Buyer's Remorse?

[Steel God]

I wanted a Pacific Title when I was picking up a bulk buy during the Summer Sale, and while I was initially leaning towards J45 I ended up with Philippines 44.  Although I bought it weeks ago I hadn't actually installed it until yesterday when a friend asked if I'd like to play a game.  I loaded it up and looked around at the offerings and all I can say is that the longer I looked, the more I regretted buying this title.  Sure it comes with 80 or scenarios, but a full 75% of them are intended to be played against the AI.  I know, I know, gamers who play with themselves make up the majority of the Panzer Campaigns customer base, but I'm used to the split being at least 50/50.  Of the 20 or so that can be played H2H, 4 of them are 700 turn monsters that frankly will never be played H2H because even at a turn a day (good luck) that's 2 years.  Most of the other H2H scenarios (and many of the self gratification ones too) are about the size of postage stamps and would be better simulated by Squad Battles or even a Panzer Battles engine.  Reeling from the disappointment I went into the Scenario Data Base to see what others think and it's a ghost town....literally less than a handful or reported games, and only one of them rated above a 5 for enjoyment.  I get the subject matter, and I get that historically the war in the Pacific from 1943 on was the Japanese refusing to die and the Americans killing them one by one and taking territory yard by yard.....and that's the game facts that need to be dealt with.....but ......well.....can anybody out there step up and tell me, nah man you got it wrong; P44 is a great title and here's why.    Never in 20 years have I acquired a PzC title and found nothing to like about it from the jump.  Sure I've had some that took me a while to warm up to, and some that lost their luster over time, but every other title has been like.....bam, can't wait to play that scenario....and I didn't get that with this title.

[Liebchen]

I wanted a Pacific Title when I was picking up a bulk buy during the Summer Sale, and while I was initially leaning towards J45 I ended up with Philippines 44.  Although I bought it weeks ago I hadn't actually installed it until yesterday when a friend asked if I'd like to play a game.  I loaded it up and looked around at the offerings and all I can say is that the longer I looked, the more I regretted buying this title.  Sure it comes with 80 or scenarios, but a full 75% of them are intended to be played against the AI.  I know, I know, gamers who play with themselves make up the majority of the Panzer Campaigns customer base, but I'm used to the split being at least 50/50.  Of the 20 or so that can be played H2H, 4 of them are 700 turn monsters that frankly will never be played H2H because even at a turn a day (good luck) that's 2 years.  Most of the other H2H scenarios (and many of the self gratification ones too) are about the size of postage stamps and would be better simulated by Squad Battles or even a Panzer Battles engine.  Reeling from the disappointment I went into the Scenario Data Base to see what others think and it's a ghost town....literally less than a handful or reported games, and only one of them rated above a 5 for enjoyment.  I get the subject matter, and I get that historically the war in the Pacific from 1943 on was the Japanese refusing to die and the Americans killing them one by one and taking territory yard by yard.....and that's the game facts that need to be dealt with.....but ......well.....can anybody out there step up and tell me, nah man you got it wrong; P44 is a great title and here's why.    Never in 20 years have I acquired a PzC title and found nothing to like about it from the jump.  Sure I've had some that took me a while to warm up to, and some that lost their luster over time, but every other title has been like.....bam, can't wait to play that scenario....and I didn't get that with this title.

I am not too thrilled with the Philippines title, either, but the J'45 and J'46 titles are a blast.

[Big Ivan]

This is a wonderful post by you Steel God and I could have not said it any better !!

I played one PBEM game and found the engine and my dug in Japanese opponent to be supermen on the defense. I never took one Japanese position and to make matters worse a hurricane blew for the second half off the game. I spent the rest of the game shedding water and laughing at a absolutely dismal supply level for my Americans.

I'm no a big Panzer Campaigns player but I do fiddle with the games now and then. I haven't touched Phillipine'44 since that PBEM game.

Thank you for you post Steel God!

Big Ivan (Campaign Series Moderator)

[Mr Grumpy]

These are niche games and PBEM H2H is a niche within that niche, it seems the smart money is pitching the games at the customer that only wants to play against the AI ( weird as that seems to us), but it’s sad to hear that this titles scenario mix is so tilted towards the AI crowd. 

[ComradeP]

I get the subject matter, and I get that historically the war in the Pacific from 1943 on was the Japanese refusing to die and the Americans killing them one by one and taking territory yard by yard.....and that's the game facts that need to be dealt with.....but ......well.....can anybody out there step up and tell me, nah man you got it wrong; P44 is a great title and here's why.  

As the game offers precisely the kind of struggle you describe, doesn't that make it a great title in terms of the conflict it represents?

The battles in the island campaigns on Leyte and Luzon were, for the most part, not won by movement. I think the designer notes and the scenario descriptions are very honest about what the game offers.

Out of curiosity: why did you buy the game? What piqued your interest?

I re-installed the title recently for a tournament game, and had not played it since I tested two small scenarios before release. Having played Japan '45 and Japan '46, I wanted to try a non-Pacific PzC title again and had not touched it after release.

The fact that many scenarios are vs. AI or HTH isn't too much of a problem for me, given the terrain. Many scenarios will be decided by Disruption results and if you roll high or low assault losses on Japanese units in bunkers. I can understand why those scenarios are labelled as vs. AI. Most of the result would depend on luck in HTH.

Regarding the campaign size: there are only a handful of divisions per side. The turn rate wouldn't be that bad against a dedicated opponent.

