Fantastic game - here's my first impressions

[stragen]

What i don't like in the IJ campaign is most time the lack of an airfield. Even in the last mission so i can't use properly the advanced planes. And for this reason i found the Aerospace specialization not really worth it.

[rezaf]

Couldn't agree more stragen, I think I pointed this same thing out myself earlier in the thread.

About specializations ... almost all of them leave a lot to be desired imo. A few are SO close, but ultimately fall short.
For example, I feel Higgins boats would be 1000% better (and imo also more realistic) if it allowed you to move and land in the same turn instead of landing and attacking. Banzai charge would be better if it increased damage dealt and taken to a lesser degree, but with less randomness - as it stands, you're almost forced to save-scumm if things go the wrong way. The Wunderwaffen would be useful if you got Tiger2 tanks and/or Panthers. Aerospace would be actually useful if you ever had the chance to use land-based aircraft.

I have to wonder why the developers were so afraid to make these specializations more "game changing". Are they present in MP?
_____
rezaf

[Dragoon.]

I think banzai charges are OK but should not be a specialization, instead offered to all Japaneses infantry units and the succes changes bases on the enemy units experience.
Usally Banzei charges ended in the massacre of Japanese soldiers as divine believes don't protect from cal .50. After all it's a ritual suicide attack. But had some success if cached soldiers unprepared for those attack. The first time it may catch them on surprise, but eventual it's obvious at the end Japanese will throw themselves away.

[rezaf]

Well, it was my understanding that a banzai charge wasn't neccessarily suicidal, but if you look at it this way (which may very well be the right thing to do) I guess it makes sense. I ended up just not using it. Basically, the same is true for almost all specializations, which is a pity.
_____
rezaf

[simcc]

I love Banzai Charge especially on low effectiveness unit and the dmg done is enormous. But I nvr use an experience unit to charge as if things so south you must be prepare to lose that unit as IRL most banzai charge is all Japanese dead.

First I find it hard to use but after a few try I love them and nvr did any land battle without Banzai, crossing a well protected river with a nice banzai charge can destroy the entire defence.

Air specialization I do agree if we have more land airfield for IJ then it will be useful. I find it hard to use Japanese land base aircraft due to lack of airfield.

[rezaf]

Some folks have reported the resource-point-stingyness in the US campaign dissipates eventually, but I must've missed that somehow.
I think in NewGeorgia I did ok and even got beyond 1000 prestige at some point, which was when I purchased my first real tank.
Then I took some losses and got little more resources, so I started the Phillipine Sea scenario with about 600 resource points.
It's a very costy scenario - you have to replace a ton of aircraft - and relatively short on possibilities to acquire RPs (btw., I killed all the airplanes in the PS but never go my hero despite getting to 32/20. ).
So I had about 650 RP when starting Leyte.

Which is ridiculously little considering what you can potentially spend in that scenario. Bringing my fighters up to date would cost more than I have. Same for my bombers - Helldivers and Destroyers sure look useful, but how am I supposed to afford them? Getting a few tanks on the field and upgrading the 1 and 1/2 I have would cost more than I have. I can afford upgrading all my INF (cause almost none of them have any transports), but it sure is expensive already and leaves me with little reserves for repairs.

In the end, I went for upgrading my INF primarily, but this forces me to start the battle with little tank support, too little artillery, almost only outdated Wildcats, Dauntless' and Avengers and a whopping 30 command points, both for air and ground units unused. It's obviously a very steep uphill battle from such start.

Should I file a bug report since the scenario in which you actually get your hands on sufficient amounts of resources to fight the bloody war was accidentally skipped in my campaign?
_____
rezaf

[Professor Chaos]

Yeah, Leyte was particularly egregious. Given that something as commonplace as losing a few points from your carrier aircraft can cost you like 50 RP to repair, the resources are pathetically low. I'm sure with very exacting and min-maxing play it's possible to make it, but by Leyte a US campaign shouldn't feel like you have to watch every penny.

Too bad there isn't a system where certain units cost less as time goes on, to reflect national production. An Avenger should be very costly if you want one at Midway, but cheap by Leyte. But I suppose every scenario would have to code a new resource cost for every unit then, unless there was a global relationship between scenario date and unit cost.

