Ideas for possible upgrades to this great game?

[spence]

As the game stands right now a pair of obsolete Swordfish bombers trapped on some isolated airfield and as a result unable to withdraw on time cost the Allied Player a bunch of Political Points every turn. By the same token if the Allied Player withdraws a few totally obsolete aircraft (Vildebeests come to mind) early he gets a bunch of Political Points. But if he withdraws a battleship or aircraft carrier early he gets no Political Points at all even though the investment in that ship/crew is 100 or more times the relative investment of resources/aircrew in that whole squadron (the same goes for withdrawing ground units earlier than called for {which isn't even possible as far as I can tell)).

I'd like to see a revision that allows for the gain of PP when one withdraws a ship or ground unit before the OOB calls for it.

[Yaab]

Because every pilot in this game has a Ben Affleck's TMTSNBN potential. Pilots in WITP:AE are aces, heroes, air knights, sons of senators and whatnot. The hoi polloi on ships and LCUs don't come with their personalised stats. Hence, the PP penalty.

[LeeChard]

The Japanese version of the DB601 was not a blueprint copy. their engineers thought they could improve it
by making it lighter. By thinning the block walls a little the engine suffered form crankshaft bearing
problems due to lack of rigidity. They just couldn't leave it alone [8|]
Their metallurgy was not up to German standards either.

[wegman58]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Well, it was -2 F here at 2:06 am. Now it is -5 f below at 7:43 am. I will not give the Celsius scale as it would seem even colder.

Of course, I always like to check this site weather check place to see if we are warmer or colder than that place.

As far as a change, how about when a ship sinks, the next flight doesn't target the ocean where it sank? It is irritating to have 4 bombers wasting their load each time, especially when there are many other ships to destroy.

They might also want to extend the winter zone further into March since that has some of the worst winter weather.

Warm - Minnesota is having a rough winter.

[spence]

Because every pilot in this game has a Ben Affleck's TMTSNBN potential. Pilots in WITP:AE are aces, heroes, air knights, sons of senators and whatnot. The hoi polloi on ships and LCUs don't come with their personalised stats. Hence, the PP penalty.

Having any Captain (O-6) replace the Ensign (O-1) as the Commanding Officer of a NZ light cruiser costs a whole bunch of Political Points. There is no justification whatsoever for the failure to find out who the actual CO was (since it historically would have been a senior O-5 or O-6) especially considering that there are only a few real, historical "Ben Affleck Zoomies/Airheads" included in the game.

[rustysi]

Having any Captain (O-6) replace the Ensign (O-1) as the Commanding Officer of a NZ light cruiser costs a whole bunch of Political Points.

Pfft. Who has PP's to change an officer on a light cruiser?[&:] I've never even looked at those guys.[8|]

[RangerJoe]

Warm - Minnesota is having a rough winter.

Don't I know it. You are in the warmer part of the state . . .

[spence]

Pfft. Who has PP's to change an officer on a light cruiser? I've never even looked at those guys.

I suppose it's just another sop to the Japanese Player to make the Allied Player spend some Political Points since every single other officer who could be assigned to be CO of those cruisers is a Captain (O-6) with better statistics than Ensigns Bell and Jones (who appear to be created out of whole cloth just to make the Allied Player spend some PPs).

BTW the HMNZS Achilles and HMNZS Leander are real light cruisers with 8 x 6" guns and torpedoes that usually work. And the Achilles was one of the ships that fought the Graf Spee in a surface action in 1939 while most of the Japanese fleet was just playing war.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: spence

Pfft. Who has PP's to change an officer on a light cruiser? I've never even looked at those guys.

I suppose it's just another sop to the Japanese Player to make the Allied Player spend some Political Points since every single other officer who could be assigned to be CO of those cruisers is a Captain (O-6) with better statistics than Ensigns Bell and Jones (who appear to be created out of whole cloth just to make the Allied Player spend some PPs).

BTW the HMNZS Achilles and HMNZS Leander are real light cruisers with 8 x 6" guns and torpedoes that usually work. And the Achilles was one of the ships that fought the Graf Spee in a surface action in 1939 while most of the Japanese fleet was just playing war.

