quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Regarding the original post (that people claim this or that side has a sure win just from the starting conditions):

I suspect that people are saying "The Japanese win all the time by taking China and moving LCUs to the Pacific" etc without actually playing the game to a conclusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people conquering China (check), moving LCUs (check) and then _presuming_ the Japanese will win? Or are they actually playing to a 4:1 edge in 1942 etc?

I suspect a lot of these sure wins will sort themselves out in a few hundred turns to an advantage, but not a certainty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

I'm sure no one is asking but here is my input on the topic. I started a '43 capaign against the AI (just to practice amphib ops and such). It plays much differently than scenario 15.

-China is a deadlock! I have made pretty big advances here but if I was playing a human oponent I would have had my @ss handed to me long ago with the chanses I take. At the same time, I can hold off any Japanese attack with no trouble.

-Japanese CV aviation is nonexistent. The fighter complements have been reduced to almost nothing just by encountering the CAP over my bases. I base this observation on the fact that they are now launching unescorted strikes every time they lauch. AI stupidity notwithstanding, I think they really are out of fighters. However, I doubt this would be so if the "cold start" did not assume that IJN airpower had be all but slagged at Midway.

-Allies need MAJOR overkill in land forces to take any base, especially atolls. A landing with 1 Inf. Div. and 1 RCT on Kwajelein was repulsed in 3 days. It took me 4 complete US army Divs. to take the place and all 4 were effectively wrecked when I was done. My landing at Victoria Point with the 72 UK Bde. and 2 UK Div. is being stopped cold by 1 base force. I'm certain that I will take the place sooner or later but the mere fact that I'm having so much trouble is the point. In effect, this has nothing to do with strategy, just simple numbers and game mechanics.

-Night bombing does nothing. I have 4 sqadrons of B-24s bombing Rabaul at night and getting 1-2 airfield hits per night.

-PTs have done nothing. Not only can they not find the targets half the time but if the enemy TF is escorted by DDs, they get slaughtered for no gain. However, they wreak havoc with unescorted transports, just as they should.

-In '43 I already have more Allied CVs than I know what to do with. I am operating 2 CV TFs with 2CVs and 3 CVLs apeice. There is no KB to fight, they do diddly against transports (see my other post in the "Anyone noticed this game is kinda like the U.S.S.R.?" post) and they get nicked just hard enough by LBA to stay away from any major Japanese bases.

In synopsis, there are many other instances I could mention. There are also a few assumptions I am making here. I am playing the AI, not an oponent who is capable of reacting. The situation in '43 from a "cold start" is likely to be very diferent from the one we would see if the game had been played from '41. The AI is not offensive, thus I can make all the moves I want without being afraid that my oponent will hit me "where I 'aint".

Personally, I dont think that too many of these complaints are valid. A few things could be tweaked. However, this game does not have as many "game breakers" as some on this forum would have it beleived. IMHO, I think people should do less complaining and more playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

very good points.... i also noticed a few of these games that people are complaining about are using multiple day turns. i think if these strategies were used with 1 day turns you would see different stories.