BiB's AAR

[unmerged(11557)]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Excuse me? Exactly how dependant is the US industry on outside resources? Oh thats right...not at all. Food? Self sufficient. Oil? Self sufficient. In what way is US survival threatened by Japanese warships in the pacific or German U boats in the atlantic?
[/b]
[/B]

Hey, ever realized there's something called public opinion? From what Paradox has stated this will be one of the big drawbacks of democracies. ..maybe 150 million american parents grew tired of seeing their children being cut down by more experienced japanese forces in a (from the parents perspective) useless war? ..if the US already has all its resources safe and secure, why fight for some islands in the pacific? Your country can have all the resources in the world, but if people don't want to work in your factories you're still screwed.

these are bare speculations, I know. We won't know for sure until nov.19, and it's just silly to go ranting about how bad the AI and the game is before it's in stores (unless, of course, you're doing it in the beta forums). sorry to clutter up the thread.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Fate
We are all so angry at the seemingly easy and quick US loss, because in all truth there will be no MAJOR changes to the HoI engine after it has gone gold. In EU2 for example, Spain always had a problem with conquering the Aztecs. By 1.05 Spain still had a problem with conquering the Aztecs. Another example would be the Ottomans, but I don't wish to turn this into a huge EU2 bashing rant. (I love EU2, really ... just some aspects of it bug me)

Just play EU2 1.00 and 1.05 and see a world of difference

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by KBO


I am not going to insist that thing stick exactly to as they happened in history, but the US should have put up a *far* tougher fight.

The US just lays down here, and that's not at all likely.

Its like playing a football sim, where you're an OK team, and your opponent is a *great* team, and you wipe the floor with them.

Its not that its *impossible* for the OK team to win, its just that its not very likely, nor realistic, if they just clobber the much better team.

Like Southampton for a while had a patent on trashing Man U everytime they visited for example?

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Originally posted by table top joe


Hey, ever realized there's something called public opinion? From what Paradox has stated this will be one of the big drawbacks of democracies. ..maybe 150 million american parents grew tired of seeing their children being cut down by more experienced japanese forces in a (from the parents perspective) useless war? ..if the US already has all its resources safe and secure, why fight for some islands in the pacific? Your country can have all the resources in the world, but if people don't want to work in your factories you're still screwed.

these are bare speculations, I know. We won't know for sure until nov.19, and it's just silly to go ranting about how bad the AI and the game is before it's in stores (unless, of course, you're doing it in the beta forums). sorry to clutter up the thread.

Instead of starting a rather pointless argument about what the consequences on public opinion in the US might be if scenario a or scenario b happened, let me just say this. The level of hatred the Pearl Harbour attack created in the US was enough to make US public opinion accept and even applaud the fire bombings of Tokyo and two atomic bombs dropped on Japanese soil.

Add the invasion of Hawaii, Aluletians, Panama, bombings of Los Angeles and whathaveyou...lets just say that I disagree with your thesis that this would break the US will to fight. Personally I think it would only strengthen the resolve.

Useless war? How useful was Korea? WWI? WWII? In this aar, the war started for the US with a Japanese Pearl Harbour style attack...albeit the target was Guam.

Personally I dont think it is silly toi voice concerns over how good the ai is or is not. The ai makes or breaks a game like this. (unless you have a human player for all major contenders in the 36-48 time period)

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Hortlund


I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. That was never my intention. My apologies.

My concern is with ai behavior, nothing else.

And IMO the AI is more than adequate and I actually fought them

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by Hortlund


Instead of starting a rather pointless argument about what the consequences on public opinion in the US might be if scenario a or scenario b happened, let me just say this. The level of hatred the Pearl Harbour attack created in the US was enough to make US public opinion accept and even applaud the fire bombings of Tokyo and two atomic bombs dropped on Japanese soil.