[&:] What the....

[RangerJoe]

When you go going raiding with CLs and DDs, it pays to look at the officers in charge. You don't want a Commander Binghamton in charge . . .

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I was reading about the Ha-60 engine. Apparently Kawasaki licensed the DB-601a from Germany. That engine was in a plane called the Bf-109 (aka Me-109) so it really should not have to be researched much. Then Kawasaki licensed it to Hitachi for naval use, as in the Judy. In 1944, the engines were using the same designation so in reality, shouldn't/couldn't changes be made so it was just one engine, whoever made it The same engine, no matter who made it, could then be used any any plane that required it. Just a little easier for the Japanese player.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

But you have to research both engines. It would save the Japanese on research. Although, Hitachi did lower quality builds, the game is not to be a historical replay otherwise there would be a lot less cooperation between the IJA and the IJN.

Yes, even the Germans had problems with the engine. But why have two engines that were essentially identical that could have been used interchangeably except that one was used by a Navy plane? The HA-35 was used by the Navy and the Army and there weren't two separate engine sources nor nomenclatures.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

There were about 30 different "Double Wasp" engines. Easy enough to say they were the same. Easy enough to say that the B-29, the P-47, the Corsair and the Hellcat all used the same engine. That would be incorrect.

The number of engine slots in the game is hard-coded, so adding more engine models would require code changes - but for what, turning AE into AEM - Advanced Engine Management? RangerJoe has a point, the Ha-32, Ha-33, Ha-35, Ha-43 and Ha-45 engines were all used in both Army and Navy planes, but are not "split" in the game, so why have a "split" for the Ha-60? Unifying the two Ha-60 variants will free an engine slot for an engine which is missing so far - the Ha-36 Mamoru which powered the first version of the B6N Jill (did that in my mod btw).

My pet peeve with the game are the PP costs for switching HQs of unrestricted units - it should cost 0 PPs to allow to maintain a proper chain of command.

[Dante Fierro]

1. Update of the manual. Heck, I would purchase just a revised/updated manual - even if the game stayed the same.
2. More up-to-date interface, i.e. a game map that provides more options on what information to display on it. More mouse over-information and internal links to explanations of what you're looking at. More in-game historical information of the units you are viewing.
3. Improved AI
4. A companion, strategy/game playing guide.
5. And then whatever improvements can be made to game mechanics based on these extensive forums and AARs. To polish an already incredibly polished game that is unique in its category.

[Elessar2]

Just my 2 pence, gleaned from various threads and AAR's. Still haven't gotten up the nerve to play the durned thing; I'll read something, a lively battle in an AAR or such, which will spark my interest, then read something else that will quash it (bugs & weird features, arcane counterintuitive strategies and procedures which MUST be followed in a precise and merciless way, and just the sheer breadth of tasks that one must perform to get the most out of one's forces each turn).

A. Make the game modular, with the AI running any aspects which I do not want to mess with. Presumes improvement in the AI natch [Coke to #52 above].

B. Allow doctrinal choices to be made for task forces (if not the entire navy), vs. persnickety tactical details constantly tweaked each turn. That is, I don't tell the TF admiral what exact arcs to fly on his searches, or the exact altitudes at which to set his CAPS/escorts/bombers; I put in general doctrinal guidelines for him to follow (one phase vs. two phase searches, for example, along with using just floatplanes vs. some of your DB's/TB's). Yamamoto in Tokyo or Truk simply was NOT constantly relaying such details to his TF admirals every single day. This would also include priority lists for targets [CV's/BB's/Subs/Merchants/airfields] so that when the admiral on hand gets his recon reports all in, he will know what targets to attack first. Likewise with subs: prioritize merchants or warships...

[rustysi]

bugs

You guys gotta get off this 'bug' kick.

There're very few and insignificant as far as I can see. Most of what people call 'bugs' is simply a matter of not knowing the game.

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: Elessar2
then read something else that will quash it (bugs & weird features, arcane counterintuitive strategies and procedures which MUST be followed in a precise and merciless way, and just the sheer breadth of tasks that one must perform to get the most out of one's forces each turn).

