -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/11/2018 11:52:04 PM)
I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same.

spence -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 3:45:44 AM)
quote: When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success. You left out the word TEMPORARY in front of success. In 1944, the Japanese managed to overrun a significant part of China and push the American airbases out of range of the Japanese homeland but they could not hold the land that they seized. They essentially conceded their lines of communication to the Chinese. Therein lies the crux of the problem with the China Option. If they wanted to move "a can of beans" 100 miles overland they had to haul it on a cart that mostly contained fodder for the horse and escort it with a battalion of infantry to keep the partisans away.

obvert -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 8:14:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders. SL do affect the game differently at different times. In terms of balance this can mean that the IJA is slowed in taking some areas early if they can't commit overwhelming force. Certain spots in x3 can be real thorns if troops are allowed to dig in, and harder if those are low SL hexes where the Chinese can rotate troops out and in. In my game vs GreyJoy he suffered some big setbacks in China after allowing Chinese troops to get to the best defensive terrain and build forts. I'm not saying this isn't balanced by the slowing of the Allies later, but in terms of overall balance I think it works to extend the game, limit 2nd and 3rd tier Japanese expansion, and as you've said, slow some Allied invasion options in mid-to-late game by not allowing kitchen sink invasion drops on critical targets.

obvert -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 8:17:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success. You left out the word TEMPORARY in front of success. In 1944, the Japanese managed to overrun a significant part of China and push the American airbases out of range of the Japanese homeland but they could not hold the land that they seized. They essentially conceded their lines of communication to the Chinese. Therein lies the crux of the problem with the China Option. If they wanted to move "a can of beans" 100 miles overland they had to haul it on a cart that mostly contained fodder for the horse and escort it with a battalion of infantry to keep the partisans away. Exactly! (OT: Didn't notice you're from Vancouver until just today! My mom grew up there and grandma lived there during my whole childhood. I was born and raised in Portland. Loved Fort Vancouver and the fireworks every 4th [:)])

obvert -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 8:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context. I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it. +1 Hans has been a member of the community for a long time and I hope this is a place where we embrace differences of opinion as Loka says, to help us better understand, frame and defend our own ideas. Dialogue is a positive, even when we don't see eye to eye on everything.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 9:58:50 AM)
For once I agree with spence - note the day on the calendar [:D] Japan could not conquer China IRL and the game does not reflect realities. Japan managed to hold "points and lines" i.e. population centers and communication lines over a certain area, but did not have the manpower to control the rural areas nor to expand effective control over more points and lines. Now, there are JFBs who recognize this and exercise self-restraint. This JFBs actually made a mod which is designed to make it much harder for Japan to run rampant in China. This is why I get angry when AFBs claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. Bulls**t! However, I'm playing a PBEM where no restrictions in China are in place (apart from a house rule limiting the number of tanks that can be stacked in a hex to prevent "Panzer Corps" style warfare). I do not exercise self-restraint and I try to conquer Chungking. Not for the VPs I don't care about, but to eliminate the dangers from Chinese hordes being supplied and revived through the Burma road my opponent will soon have opened. The danger that thousands of Chinese AV will - very un-historically - run rampant in China is one main reason JFBs try to - very un-historically - kick China out of the war. But that is not easy. Some good players do achieve it. Others less gifted not. I'm in October 1943, have Chungking surrounded and after a siege of several months with hundreds of bombers and lots of LCUs bought with PPs (which I could have sent to other theaters) bombarding the city daily, the surrounded Chinese are subsisting on the daily allocation of "cans of beans" (and ammo) which magically spawns each day in the city. They can even still fire flak, they have thrashed two deliberate ground attacks with very lopsided results. So I have little sympathy for AFB whining about "magic logistics" on the Japanese side allowing them to get to Chungking, when the Allied side profits from "magic logistics" as well. In short, both sides get their share of "�ber"-capabilities, and they may balance out. I could agree on a game imposing self-restraint for Japan in China if the Allies have to impose self-restraint themselves for things the game allows but which were not possible IRL. In said PBEM, my opponent is using a large part of US assets in the CBI, including all available fleet carriers, at least one Marine Division and US Army ground units plus air groups in order to reconquer Burma, starting with the Andamans (captured by Marines). That would not have been possible IRL due to political reasons - the war aims for the US and the British in South_East Asia were fundamentally different and the USA did not want to help re-establish British colonialism. No way a large part of the US Navy and sizeable ground and air forces would have been allocated for operations in the Bay of Bengal to bring the British back in power in Burma! And while we are at unhistorical advantages: The Japanese soldiers were more frugal and accepted hardships more readily than their Allied counterparts. Compare the conditions and space allotments per man on troops transports for example - or the quantity and quality of rations and "amenities". The typical combat ration of a Japanese soldier contained 2.2 lbs of food per man and day, the American allocation weighted over 6 lbs (only food - if counting all supplies per man the ratio is even more skewed). In game terms that means a US unit would need more supply points than a Japanese units of the same size and manpower. Yet in the game, a Japanese squad device and an Allied squad device both require 1 supply point per month. Don't think a US squad was one third the size of a Japanese squad. IOW the Allies should require more supply points per squad device than Japan. Huge impact on supply consumption and logistics, shipping space and availability - in short, HUGE advantage for the Allies in the game BY DESIGN. No AFB complaining about this I guess. But well, there are other advantages the Japanese side has BY DESIGN. They may even out balance-wise, but I guess most players would prefer realistic constraints for both sides instead of a number of advantages / disadvantages that may or may not even-out in the long. But no game will be perfect, and AE does a pretty good job and the Devs deserve a "Well done" despite the gripes JFBs and AFBs alike voice here.

