Japan 45

[Mowgli]

"jumps in slightly off-topic*

Regarding feedback: Please make the designers note in the scenario descritpion how a scenario is supposed to be played. There are many Panzer Campaign titles where you have to guess what side the player is supposed to play or if the scenario was tested for H2H play. It's very frustrating to start a scenario head to head only to find out after 7-10 turns (2-3 days play time) that it was clearly not balanced for that kind of play. Many descriptions give a lot of historical details but miss out on the single most important info for the player!

*jumps out*

[CountryBoy]

The vast silent majority of players (of which I am one) love the games and appreciate the work you guys put into each and every title. The internet being what it is, it can seem as though there's a horde of unhappy customers out there. It simply isn't so.

[Kool Kat]

Gents: 

Many thanks to Rich Hamilton for issuing me a prompt refund for Japan '45! 

I have removed the game from my PC and deleted the installer and key.

Will continue to enjoy and play my other PzC titles! 


Gone fishing. Peace out! 

[Green]

We're sorry that some in the community are unhappy with this title. Please keep in mind this is the first time we have done anything in the Pacific theatre and also using the fanatical nations rule. Though a first time developer to the PzC series, Bill is extremely experienced with delivering (Napoleonic) titles for JTS. Rarely, do people universally like a title and with the amount of content included there will always be areas that people have a different perspective on. This is one of the reasons that we include the editors to allow players unhappy with design decisions to make their own variants and we will always try and support those that build mods. If we believe there are areas that we have got wrong, we will call that out and aim to correct them in the next patch cycle.

Finally, through the effort of Bill and Mike, the PzC series has been revived with new titles being worked on. These guys do this in their spare time and it can be challenging when there is some pretty 'demanding' threads on the whys and wherefores. We try and be and be as clear on why decisions are made (included Designer Notes and feedback on Forums such as the Blitz) but we will never satisfy everyone. Without these guys and the people working with them you would not be getting any new titles or much of the additional (free) content that was provided with the Gold updates.

David,

Thanks for the detailed response. Understanding the background is always useful to allow things to be put into proper perspective.

I claim no knowledge of the topic covered by Japan '45 but simply have some preconceived notions of what the fighting would be like. Since the title covers a hypothetical situation, individual views on what it would have been like are bound to vary and could be debated endlessly. So, while Japan '45 is not a title for me, I accept the validity of the points you make. Including your point about 'demanding' threads. I will try to tone down my confrontational style in future posts. It is contrary to my very nature but I will give it a go.   

I totally agree that the work done to bring the PzC games back to life is an extraordinary achievement and I have expressed this view in number of my previous posts. It is a massive undertaking and am sure everyone is grateful for your efforts. None more so than me. Whether they are in the silent majority or not, to the best of my knowledge, everyone here thinks that PzC is a great series of games. That is why we are here and that is why we care. In truth, I suspect some of us care way too much!

John

[Strela]

John,

Firstly, thanks for the note back. There is no need to tone things down and my response regarding 'demanding' was more related to the 'please explain why x doesn't work as I expected' type posts. Sometimes we don't have time to reply, sometimes we miss a post and other times we have other things on our plate. I have tried to explain some of the circumstances behind how we build and test games and just as importantly research them.

As you said, being hypothetical leaves a heap of things open to interpretation and it's easy for people to justify their position based upon a quick internet search. Beyond Japan '46 we don't have any further hypothetical titles planned and it is much easier to display the depth of 'history' that we have followed modelling an actual battle.

I do want to say this thread has been very useful for us. That's why I'm supportive of critical appraisals as we can go back and check things. A number of the things called out in this thread were corrected in the Japan '45 patch 1.01. A lot of items have been adjusted in Japan '46 to reflect the additional feedback we have got from the community. Another key item that was raised here regarding bunker building had us review the PDT files for both Japan '45 & '46. We have gone back and made some changes to the PDT files to align them with other games in the series, including dropping bunker building to 1.5% for example. Items such as the range attenuation effect have been fixed and we have cleaned up a lot of minor variances. I expect we will issue a new mini patch for Japan '45 once Japan'46 comes out.

So thanks for the support, don't tone it down, but do understand that these games are the result of 1,000's of man hours of work and we can sometimes become a bit sensitive!!! 

David

[Sgt_Rock]

We really could use more Head to Head testing in our products. I am an old HTH gamer for the most part and we did a LOT of that for the Napoleonic series but not as much for the Panzer Campaign series games. For the Nap series it was like 70% HTH with only 30% Solo testing. And that would be a high percentage for Solo games tbh ... I had no idea that most of our customers were Solo players (and I mean Solo ONLY). Its like 70% Solo customers. For the two Japan games it was more like 95% solo and 5% HTH with me looking over the situation very carefully before I was finally happy with it.

