This game is a joke

[phil74501]

I just bought this game a few days ago. I just lost a game, playing as the allies, even though I had a two to one advantage in carriers, over two to one in battleships/battle cruisers, and all but 5 of the bases on the map. The game ended with a Japanese victory in August 1944 because Japan had managed to survive that long. That's a year before the real war ended and they consider that a Japanese victory? That's just stupid.

Why can't you target your planes at particular ships? The computer player somehow manages to always attack your carriers, while your planes go after the cruisers. Needless to say that gives the computer a heck of an advantage. Anytime I got into a battle with the computers ships, where I had an advantage, they would withdraw without me be able to attack them. If I tried that, my ships still got attacked for one turn by the computers.

I can't believe I paid $40 for this game. I would consider $4 a waste of money.

[Strider]

I've had two PBEM opponents for about as long as the patch for it came out. We've all got an understanding that the game isn't historical to the point where the IJN can't win. With the four different Victory conditions, there's a lot of room for different things to happen. We've had games end with the time victory kicking in, anywhere from a couple of months to almost a year later. We take that into account while we're playing.
As far as manually targeting ships with planes, the design decision was that planes didn't always ID the correct targets. And adding in that function would have lengthened the game time, which is one of the points of the way the game is designed. It's not designed to take more than a couple of hours or so to play.
No game is to everyone's liking.

[phil74501]

What I noticed was when the computer planes attacked, 80% of them would go after my carriers and battleships. When my planes attacked the computer's ships I would be lucky if 50% of my planes went after the computer's carriers and battleships. I would expect at least an equal footing in the game in that regard.

I understand that no game can be totally historically accurate. But, shouldn't you have until at least when the real war ended to try and win? Otherwise why call it a Pacific War? Why not just call it "Pixels moving around your computer screen map shaped like the Pacific ocean game." That's about how historically accurate I consider it to be.

I have other complaints with the game. But it's ultimately pointless. I played the demo several times before I bought it. But had no way of knowing the shortcomings in the game from the few turns the demo gave you.

[S.R. Krol]

Originally Posted by phil74501

I understand that no game can be totally historically accurate. But, shouldn't you have until at least when the real war ended to try and win? Otherwise why call it a Pacific War?

This though was an intentional design decision for gameplay balance since a moveable end date creates a situation where you don't have the luxury of being able to perfectly plan for the war's end. This is a decision that many PTO games face, unless you want your game to be more of a recreation rather than a game in which the players have a chance to alter history.

It does sound strange that Japan won at that point with your force composition so it may have unfortunately just been a random
bug. Or simply bad luck. I don't know the exact computation for deciding when Japan wins by survival but maybe it had a 1 in a 1000 chance in your game and it managed to hit that 1. I've seen
runs of bad luck in games over the decades and sometimes the gods of dice are just against you.

Through beta testing, the professional reviews, and the many happy other gamers of the title there really hasn't been any complaints of it being lopsided. So I would suggest giving it some more play. I'm sure you'll find it balanced overall, just as I'm sure sometimes as the Allies you'll stomp all over the Japanese and vice versa.

[JMHawkins]

The targetting for airstrikes works the same for both computer and human aircraft - neither has an advantage over the other. The bombers will tend to go for the carriers, but will sometimes end up going after a less valuable ship. It is entirely even handed, no cheating in the AI. However, perceptions can be different - just like in real life it always seems like the other guy is getting better results. I think we remember more vividly our planes that went astray and his planes that didn't.

As far as the end date being variable and possibly a year prior to the historical end of the war, it's an intentional decision based on two factors: first, as a play balance issue, it really is exceptionally difficult for Japan to retain any sort of effective force deep into 1945. If the game always played out those last few months, most games would be very boring at the end. Keep in mind that "Japanese Victory" in WPP really amounts to a draw that lets Japan keep some fragment of her empire after America decides enough is enough. That's the best Japan could have hoped for anyway, and what most of her leaders were planning on.

The other factor in the survival victory condition is the pre-war set of assumptions both sides used in planning for the war. The Japanese of course assumed they could shock a decadant US populace into peace because Americans would not have the stomach for a long war. Less well known is that in its 1930's planning, the US Navy itself assumed it only had two years at most to defeat Japan before public sentiment turned against the war. That caused a lot of turmoil in the planning process as officers tried to balance the need for rapid advance against the problems of operating thousands of miles away from base.

I chose to make the actual end date random (but influenced by the ratio of surviving ships and the number of active B-29 bases) so that neither side would be encouraged to make an unhistorical last turn splurge. You never quite know if you'll need ships next turn or not.

Making a game that covers the entire Pacific Theater playable in two to three hours requires a great deal of abstraction, but I've tried to keep a historical connection in there all the same. Still, not every game can appeal to every gamer.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
John Hawkins
KE Studios

[phil74501]

Well I just finished another game with the almost the exact same results. I had over 2 to 1 in carriers, and 3 to 1 in battleships, and it still ended in August 1944. I don't see how the allies can win it by then. You don't get amphibious forces until 7 and 10 turns into a 33 turn game.

Maybe you are correct that I perceive that the AI is cheating on the targeting of ships. But I noticed it doing the exact same thing when Japanese ships decided to withdraw from a battle. When I did that my ships still got attacked by Japanese planes once before my ships withdrew. When Japanese ships withdrew, my planes didn't get a last attack at them.

I still find the ending of the game unrealistic. I don't think it should have a hard end date equal to the historical end. But seeing as how the American public didn't bail out by 1945, I would think giving it at least until then is more realistic.

[MarkL]

I think if you play the game for what it is intended it works well.
The abstraction is there but as stated you can finish a game in one setting, which is very good.

For me this game is very good for when I want a quick game with a result in one or two sittings.

I have other games for when I want a more deeper strategic play.

Good to have a variety of games to fill all situations, and since this one is virtually bug free it is good value for money. I have quiet a few strategy games that have real issues. This one has no show stoppers. Only simplified by design. And remember it is only a game.

Cheers MarkL