[Myrddraal]

Too bad there isn't a system where certain units cost less as time goes on, to reflect national production. An Avenger should be very costly if you want one at Midway, but cheap by Leyte.

The game handles this through a kind of inflation. Late game units are more expensive, but you also get higher steady income per turn as the game progresses. So although unit costs don't change, your buying power for older units does go up.

[monkspider]

Some folks have reported the resource-point-stingyness in the US campaign dissipates eventually, but I must've missed that somehow.
I think in NewGeorgia I did ok and even got beyond 1000 prestige at some point, which was when I purchased my first real tank.
Then I took some losses and got little more resources, so I started the Phillipine Sea scenario with about 600 resource points.
It's a very costy scenario - you have to replace a ton of aircraft - and relatively short on possibilities to acquire RPs (btw., I killed all the airplanes in the PS but never go my hero despite getting to 32/20. ).
So I had about 650 RP when starting Leyte.

Which is ridiculously little considering what you can potentially spend in that scenario. Bringing my fighters up to date would cost more than I have. Same for my bombers - Helldivers and Destroyers sure look useful, but how am I supposed to afford them? Getting a few tanks on the field and upgrading the 1 and 1/2 I have would cost more than I have. I can afford upgrading all my INF (cause almost none of them have any transports), but it sure is expensive already and leaves me with little reserves for repairs.

In the end, I went for upgrading my INF primarily, but this forces me to start the battle with little tank support, too little artillery, almost only outdated Wildcats, Dauntless' and Avengers and a whopping 30 command points, both for air and ground units unused. It's obviously a very steep uphill battle from such start.

Should I file a bug report since the scenario in which you actually get your hands on sufficient amounts of resources to fight the bloody war was accidentally skipped in my campaign?
_____
rezaf

New Georgia is where my first US campaign came to an end. Just like you, my resources were poor and my core was far below the cap in almost all categories. My second play through went better! Hopefully they buff US resources significantly in the next patch.

I was thinking about this situation today, and Japan gets a lot more resources than the US in its campaign (or at least it seems like it), which is the opposite of what should be the case. Obviously US resources should be increased, but I was considering whether Japanese resources should also be reduced. Instead I came up with what I think might be a better idea, have the costs for elite replacements for Japan cost more than they do for the US to reflect the problems they had with maintaining veteran pilots and so forth as the war went on. it would give you a better reason to play cautiously as Japan and make the resource situation more realistic.

[rezaf]

My egocentric take on this is that I think the Japan campaign should stay as it is for the most part.
I'm an experienced PzC player, certainly not up there with the best, merely average, but experienced nonetheless.
With that background, the Japan campaign on Normal difficulty was a fun experience with a few minor quirks that mostly I only had myself to blame for.
Difficulty and balance was just about perfect.

In contrast, the US campaign is a constant uphill struggle. I was forced to replay several scenarios from scratch, because some scenarios are downright devious, and mistakes are MUCH more severely punished, often in a form you only realize much farther down the lane. Because if, for example, you take too many losses with an expensive unit, it might very well come to a situation where not having these resources will prevent victory.

I completely agree with your reasoning (and I'm pretty sure I wrote the exact same thing earlier myself) that the two campaigns feel opposite to how they should feel - as Japan, you're swimming in prestige and are almost never struggling to keep units repaired or to make upgrades, whilst as the US, which one could argue won the war mainly by making good use of it's immense production capacity, both for it's own troops and those of it's allies (lend lease), you're constantly short on "cash", you always have to keep an eye on what losses you're going to take and how much reinforcing them is going to cost you. Sometimes such considerations are impossible, though, and it's not rare that these situations add up and you have to scrape the bottom of the resource barrel for the last RPs to reinforce your units with.
I can't remember a single situation from the Japan campaign where I was <100 RP, but in the US campaign, it was extremely commonplace.
The biggest issue is that this adds up since at the start of scenarios, you often get either nothing or a pittance.

However, I feel as the Japan campaign is completely ahistorical anyhow (the Axis is winning on all fronts), things can stay as they are for the most part.
If anything, the desperate measures like Kamikaze should be removed, because they make no sense whatsoever in the given context.