I am not saying that we should cater ONLY to Solo players - just saying that when I joined the Panzer Campaigns team I looked more into getting a LOT of Solo testing done. It is not like I ignored the Head to Head gaming.

Yes, the Eastern Beaches is a hard scenario to play. Both Beaches and Breakout situations. You have C morale troops against A morale troops. You will not see as much of this in the Japan '46 Coronet game .... there are fewer of those highly rated divisions in the Japanese army. I have been able to get ashore in that Eastern Beaches scenario and push inland. Its not easy but it can be done but in Solo and in the HTH play. The Breakout scenario ... I will take on anyone as the US side. Just hit me with a PM. I know how to play the US to where they do not get shredded during the game.

I am sorry that some of you guys feel you are to the point where you want your money back. However, if you would consider that John Tiller Software is one of the VERY FEW companies that continues to support their games for 20 years well you should keep that in mind. Like David said, we assumed that the PDT file was correct. Its our fault for not looking into it closely. We have done that ....

I want to also note: there are no tunnels for the series. So about the best we can do now is consider adding in more bunkers for the Japan '45 game. Again, i would add in the +20 types not the full +40 as otherwise it would unbalance the game. Those full rated bunkers are very hard to take in the game. By 1945, the US was pouring gasoline down the vents and openings to take caves and bunkers. Fire smoke at the opening and then hit it with an engineer team. Or just use a tank flamethrower.

What is hard to model in the game is the "Reverse-Slope" tactics that the Japanese started using on Okinawa. Taken right from the pages of Lord Wellington of Napoleonic Wars fame, the Japanese positions thus became harder to hit by artillery fire. US troops would come up over the crest of a hill or around it and be struck by MG fire. Very hard to call in fire on a target that is facing away from the artillery.

I still believe that Japan '45 is a fine product. Its more like Sicily '43 than Smolensk '41 or Stalingrad '42. The terrain alone makes for an ordeal by the Allies.

And I point out ... this forum is mainly "in being" to facilitate the game play of its members. I am sorry if anyone here feels that its intent is to become a place for a company to respond to feedback. It simply is not the case. While I would love to see a JTS forum I suppose its not going to happen but you must acknowledge that many of us have done our best to try and respond to your concerns on the forum. For me: well after having suffered a heart attack in May ... i am done with that. I simply cannot handle the anxiety of trying to formulate a response to a heated question. The support email system works best for me from here on out.

It was one thing to play games from 1974 until 1999. It was another to become a Scenario Designer and try and help put out a good product. I believe that the games I worked on for the Napoleonic series are fine games. Our team did a lot of work on them. I will say this: you can never find a game that gives you so much content in one package like ours do with the exception of titles like The Operational Art of War or Steel Panthers or those that pack in the content. Certainly no board game gives you what we offer.

If we don't offer enough scenarios in a title we get hit with "we feel cheated." If we offer a lot and for whatever reason the play balance is a problem then we hear "you didn't spend enough time on your product." Well let me just say that with the total of products offered coming up on 100 eventually, JTS has given the hobby an invaluable amount of variety of items to choose from. Only the very largest of the boardgame companies offer you that. Thinking of SPI, GMT, AH, etc. And I am about to add in files for the Nap Battles series for the next round up updates making this my 18th year of supporting the games I work on.

So here's to the guys that help put these products out on the market. <TOAST> .. We do not always "get it right" but we certainly did not just toss out a "sandbox" for you to crawl into.

A huge thanks to David Freer for making this all possible. The guy is incredible and really tries to make your experience with the product a meaningful one. Add in Rich Hamilton, who also wants to see vast improvements in the product like David. These could be the best years I will have with JTS. All I know is that after 20 years of doing Napoleonic games I still want to put out these games. Either I am a fanatic or totally insane or perhaps a mixture of both! ROFL

So in choosing a scenario - my advice: dont pick one where the Allies are mainly Morale C vs. Morale A Japanese troops. Find one that has a closer comparison of morale grades. For instance: there are scenarios that add in troops or change up the troop lineup for the Ariake and Eastern Beaches. The Allies end up with higher quality troops in those cases.