Per above, bugs are pretty minimal actually. Abstractions because this is a game and not a full simulation that 100% reproduces the war as it was are sometimes reported as bugs or errors.

As for having to do things in a very "precise and merciless way," I don't think that is the case at all. It's just that some here have a sort of Grognard's OCD and approach their turns accordingly. You don't need to do this at all to play the game effectively enough, especially if you are the allies. Not everything needs to be done at once, not everything needs to be checked every turn. Do things in waves, setup convoys over the course of a month or so.

Yamamoto in Tokyo or Truk simply was NOT constantly relaying such details to his TF admirals every single day.

Just a little side note here and I know commands didn't typically get into the minutiae of their task forces such as setting search arcs. It should be noted, however, that Japanese high command was far more involved in the minute detail of their operations than was typical for their counterparts in the USN; I guess you could call them micro-managers.

Regarding commanders adding some variability, there is this to a certain extent given that highly aggressive commanders might become, well, aggressive and react in a way that might put them in a bad position. Set Halsey as your carrier TF commander and maybe some fireworks will happen.

[RangerJoe]

rustysi

You guys gotta get off this 'bug' kick.

There're very few and insignificant as far as I can see. Most of what people call 'bugs' is simply a matter of not knowing the game.

They are bugged because they either don't understand it and/or don't like it.

LargeSlowTarget

. . . RangerJoe has a point . . .

Give that man a bier for agreeing with me. Maybe even make it an alt bier. [:D]

[m10bob]

I would like to see more ship types with the ability to go close to shore with landing barges, for support and to draw fire from the smaller troop carriers, as in real life.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Anachro
Abstractions because this is a game and not a full simulation that 100% reproduces the war as it was are sometimes reported as bugs or errors.

Philosophical discussion, but simulations originate from the need to treat a complex problem with approximations. There is no "100% accurate" simulation of any complex real world problem, that's why there is simulations. Hence, you may either call this a game or a simulation of (key aspects of) the Pacific War. Simply speaking, both is correct per definition. [8D]

Anyhow, the level of detail in this game and the interest, to which this active forum with all these active AARs attests to, surely qualify AE as a class of its own. And one that I would hope for to get another updgrade in the future.

These days I mostly read AARs, play little anymore as most games against AI turned into side switching contests to prevent it from committing suicide too early on. It has those few typical moves that it does over and over again, despite having beaten its head against that target already. And as I tried to work on the scripts, at least eliminating some of the fruitless raiding activities, or delaying some defensive ones so that they only kick in later when more forces are available, the scripted AI unfortunately becomes a little transparent. Thus I would weigh in on an upgrade or change of the underlying AI. Not likely to happen for a game focused largely on P2P, even if there is a new AE2 one day, I know...

[Big B]

For what it's worth (and I've talked to the Dev's years ago about this - and it aint gonna happen without WitP:3)
The One big improvement would be to Give tactical flexibility to Surface Combat. To whit: allow creation of divisions with individual orders for range and tactics - DD's make torpedo attack/ BB's & Cruisers maintain X-yards gun range, Line Ahead formation, Trident formation, etc,.
Somewhat akin to setting altitudes for Air Combat.
Aint gonna happen sadly.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

When you go going raiding with CLs and DDs, it pays to look at the officers in charge. You don't want a Commander Binghamton in charge . . .

As to the above - Woe Be to anyone who does Not check Commanders for EVERY unit going into combat (land/sea/air)...at least you can actually do that now...
Just a word to the wise - that's your biggest - most important - use of PP's.

B

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: Big B
For what it's worth (and I've talked to the Dev's years ago about this - and it aint gonna happen without WitP:3)
The One big improvement would be to Give tactical flexibility to Surface Combat. To whit: allow creation of divisions with individual orders for range and tactics - DD's make torpedo attack/ BB's & Cruisers maintain X-yards gun range, Line Ahead formation, Trident formation, etc,.

Maybe I'm just not grognard enough but this sounds like a bit too much detail for me. I think I'm fine with naval combat as it is. Then again, I'd probably eventually enjoy it if that did get put in place.