Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Oh i see were back to constructive discussion.

Devs, please include this into patch 3!

I´m working with software fixes day by day and have quite an experience how a small change that should improve one detail can have
such a big impact on other processes that it renders the original fix useless. So everything you change you have to be very, very careful with.
The Dev team of AE had and have to work with the same source code they got with the stock game. It´s a HUGE modding effort and this effort is highly apprechiated by nearly everyone here.

mjk428 noone disagrees that the game does not simulate everything to perfection.
If this prevents you from enjoying the game then set it aside, play something else, or nothing, or suggest something constructive and doable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

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?

Oh I see so your a long timer and that makes you special around here. Well you might not have said "game sucks" but a rose by any other name, well you know. Well amigo (as in Sparky), I have been here two more years than you. I have 6 purchases from Matrix and purchased UV and the old Pac War in the 1st week they were released. So using your criteria of seniority, I feel I can offer this solution to you. Why don't you quit your whining, sell your game on Craigs or EBay, and go somewhere else where you (and we) will be happier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

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?

Oh I see so your a long timer and that makes you special around here. Well you might not have said "game sucks" but a rose by any other name, well you know. Well amigo (as in Sparky), I have been here two more years than you. I have 6 purchases from Matrix and purchased UV and the old Pac War in the 1st week they were released. So using your criteria of seniority, I feel I can offer this solution to you. Why don't you quit your whining, sell your game on Craigs or EBay, and go somewhere else where you (and we) will be happier.

Not at all. Termy seemed to think he could run me off and I just pointed out that I was here before him.

I don't give a rat's ass about you or how much you like the game. I surely have no incentive to make you happy.

Some more useless trivia: I was here since Matrix released Steel Panthers but had no reason to register until I bought UV. I registered in order to hopefully improve their new product. I've been buying Grigsby games since '82.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I feel I can offer this solution to you. Why don't you quit your whining, sell your game on Craigs or EBay, and go somewhere else where you (and we) will be happier.

.

Then suffer!

quote:

I wouldn't bother wasting my time on the matrix boards. If you post any criticism, you'll get smothered. You're going to have to live with what you get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Oh i see were back to constructive discussion.

Devs, please include this into patch 3!

I´m working with software fixes day by day and have quite an experience how a small change that should improve one detail can have
such a big impact on other processes that it renders the original fix useless. So everything you change you have to be very, very careful with.
The Dev team of AE had and have to work with the same source code they got with the stock game. It´s a HUGE modding effort and this effort is highly apprechiated by nearly everyone here.

mjk428 noone disagrees that the game does not simulate everything to perfection.
If this prevents you from enjoying the game then set it aside, play something else, or nothing, or suggest something constructive and doable.

It's seems that when there are problems it's just a mod yet when it was being marketed it was "a brand new game". Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Full price brings full expectations.
Also, unless the software you work on each day is a publicly marketed entertainment product then you're comparing apples to oranges.

You might not be able to comprehend this but I don't take my marching orders from you. I will continue to discuss the problems I have with the game whenever I see fit. Matrix doesn't seem to mind, in fact they welcome specific criticisms. So why do you and others take it so personal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Oh i see were back to constructive discussion.

Devs, please include this into patch 3!

I´m working with software fixes day by day and have quite an experience how a small change that should improve one detail can have
such a big impact on other processes that it renders the original fix useless. So everything you change you have to be very, very careful with.
The Dev team of AE had and have to work with the same source code they got with the stock game. It´s a HUGE modding effort and this effort is highly apprechiated by nearly everyone here.

mjk428 noone disagrees that the game does not simulate everything to perfection.
If this prevents you from enjoying the game then set it aside, play something else, or nothing, or suggest something constructive and doable.

It's seems that when there are problems it's just a mod yet when it was being marketed it was "a brand new game". Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Full price brings full expectations.
Also, unless the software you work on each day is a publicly marketed entertainment product then you're comparing apples to oranges.

You might not be able to comprehend this but I don't take my marching orders from you. I will continue to discuss the problems I have with the game whenever I see fit. Matrix doesn't seem to mind, in fact they welcome specific criticisms. So why do you and others take it so personal?

hm...

"This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play , improve realism,
and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive
WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!"

Could you point me to where it says "brand new game" please?