Final note: had it not been for the large "draw-down" of US troops at the end of the war, most of those US Divisions would have been rated "B" morale by me. That is how I feel about the US Army of WW2. By 1945, they were a much better force than in 1942 or 1943 fighting in the desert of Tunisia or the muck and mire of New Guinea. The lower numbered divisions (1st, 5th, 7th, etc) had by the Fall of 1945 seen a large percentage of veterans sent home. Other than their tradition/history they were composed of newer recruits and some old hands. I think that I could have easily have rated some of the units as "D" morale as a result of that and the fact that an invasion of Japan was highly unpopular with the Euro troops.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Personally, I think those solo player need to constantly encouraged to try pbem. When I first pbem, I never played solo again. If you don't get the amount of turns you like, add more game until you do. If you're afraid you won't measure up, you don't because you haven't tried. Even the best players lose games and they play anybody. Just have to catch them at the right time for a game. Come and enjoy the game even more.

[beldurax]

I have not been able to do anything JTS lately as my kid sister passed away a little over a week ago, but I have just noticed this thread and guys refunding Japan '45. What ? How in the heck can you ever *consider* refunding any Tiller title ? They are all works of art ! There, I've said my piece.

All the best,
Travis

[Kool Kat]

I am sorry that some of you guys feel you are to the point where you want your money back. However, if you would consider that John Tiller Software is one of the VERY FEW companies that continues to support their games for 20 years well you should keep that in mind. Like David said, we assumed that the PDT file was correct. Its our fault for not looking into it closely. We have done that ....

I still believe that Japan '45 is a fine product. Its more like Sicily '43 than Smolensk '41 or Stalingrad '42. The terrain alone makes for an ordeal by the Allies.

And I point out ... this forum is mainly "in being" to facilitate the game play of its members. I am sorry if anyone here feels that its intent is to become a place for a company to respond to feedback. It simply is not the case. While I would love to see a JTS forum I suppose its not going to happen but you must acknowledge that many of us have done our best to try and respond to your concerns on the forum. For me: well after having suffered a heart attack in May ... i am done with that. I simply cannot handle the anxiety of trying to formulate a response to a heated question. The support email system works best for me from here on out.

Gent:

I am one of the players who requested and received a refund for Japan '45.

A customer who is not satisfied with a product should be able to receive a refund for his purchase.

I also own and play many PzC and MC John Tiller Software games. I consider these games to be designed and play tested well. I ONLY play John Tiller Software games and I can say that I've enjoyed countless hours pushing my virtual counters around on the map boards.

I don't share your opinion on Japan '45. I base my decision on my experience as a game scenario designer, four years as a PzC / MC player, and my nearly forty years as a war gamer.

Let me correct you on the purpose of this TOC Forum. 

Home of the Tiller Operational Series Ladder Community which covers the following HPS/JTS series: Panzer Campaigns, Modern Campaigns, First World War Campaigns and the Total War in Europe series.

This is the TOC Community where players are encouraged to post about TOC games - strategies, tactics, historical aspects, opponents wanted, and yes, feedback on the various scenarios. The Blitz game database is one of the primary tools (the other are these forums), that players can rate their game experience with the TOC scenarios. I know. I was a Blitz Officer, Forum Moderator, H2H Coordinator, CS Scenario Designer, and Blitz Treasurer.

So, no, the Blitz Forums are not mainly "in being" to facilitate game play of its members.

Also, if you as a PzC game designer don't want to monitor and respond to posts in a forum that exists exclusively to discuss John Tiller Software TOC games, that's your decision.

All the best in your future war game design endeavors.

[Sgt_Rock]

What I am doing for Coronet '46 is reduce the bunkers to a "+20%" (meaning build them to +40% but then remove the units from the location to reduce it to +20%). They are still tough to take but this reflects the ability of the Allies to burn out the inhabitants. It was either that or have each engineer unit (for the most part) have a huge Assault rating. I chose the latter method.

I do not know the numbers but it the majority of bunkers are going to be setup using their Vacated values, why not just set lower bunker values in the .pdt file? That way when they are vacated and reoccupied they will be less useful (to either side). Otherwise, if the Allies capture a bunker it is effectively undamaged and immediately as useful to them as it was to the Japanese. Hard to imagine this generally being the case.   

If there are a minority of bunkers that you want to initially set at their full value (what you refer to as +40%, but presumably you mean -40%), then you could use pillboxes with their Vacated value instead. This would give them -20%/+10 (pillbox) as opposed to -40%/+10 (BUNKER) but this may be a reasonable compromise. Obviously both bunker and pillboxes values can be tweaked to any values that make sense but I would have thought that the concept that they are less effective when reoccupied should be something that still applies in the majority of cases.

David informed me that the reduced bunker value is not purely about damage but about the setup of weapons, communications, etc.  As there is only ONE kind of bunker in the game this was my way of having a bunker that was hastily setup .. not so much the construction. Hope that helps.