Btw., I've realized since my last post that Leyte is even more of a cruel joke than I had realzied before - after all, you didn't have to make any repairs or upgrades to your battered navy and could concentrate on the ground forces.
Except some ways into the scenario (and withhout a chance to accumulate significant additional RPs), you're asked to deploy your fleet as well - and judging by the CPs and enemy strenght, it might be prudent to buy some additional BBs or cruisers ... I had like 180 RPs at that point, so go figure.
This may very well be the end of my US campaign too. Unlike you, I won't replay it though, not before it has received major patching.
It was just no fun to me.
_____
rezaf

[jslit]

Having units and RP carry over from scenario to scenario might be fun, but it makes balancing scenarios and the campaign a nightmare. I think the game would be better without this feature...

Anyway, I think the key is to upgrade much less than in PzC, especially air and naval units (I played on Captain). Buy more units instead. Those Wildcats will do just fine coupled with one or two newer fighters late game. Also, stick to carrier-based air units. If you want to upgrade, do it when the unit is damaged so you get the reinforcements for free.

[rezaf]

So, I've now finished both campaigns and am ready to give my final impressions, I think.

If I could, I'd probably rename the thread "Fantastic game, BUT", cause I still feel pretty positive about the game on a whole, but there's a long list of things I didn't particularly care for.

My favorite parts about OOB are still the new twists it brings to the table, like supply, the command point model, special (unit) abilities etc.
Some things I praised previously fall completely apart, like the less lethat combat. It continues to work in limited circumstances throughout the game, but late scenarios are so chockfull of enemy troops and the "damaged unit will take less damage" thing always seems to work for the AI, yet never seems to work for the player.
Naval combat is a strange beast, at times it was fun and rewarding, but at other times it was disappointing or even downright annoying.
There are some solid ideas in there, but it also feels wrong in a variety of ways.
Experience is a hidden mechanic, which only obscures to the player the fact that it's almost meaningless for most units. He who nurses his units to high experience will pay thousands of RPs over the course of the campaign to an almost negligable effect.
Upgrading works similar - spend a fortune for a +1 vs. small aircraft.
Likewise, heroes are a complete joke with their equally tiny bonuses.
The specializations are unbalanced and generally weaksauce as well.
By and large, I feel the developers were much, MUCH too concerned about "unbalancing" their systems, to the point where most "advanced systems" (XP, heroes, specializations) become completely meaningless.
Finally, the UI is pretty horrible when it comes to informing the player. There's no way to find out the movement range of an enemy unit, and even for one of your own you have to open an info screen. There's no way to find out the (nonconsequential) effects of XP. There's no way to find out the how and why of combat predictions/results - i.e. -x% damage because out of supply, y flanking bonus, z whatever. Considering the manual is usually vague or doesn't lose a word about stuff in many cases, there's a lot of homework left to do for the developers in this area.

Here's hoping future patches / expansions will address some of my complaints/concerns, provided I'm not the only person voicing them.
Personally, I still enjoyed my time with the game overall and don't regret my purchase - but it's massively disappointing that some things in the list above weren't noticed/addressed before releasing the game and charging money for it.
_____
rezaf

[Loki1942]

Agree with Rezaf about most of this, though i do like the naval combat alot The game has many merits but i have a few pointers i would like to add.

SCENARIOS, or lack thereof When i bought the game and started playing i went for the allied campaign straight away. Tried a quick tutorial to get a hang of things, easy enough to understand i would say. It started out as i would have expected, Pearl, Bataan, the Marshalls raid to introduce the Fleet, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, then moving further up the Solomons so far so good. Then it all started taking a downward slide,,, for me anyways Was fully expecting to go to Tarawa after that, such an iconic battle couldnt be left out i thought. But no, going straight to the battle of the Phillipine Sea after that, and no Guam, Saipan invasion either also iconic and large battles. Then more disappointment, no Peleliu its straight to Leyte Gulf we go. Iwo Jima then? that MUST be in here, sadly no again Sorely disappointing guys, not cool.