And sorry if you misunderstood me.
Just from personal experience I noticed that if I quit doing something that I don´t feel satisfying and I am not in the position to change then
the best solution is to do something else. No marching orders offered, and I do not take what you say personal.

You seem to be on a quest for the perfect faultless strategy game. This game is very close IMO - in fact its the best strategy game I have ever played,
if this is not true for you thats sad, I hope you will find it.

I just feel that the group of dedicated people who made this great improvement over the stock WitP possible deserve better than constant
and often unfair criticism of their work without any way of understanding how complicated these things are and I do like to express my opinion on such a topics.

Neither did I want to offend you nor was any offense taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

The Soviets and Japanese kept enough forces to deter war. Neither side knew the exact amount that was needed. The problem in AE is that the players know EXACTLY how many forces are needed, down to the man.

I believe a simple solution, that won't require major coding changes, is to hide and randomize the garrison requirement number. Make the garrision requirement a random number, each game, landing somehwere between 8000-11000. The number isn't visible to either player. Normal Soviet activation then applies.

The japanese player may pull troops at any point, but always runs a risk.

I personally don't believe that the air power or arty, by itself, will make a major difference in the war. It's the troops. No need to put major coding changes in for air and arty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:


And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

But you can as Japan expand further than historical, decide on differant strategic directions and different policy. If the game allowed Japan to over run the USA mainland 50% of the time for a 'win' no-one would take it the least seriously. Allied production is a fact of life in any simulation of the pacific war so yes the Allies will always 'win' but as Japan can you make them 'win' in 46 rather than 45. thats the litmus paper of end game success imo.

Caveat - unless i completely missed the point of your post

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

The only way you can "do better" than your historical counterparts is if you face the same realities, challenges and restrictions as they did. Wanting to "do better" by inventing your own realities makes it sound like you watch the "History" Channel far too much...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:


And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

But you can as Japan expand further than historical, decide on differant strategic directions and different policy. If the game allowed Japan to over run the USA mainland 50% of the time for a 'win' no-one would take it the least seriously. Allied production is a fact of life in any simulation of the pacific war so yes the Allies will always 'win' but as Japan can you make them 'win' in 46 rather than 45. thats the litmus paper of end game success imo.

Caveat - unless i completely missed the point of your post

Actually the VP system let's the Japanese player 'win' the game. The things you mention are what I refer too. I do realize that if I play as Japan and can't get the VP victory by early '44, it's probably a lost cause. That doesn't mean that I can't be a major PITA to my opponant until the bitter end though.

And if you make no mistakes and your allied opponent makes a few bad mistakes, you can actually win the game. It's possible, not probable. I'm ok with this.

quote:


Don't let game mechanics be so unbalanced that there can never be a different outcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:


And then there is also the aspect that this is in fact a game, and a game that is 100% predictable, 100% guaranteed to have 1 side always win, and 100% playing out exactly as the real war did is no longer a game, it's just a rehash of what I already know and its not fun. If I want to see a CG movie of the war playing out that is what History Channel is for, I want to see if I can do better.

But you can as Japan expand further than historical, decide on differant strategic directions and different policy. If the game allowed Japan to over run the USA mainland 50% of the time for a 'win' no-one would take it the least seriously. Allied production is a fact of life in any simulation of the pacific war so yes the Allies will always 'win' but as Japan can you make them 'win' in 46 rather than 45. thats the litmus paper of end game success imo.

Caveat - unless i completely missed the point of your post

Actually the VP system let's the Japanese player 'win' the game. The things you mention are what I refer too. I do realize that if I play as Japan and can't get the VP victory by early '44, it's probably a lost cause. That doesn't mean that I can't be a major PITA to my opponant until the bitter end though.

And if you make no mistakes and your allied opponent makes a few bad mistakes, you can actually win the game. It's possible, not probable. I'm ok with this.

I couldn't agree more, the player/admiral/politician who makes the least blunders will be seen as a 'victor' or sorts . I havnt yet tried PBEM as Japan , i hope to one day. but i love playing Japan vs the AI (well once i get my head round the production system at least).