HansBolter -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 10:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China. Its an apples and oranges argument. The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer. Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments. Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools. If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer. I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave. We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context. I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it. The attempt to ostracize me won't succeed. I've weathered far worse treatment from Symon, who got himself permanently banned for his attacks against me. Guess I just seem to bring out the worst in people. And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum.

zuluhour -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 11:41:21 AM)
+1 (stay civil)rise above the current trend of black and white.

witpqs -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 1:54:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China. Its an apples and oranges argument. The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer. Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments. Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools. If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer. I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave. We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context. I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it. The attempt to ostracize me won't succeed. Good! That 'suggestion' was wrong on many levels, as Lokasenna pointed out. I've weathered far worse treatment from Symon, who got himself permanently banned for his attacks against me. Guess I just seem to bring out the worst in people. And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum. Only speaks for that person in his moment of emotional lashing out.

Lecivius -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 2:03:58 PM)
I don't think AFB's want to "claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. ". At least I don't. I just point out my opinion that in this game the Japanese get advantages they never received 'historically', and the allies get limited more than they did 'historically'. All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too. Treat it as such, and we all get along [;)]

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 4:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same. I'm not a fan of sweeping things under the rug. Transparency and documentation are good things because everybody has the same knowledge.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 4:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum. There are plenty of AI players. There are several AI AARs in that subforum as well. Most of the common posters here play PBEM, but in terms of raw population of active posters I think it is much more evenly split.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 4:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius I don't think AFB's want to "claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. ". At least I don't. I just point out my opinion that in this game the Japanese get advantages they never received 'historically', and the allies get limited more than they did 'historically'. All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too. Treat it as such, and we all get along [;)] They don't, but whenever any topic on game balance comes up, a few folks come out of the woodwork to say something to that effect.

btd64 -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 4:36:50 PM)
Been following this thread and here is my 2 cents. As Lecivius said, "All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too." Let's enjoy this game and thank the Gods of War for creating it. The nice think about this game is the individual has the power to adjust, change, add or subtract anything they want, within reason. As a AFB I don't complain about balance. The reason being is that any advantages that the JFB's get will be canceled out in time anyway. My 2 cents....GP

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/12/2018 8:06:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same. I'm not a fan of sweeping things under the rug. Transparency and documentation are good things because everybody has the same knowledge. My understanding of Canoerebel's polite request was that he felt that the debate had deteriorated from a fact-based discussion into vitriol, and he felt that vitriol would prevent some from participating in the conversation. He did not promote the idea that we "hide things," rather I think that he wants to promote as large and open a discussion as possible. I have difficulty objecting strongly to his reason in this instance.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875