Add the invasion of Hawaii, Aluletians, Panama, bombings of Los Angeles and whathaveyou...lets just say that I disagree with your thesis that this would break the US will to fight. Personally I think it would only strengthen the resolve.

Useless war? How useful was Korea? WWI? WWII? In this aar, the war started for the US with a Japanese Pearl Harbour style attack...albeit the target was Guam.

Personally I dont think it is silly toi voice concerns over how good the ai is or is not. The ai makes or breaks a game like this. (unless you have a human player for all major contenders in the 36-48 time period)

I see your points, but also the U.S. leaders are isolationists in BiB's AAR. Perhaps they hid information from the public, so there would not be hatred preventing the war: Or maybe they just accepted peace with Japan, so they wouldn't have to fight, then they were killed in a revolt, and U.S. became communist

Meiji-Tenno

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by pit
BiB good job done keep it up

een laat de zagers maar zagen ze zijn gewoon jaloers net als ik dat je al hebt kunnen spelen

ps do jou now khow the publisher in belgium

Voor zover ik weet, zal het weer samen met de UK zijn en dat is Koch als ik het me goed herinner ...

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Originally posted by BiB


And IMO the AI is more than adequate and I actually fought them

hehe, point well taken. Let me get back to you on the subject in two weeks

And let me take this opportunity now to challenge you to a multiplayer game with me as US and you as Japan and see how your navy will do

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Hortlund


hehe, point well taken. Let me get back to you on the subject in two weeks

And let me take this opportunity now to challenge you to a multiplayer game with me as US and you as Japan and see how your navy will do

Total annihilation

 

[grumbold]

Well I'd like to say that I was encouraged by many parts of this AAR. In EU2 if you had a kickass army or fleet you could obliterate the opposition within days of declaring war, then settle down to siege the provinces of your choice with minor interruptions to dispatch any newly raised opponents. One thing is clear - no way will this work in HoI.

BiB may have managed to inflict two decisive naval defeats on the US, but it took careful manoeuvering and a lot of time to do so even after a much more successful surprise strike than Japan achieved historically. What would the US have done had their carriers been destroyed at Pearl Harbour? The Axis took significant amounts of territory but stopped short of comprehensively crushing any major power. Even facing the US alone, a triumphant and far stronger Axis still sues for peace rather than push ahead. Germany may have hobbled the bear but the US and UK seem ripe for an early rematch and China is unlikely to lie down for long. Sounds good to me.

I'm sure there are going to be games where I get kicked into touch either because I blunder or my allies fold around me, but equally I do want games where I can far exceed historical expectations. Doing so from 1936 start looks to be quite possible because you can prepare in the knowledge that war is inevitable and certain objectives are key to victory. Playing Axis, doing so from a 1939 start should be challenging, and from 1942 near impossible. Still, for those who find the AI too soft a touch there's always the option of editing the files to produce revised scenarios where their enemies are gifted extra manpower, techs or infrastructure, whatever seems to stop them from performing well. Paradox will no doubt be on hand to tweak the AI too when it proves to have weak spots that can be exploited too often.

 

[unmerged(11557)]

Hortlund: sorry if I sounded harsh, wasn't my intention. Since we're both decent guys, let's stop exploring what-ifs and accept that we have different opinions, ok?

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Hortlund


Which brings us to the question of ai-quality...

So the AI lost its Pacific influence (nothing more) against a human player and some people think the ai must be quite crap ... ?!

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Darkrenown


Well yes, but not because the army was defeated.

The army in my game also wasn't defeated. Anyway, bottomline is that they lost.

 

[unmerged(11524)]

Why is the concept of the USA capitulating so offensive to some people?

Almost every nation has had to capitulate at some point in its history. The USA has done so at least twice in the past.

Bear in mind that during WWII, there were tight controls kept on news coming back from the front back to the USA. Such tight controls would have been impossible to maintain if the war was taken directly to the US mainland. And we all saw what happened when media restrictions were almost non-existant in the case of the Vietnam War.