No offence here at all intended, but why make the point of 'imbalance' in a game thats so heavily based on real life that we all know Japan cant possibly win , except on points. It certainly isnt a re-hash of history and god forbid it ever become one. Imo 99% of players want a lot of 'what-if' factors in thier games, makes them unpredictable on a theatre scale and tactical too. but at the end of the day japan is toast.

I think your being a bit harsh on Mike there, he did put a smiley in there for you.

quote:


Don't let game mechanics be so unbalanced that there can never be a different outcome.

Depends on what you mean by outcome. will allies eventally win the war ? yes its pretty much inevitable. It's how you play the game that matters, not the conclusion which is pretty much set in stone.Of course Japan can do better that she did historically, i dont have to point you to any AAR's as your an old hand here from the WitP forums.

I am genuinely confused as to what your point actually is . I have been known to be as thick as a brick on occasion so please enlighten me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach




I feel that you are to kind with your approach to someone that is unapproachable. While I will leave it alone and back off, ala Erik, I feel it is futile to try a stroking move with this individual.

I calls them likes I sees them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Do you think that Japan had the real world capability to conquer much more than they did historically before they reached the end of their tether? That they could have been rampaging in China, blast through Burma to the Indian border, hold all of Malaysia and the PI, most of the DEI, and be invading the Central and South Pacific by March '42?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
.

Not sure where the AFB get the ideas the IJA was a push over , with air support and well supplied they pushed over the Australians in Malaysia ( who did quite well in North Africa against Rommel who in turn gave the US a run for their money) , they also did ok in teh Solomans with pretty bad supplies also with Ichi Go they thrashed China.. Its just historically they chose not to.

Go back and read what I wrote.

Did they take Singapore in early January and inflict 10X the casualties that they received? In the Solomons they died in droves.

In this game they can steamroll anything in a couple days and be no worse for wear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I've cited the areas where the game falls short for me. It's those shortcomings that cause me to not enjoy the game. You're willing to overlook them. I'm not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

....those like me that expect plausible results from a historical simulation with a historical order of battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

At Solomons if Japan had good airbase at Shortland or Munda the USA would be trashed in late 1942...  but they showed poor tactic level planning and not forsaw battle for unknown Guadalcanal island.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

At Solomons if Japan had good airbase at Shortland or Munda the USA would be trashed in late 1942...  but they showed poor tactic level planning and not forsaw battle for unknown Guadalcanal island.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

I'll see if I can clarify then.

My point is that the mechanics of the game should never limit a players ability to gain a victory. The mechanics being how the probability of a hit is resolved or whether a contact is made, etc. AE doesn't seem to have that.

Sure the database is based on realistic numbers and an American 5"/38 is far more likely to hit than a 12.7mm/40, but so long as the formula to resolve whether it hits or not is the same, it is fair.

So what I mean is make sure that the nuts and bolts we can't see that determine every outcome in the game are balanced, then the game is fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

My support to AE Team for the hard work. AE is an amazing product. Like a grogrand playing wargames from I was 14 y.o. I am absolutely satisfied with AE like the best PC wargame that I ever played.
About criticism, I am not agree with comments like wargamer forum... Probably this player don´t know about House Rules (needed sometimes to play as near to historical envrioment as possible). If you are agree with your opponent no one IJA aircraft will be transfer from Kwangtung to another playing areas... right?.
Like this H.R. another more could be taken for players to avoid unrealistic situations (no strategic bombing on China factories, 4E bombers at 10,000 or 15,000 feet in naval attack, all PT boats in the same hex in the same TF, and like this all that you want or need...).
For the other hands I can not understand this kind of players that need that the game will be like real war was.. WITP AE like others wargames is a game, it´s not the real life.. Could be near as possible to real life, but it´s a game.. and will be boring if I like JFB must to take the same deccisions of IJA/IJN Staff or like AFB taking the same decisions like Nimits/McArthur/Chiangk...wouldn´t be ?.. I think this "wargamers" like the historical timeline...well, you can take the same decisions like japanese Staff, but that´s your deccision in your play, no more.
The game is for all wargamers (no only for purist), and I think more of them like "What if.."

Finally, I am an unconditional WITP AE player (like AFB or JFB, I am glad playing any of sides) and I am very glad with the AE Team work.

P.S: excuse me for my english, it´s not my native language, i wait could be understood.

Ramón