I can't tell you that you're wrong. Your description of the subject matter is very accurate, I just wonder why you bought it. It doesn't sound like you're interested in the slow slugging matches that the PzC Pacific titles turn into.

[Steel God]

I get the subject matter, and I get that historically the war in the Pacific from 1943 on was the Japanese refusing to die and the Americans killing them one by one and taking territory yard by yard.....and that's the game facts that need to be dealt with.....but ......well.....can anybody out there step up and tell me, nah man you got it wrong; P44 is a great title and here's why.  

As the game offers precisely the kind of struggle you describe, doesn't that make it a great title in terms of the conflict it represents?

The battles in the island campaigns on Leyte and Luzon were, for the most part, not won by movement. I think the designer notes and the scenario descriptions are very honest about what the game offers.

Out of curiosity: why did you buy the game? What piqued your interest?

I re-installed the title recently for a tournament game, and had not played it since I tested two small scenarios before release. Having played Japan '45 and Japan '46, I wanted to try a non-Pacific PzC title again and had not touched it after release.

The fact that many scenarios are vs. AI or HTH isn't too much of a problem for me, given the terrain. Many scenarios will be decided by Disruption results and if you roll high or low assault losses on Japanese units in bunkers. I can understand why those scenarios are labelled as vs. AI. Most of the result would depend on luck in HTH.

Regarding the campaign size: there are only a handful of divisions per side. The turn rate wouldn't be that bad against a dedicated opponent.

I can't tell you that you're wrong. Your description of the subject matter is very accurate, I just wonder why you bought it. It doesn't sound like you're interested in the slow slugging matches that the PzC Pacific titles turn into.

I get that historical accuracy is and should be a high priority, but these are still games not "simulations" and as such they should be playable by 2 humans (playing against the AI is simply a waste of time, WDS's business model not withstanding).  I think hands down one of the absolute best simulations I've ever played is War in the East, but it is an utter failure as a game because it's more like watching a movie because it's well nigh impossible to change anything. 

So why did I buy P44?  Well I specifically wanted to try one of the Pacific games, and a slogging match, while not my favorite game situation, is fine and I don't shy away from them.  I wanted a Pacific game because I love the theater at the Strategic level, and in fact some of my favorite board war games are based on it.....so I thought why not P44 instead of the hypotheticals.  As a secondary notion, I thought maybe some day a set of scenarios could be developed based on the 1941/42 invasion of the PI by the IJA which I honestly think would be a more interesting situation since despite it's considerable success the Commanding General was very much chastised for what the Imperial High Command considered the slow pace he achieved it at.....I mean that's a built in gaming situation if you ask me.  But I have a preference for early war generally - more mobility - less unit density - less prepared defenses.  I think a title covering the conquest of the DEI and Malaya would be a blast too.  Anyway.....I'm not saying P44 isn't well done, well researched, or accurately portrays it's subject matter.....it's just not really done with H2H in mind and frankly, I'd rather stop gaming than play any AI.

[Partizanka]

I can understand Paul's thoughts, but I bought the game and found much to praise while thinking with some tweaks this could be  great game. I played through the Leyte Operation except for the last few turns when my opponent dropped out. We began in March and stopped in November and would have finished before the end of the year. The game is fast enough to allow for multiple plays per day. One big issue affecting game playability however is entrenchments. Early on the U.S. was roiling over my Japanese and as a result on the other side of the jungle I started digging in at the two main points that slowed U.S. advance historically. There was time for me to build a layer of bunker defenses that was impenetrable. The unfortunate problem was that I expected the U.S. forces to have more bunker busting capabilities than they had, but not having that in the face of these bunkers their advance stalled. IMO, there has to be an adjustment to bunker values to allow for less resistance or for another level of entrenching that would offer the defense of monkey holes and the like if bunkers were done away with entirely.  Otherwise the game played well and results were close to historic except for the issue with bunkers that reversed the historical result.

[Liebchen]

I can understand Paul's thoughts, but I bought the game and found much to praise while thinking with some tweaks this could be  great game. I played through the Leyte Operation except for the last few turns when my opponent dropped out. We began in March and stopped in November and would have finished before the end of the year. The game is fast enough to allow for multiple plays per day. One big issue affecting game playability however is entrenchments. Early on the U.S. was roiling over my Japanese and as a result on the other side of the jungle I started digging in at the two main points that slowed U.S. advance historically. There was time for me to build a layer of bunker defenses that was impenetrable. The unfortunate problem was that I expected the U.S. forces to have more bunker busting capabilities than they had, but not having that in the face of these bunkers their advance stalled. IMO, there has to be an adjustment to bunker values to allow for less resistance or for another level of entrenching that would offer the defense of monkey holes and the like if bunkers were done away with entirely.  Otherwise the game played well and results were close to historic except for the issue with bunkers that reversed the historical result.

In other words, you're suggesting a new level of entrenchment that doesn't encompass hardened bunkers, but caves, etc.

I concur. This would be a good addition. Non-hard targets with a lot of added defensive value.

[Partizanka]

Another benefit might be to limit the number of troops that can stack in a bunker or pillbox or similarly named defensive construction made for a certain number of men.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Another benefit might be to limit the number of troops that can stack in a bunker or pillbox or similarly named defensive construction made for a certain number of men.

Then, you are getting more in the line with Panzer Battles or Squad Battles.  On PzCs level, there would be a lot of bunkers in that amount of space.  So, more troops would be in there.