Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

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?

With the amount of foreknowledge players have? Yes. This works both ways, though. Late in the game Allied players can be much less cautious than historically, and plan their operations with foreknowledge of goals, achieving which auto-wins the war. (So, in WitP it was possible for Allies to end the war on historical timeline with rush to Marianas and strategic bombing, even after losing all major naval engagements until November 1943.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

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.

1. Yes they did inflict 10* the casualties..
2. January / 15 February Historically , come on thats close enough... And in most of the early cases the Japanese risks Naval losses by a landing further south cutting of the retreat.

Lastly in some PBMs the allies are stil fighting in Singapore in Malaysia in March to April and even in June for Manilla.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Really ? not my experience all my PBEM opponents gave me a tough fight into 45 in WITP and I expect at least two of them to do the same in AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

They could pretty much go where they pleased but they couldn't be everywhere at once. Like everybody else, they had limited amphibious capacity and logistical necessities. So I just don't believe they could do all of the above so quickly. Also, had they been willing and able to project so much power globally then they would have appeared to be the bigger threat than the corporal in Germany that was getting most of the attention.

quote:

Do you think land combat in this game is all it can be?

quote:

Do you think WW2 subs should be able to sink DDs and other ASW craft at will?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

They could pretty much go where they pleased but they couldn't be everywhere at once. Like everybody else, they had limited amphibious capacity and logistical necessities. So I just don't believe they could do all of the above so quickly. Also, had they been willing and able to project so much power globally then they would have appeared to be the bigger threat than the corporal in Germany that was getting most of the attention.

You underestimate the benefits of foreknowledge. In AE, initial Japanese operations are not a big jump into unknown - you know beforehand the general outline of things that are going to happen at the war's beginning and the extent of your advantage. Knowledge that yes, PH will be a complete success alone makes possible many things that were not possible, period, in RL, such as an attepmt to take Hawaii in December 1941 (and the fact that you can plan an operation before a day passes in the game allows to deploy IJN battleline on December 8, secure in the knowledge that Pacific Fleet is short on heavy surface forces). You also know quite accurately, what you can allow yourself to expend. You also likely know what your enemy has, if not (after the first few days) where. While there are some drawbacks, compared to RL, such as more determined land resistance at all major points, this is huge. This is the main factor that allows for bold early-war planning, even though somewhat better economical and production situation eventually helps to maintain the pace too. Note, that such audacious strategy means accepting heavy losses against a human opponent, inevitably in transports and possibly in warships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I agree with FatR: foreknowledge makes a huge difference. We players are far more profligate with our resources because we know much more about the enemy than the historical actors did.

quote:

Do you think land combat in this game is all it can be?

It's roughly what I want in a game of this scale. Sure, ground combat could be handled like "Advanced Squad Leader" or an Operational Combat Series game or something, and then none of us would ever finish.

quote:

quote:

Do you think WW2 subs should be able to sink DDs and other ASW craft at will?

No. Fortunately, this is not the case in AE. My subs can't sink anything "at will."

quote:

I see no evidence of pro-Japan bias in AE. I see Japan doing well in some games and the Allies in others -- and remember, the AARs we see tend to focus on the early war, in which Japan is ascendant. This dev team seems especially careful about avoiding bias. They even eradicated the subtitle to stock, which some thought reflected a Western perspective on things -- "The Struggle Against Japan 1941-45".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I doubt many people who play the game think there's any pro-Japanese (or pro-Allied) bias on the part of the developers of the game.  You're right, too, that any flaws in the game will benefit the Japanese early on since they have the initiative and greater clout at the start, and will then give the Allies a big boost later on.

But there are serious problems with the game.  Most of the major problems I've seen cut both ways:  artillery death stars, nuclear subs, and ineffective fortifications.  These cut both ways with the tendency to hurt the Allies early and the Japanese late.  Some people are skeptical of or even dispute that these flaws exist, meaning that a consensus hasn't developed.  So more time will be needed to evaluate the situation.  But only a few PBEMers have gotten into late '42 at this point and the reports that I've seen tend to be unanimous on these points.

The only flaw in the game that is totally one-sided is the situation in China.  Skepticism and doubts have been expressed about this, too, so that further time will be needed to fully evaluate.

I'm nearing November 1, 1942 in my PBEM game.  I've seen all of these problems repeated for months of game time.  In many cases the problems are getting even worse.  If my perception is accurate, then there is going to be a mounting hue-and-cry as others advance further into their games and find these problems and reach a certain level of frustration at their inability to solve the problem.  However, many players have already imposed house rules to avoid these problems.  They don't want serious flaws to interfere with games that they have devoted hundreds of hours to.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

No, one arty per division HR doesn't help.  Miller has seven divisions at Sian and seven arty units.

I don't think you can compare AI to PBEM in any aspect including Nuclear Subs.  Others are reporting similar problems in PBEM games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

No, one arty per division HR doesn't help.  Miller has seven divisions at Sian and seven arty units.

I don't think you can compare AI to PBEM in any aspect including Nuclear Subs.  Others are reporting similar problems in PBEM games.

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