War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition: Pricing announced.

[Drakken]

Absolutely. But my PBEM game aborted because only masochists play a PBEM at 1 turn cycle, which spells years of game.

I'd settle for 2 or 3 turns cycle, though.

After doing both, I reverted to 1-day cycles, with multiple cycles played per day.  There simply are times when you need to intervene on a daily basis (during carrier battles, for instance) and running a couple game cycles per real day isn't all that hard.

That presumes you and your opponent are more or less in the same time zone, though, and have similar game time available during your non-work time.

That also presumes that both you and your opponent devote their whole free time playing the game.

[grumbler]

That also presumes that both you and your opponent devote their whole free time playing the game.

You presume that everyone plays like you, checking each unit each day.  I can play turns in minutes, unless something unexpected happens in combat.

[Drakken]

That also presumes that both you and your opponent devote their whole free time playing the game.

You presume that everyone plays like you, checking each unit each day.  I can play turns in minutes, unless something unexpected happens in combat.

You presume that everyone started to play with WITP years ago. I started to play seriously with AE coming out, so my level of experience is rather low. 

[grumbler]

You presume that everyone started to play with WITP years ago. I started to play seriously with AE coming out, so my level of experience is rather low. 

I presume nothing about "everyone;" Just about you. 

[Ideologue]

I'm considering getting it.  I need a good wargame since HOI3 ain't cutting it.

[grumbler]

I'm considering getting it.  I need a good wargame since HOI3 ain't cutting it.

Just be warned that you will have to restart some early games, as they tweak the AI to avoid some crazy aggressiveness (like invading Canton island the second week of December, 1941).  They also had to allow the AI to avoid a lot of human-player restrictions (like some of the airfield size effects on large aircraft basing) and production without consuming resources.  The cumulative effect is to make the game less realistic and satisfying than straight WitP in some areas.

It is plenty good enough to learn the system of play from, though, so worth having in that respect.

The part that will amuse you, though, is the extremely low US aircraft production rates, and the designer's claim that these accurately reflect what could have historically been assigned to Pacific theater units (with the other 90% apparently going to Europe or the allies).  These absolutely accurate numbers, of course, are also constantly tweaked to make them even absolutlier correct! 

[The Minsky Moment]

grumbler what is your overall view of AE vs. WITP original?  Now that you have had some time with both.

[Ideologue]

I'm considering getting it.  I need a good wargame since HOI3 ain't cutting it.

Just be warned that you will have to restart some early games, as they tweak the AI to avoid some crazy aggressiveness (like invading Canton island the second week of December, 1941).  They also had to allow the AI to avoid a lot of human-player restrictions (like some of the airfield size effects on large aircraft basing) and production without consuming resources.  The cumulative effect is to make the game less realistic and satisfying than straight WitP in some areas.

It is plenty good enough to learn the system of play from, though, so worth having in that respect.

The part that will amuse you, though, is the extremely low US aircraft production rates, and the designer's claim that these accurately reflect what could have historically been assigned to Pacific theater units (with the other 90% apparently going to Europe or the allies).  These absolutely accurate numbers, of course, are also constantly tweaked to make them even absolutlier correct! 

But... but... my B-17s!

[grumbler]

grumbler what is your overall view of AE vs. WITP original?  Now that you have had some time with both.

Like I said, there are some things I like better (tenders make more sense now, and repair ships and yards are not just vague "helper" concepts).  Loading ships with combat troops is much more logical and error-free. The air training system is more detailed but maybe not better, just different.  I actually like the aggressive AI, but think it needs to be toned down to what the Japanese can hold.  This taking of bases and then lifting the unit to take another base is nuts, and exposes Japanese transports to being sunk on the cheap.  I like the way ship conversions are done. 

I don't like the confusing and needless renaming of ship types/abbreviations.  I don't care for the micromanagement of pilots, and the whole concept of withdrawing specific squadrons and ships, rather than types of each. I don't like the scattering of aviation squadrons into detachments at the start of scenarios.  The command system would work if there were not units unchangeably assigned to HQs that have to be withdrawn (ABDA, Malaya Army).

I am uncertain as to whether or not I think it is better to have the land units start as battalions and regiments, to be built into divisions, or to start as divisions.  The AI seems to handle the smaller units better, but it is a pain for the human player.

The biggest question mark for me at this point is the new production system.  If it actually does work as advertised (Japan unable to transport enough raw materials to maintain full production, even from the start) then the Japanese player will face decisions, which is good.  Allowing the AI to cheat like mad on production is a price worth paying for that, but the cheating is unwarranted if the system doesn't deliver the improvements promised.

Bottom line:  I think it is probably a better game, but the changes are so many, and so subtle, that I am not yet sure they are mostly changes for the better.  In other words, I can't yet tell if the fact I am enjoying the game more with AE is because it is better, or just because it is different.

[grumbler]

But... but... my B-17s!

4E bombers are toned way down.  On the plus side for the Allies, the Wirriway is now a light bomber, and so can re-equip with something decent. 

[Berkut]

Finally started reading Shattered Sword. It makes me want to play WitP again.

[Ideologue]

Finally started reading Shattered Sword. It makes me want to play WitP again.

Damn, I always meant to pick that up.  Good book?

[Berkut]

So far it is, but I haven't gotten very far. Incredible amount of detail.

[grumbler]

I think that i have played the game enough now to say that yes, it is a definitely superior product compared to WitP, and that real fans of the latter (i.e. people who are considering playing it again several times) would probably consider their money well-spent on this one.  The AI is simply that much better (which is important even in PBEM play, since the AI actually runs the task forces and whatnot), and the mechanics of things are much improved (submarines are no longer uber, but neither is ASW).  The staggering amount of damage the Japanese do at Pearl Harbor (just run it four or five times; the average US loss seems to be about five battleships and eight smaller ships sunk, and another dozen or so ships badly damaged) and the absurdly low US aircraft production numbers in the early game are my only serious gripe at this point, other than the fact that AI Japan is active in China and I find the China theater a huge bore.

[Berkut]

It saddens me that Habs doesn't like this game - he would be insanely good at it.