Give up a bunch of over-seas territories for peace?

Why not?

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO

The sheer economical numbers support this.
Its a fact.
If the Japanese destroyed the entier Pacific Navy AND conquered Midway AND conquered Hawaii the Americans would have eventualy won anyway.

No it isn't. For one in the game the Axis had surpassed the Allies at war (aka the USA only) in industrial output.

 

[Pokka]

I don't see any point of complaining AI just because Bib defeated US. He played this stuff several times. Indeed he would able to handle the game well. Nothing wrong for beating the AI. I would may much more disappointed if US was not beaten!

I guess no one wants those WWII clones emphasizing that "US saves the world and her army is invincible!".

 

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Pokka


I guess no one wants those WWII clones emphasizing that "US saves the world and her army is invincible!".

i don't want that.

great AAR BiB!

i want to know if you can post an AAR that you loose?.... or it doesn't exist???

 

[Arentak]

Japan KO'ing the US fast..

Anyone who has played wargames enough, knows things like this can happen when human players are involved. In Pacific Theatre of Operations, I took the Japanese Fleet to Pearl Harbor and sunk everything larger then a light cruiser, and most of those too. The Americans buffed up Hawaii with marines and lots of fighters. What did I do the next turn? I went back to Pearl Harbor, and I finished off the American fleet. Through very nice dice rolls I was able to inflict severe damage while taking little, though my invasion of Hawaii failed. By June of 1942 my American opponent had no undamaged capitol ship, including heavy cruisers as a capitol ship. He scornfully called my victory absurd luck and refused a rematch. Was that historically impossible? No. Bib's AAR demonstrated a very careful strategy towards naval dominence. You could say he narrow-mindedly, and to his detriment, focused on his Navy. I'd fully expect that navy to outperform the historical Japanese Navy.

BTW, GREAT AAR! Every AAR I read makes me look longingly at the calender, checking if perhaps a day passed when I didn't notice, so the game will be mine sooner.

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Originally posted by table top joe
Hortlund: sorry if I sounded harsh, wasn't my intention. Since we're both decent guys, let's stop exploring what-ifs and accept that we have different opinions, ok?

Yeah, sounds like a good idea

(No worries about the language btw, I've seen alot worse, and I never take things personally...in fact, I can be rather passionate too when it comes to arguing)

 

[grumbold]

Crossposting because its probably better here than in the AAR itself, which will probably get tidied again sometime:

Well I'd like to say that I was encouraged by many parts of this AAR. In EU2 if you had a kickass army or fleet you could obliterate the opposition within days of declaring war, then settle down to siege the provinces of your choice with minor interruptions to dispatch any newly raised opponents. One thing is clear - no way will this work in HoI.

BiB may have managed to inflict two decisive naval defeats on the US, but it took careful manoeuvering and a lot of time to do so even after a much more successful surprise strike than Japan achieved historically. What would the US have done had their carriers been destroyed at Pearl Harbour? The Axis took significant amounts of territory but stopped short of comprehensively crushing any major power. Even facing the US alone, a triumphant and far stronger Axis nevertheless sues for peace rather than push ahead. Germany may have hobbled the Russian Bear for a time but the US and UK seem ripe for an early rematch and China is unlikely to lie down for long. Sounds good to me.

I'm sure there are going to be games where I get kicked into touch either because I blunder or my allies fold around me, but equally I do want games where I can far exceed historical expectations. Doing so from 1936 start looks to be quite possible because you can prepare in the knowledge that war is inevitable and certain objectives are key to victory. Playing Axis, doing so from a 1939 start should be challenging, and from 1942 near impossible. Still, for those who find the AI too soft a touch there's always the option of editing the files to produce revised scenarios where their enemies are gifted extra manpower, techs or infrastructure, whatever seems to stop them from performing well. Paradox will no doubt be on hand to tweak the AI too when it proves to have weak spots that can be exploited too often.