Then its Okinawa time, that most bitter of struggles, with Kamikazes by the bucketload? Not really, my fleet was left pretty much alone, think a destroyer got hit but thats about it. The land battle was also way too easy, i had hoped it would be a true struggle but that was not to be, sadly. (i think the Okinawa scenario should have begun with the assault landings, instead of when we are already ashore, i like to manage the landing phase myself )


UNITS, also lacking im afraid, truly wish you guys would have included more of the prewar stuff. Cruisers, why only the New Orleans class available? and then the Wichita, only a single ship built of that class. How about the Brooklyns? why cant we purchase the Northamptons? Please add light cruisers as a new class or add them to the cruiser section. More destroyers would also be nice, i happen to like having choices. Another thought i had was about the naval mines ingame, how about Minelayers/Minesweepers? They could make for some interesting gameplay i think, not entirely certain how they should work game mechanicswise but i am certain you guys could come up with something good
Also, no Rangers?

Got a small suggestion for sunk/sinking ships while im at it, would it be possible to make it look a little more realistic? Was thinking along the lines of bow/stern going down first, maybe ships keeling over and whatnot, hey a guy can dream cant he

Like the game alot, think you guys have something good going here, but...

[Bylandt11]

I think Rezaf hits the nail on the head. I also love this game and can't wait for DLC's. But it often lacks "colour". Effect from experience are hardly noticable, leaders don't do much, specializations are underwhelming. I would add that some unit types (subs, recce, heavy bombers, ... are all but useless.
Chances are that possible expansions will be situated in different combat theaters, where one of the most interesting parts of the game, naval combat, will not play a major role. The devs will need to spice up things to keep it interesting.

[simcc]

I have completed my survey on IJ RP for the entire campaign and was halfway recording US RP income I do notice IJ have lots of RP in most game ie turn x income/turn usually gets you 1k average except the last few mission starting from N.Caled. Also those goodies like capture objective (gold banner) gives you 50rp each and carrier and so on

In US campaign you basically need to conserve very hard in the beginning and if you notice Battle of Bataan have no income so I guess most players blown their saving there so try not to reinforce so much as use aux unit as cannon folder.

Also another note I found on income as to why IJ have more is the less unit you buy or upgrade clear example is fighter, IJ use zeros almost unanimous as the backbone and they have long lifespan is no upgrade till N.Caled IIRC and not many player use land base fighter due to lack of airfield. In contrast US fighter have many choice ie wildcat, corsair and hellcat so again many blown their RP on those. Let me complete the U.S. findings and I will post a RP income for both side to compare.

@bylandt11, experience only noticeable if you have them in hard hitting unit like Paratroopers, heavy inf, Yamato while it's hardly noticeable difference in marine and inf in my experience same goes with heros, planting heroes in Arty unit makes them super deadly and also Yamato. Specialization need rework for IJ side as commented in some other post.

But honestly I would still say this is an awesome game for pacific theater, I personally love those little animation and naval battle is really awesome, and air sea operation is really awesome especially carrier engagement. Land battle of supply system is also really a great part of the game I spend so much time cutting of supply as if I don't do so you will need many replacement and reinforcement = RP

[simcc]

@ Loki1942, there is a mine later for naval call support ship.

Lack of scenario mention by you that I fully agree maybe they are planning a DLC or grand campaign style.

[Solaristics]

And by and large, I feel this mission has been accomplished - well done indeed Aristocrats.

FYI

Aristocrats - rich people
Aristocats - rich cats
Artistocrats - poor developers

Simples.

[bebro]

i think the Okinawa scenario should have begun with the assault landings, instead of when we are already ashore, i like to manage the landing phase myself

Okinawa was IIRC one of those cases where the initial landings went rather smooth and nearly without opposition. From what I've read the main reason was that the Japanese learnt from earlier battles where they didn't had any success with heavy beech defenses, so later often tried to lure the enemy inland where they prepared strong fortifications in key spots/regions.

[Loki1942]

i think the Okinawa scenario should have begun with the assault landings, instead of when we are already ashore, i like to manage the landing phase myself

Okinawa was IIRC one of those cases where the initial landings went rather smooth and nearly without opposition. From what I've read the main reason was that the Japanese learnt from earlier battles where they didn't had any success with heavy beech defenses, so later often tried to lure the enemy inland where they prepared strong fortifications in key spots/regions.

Indeed, i am quite aware of that, however i would still prefer to have control over the initial landings myself. This would go for all scenarios that include assaulting an enemy shoreline, when else are we gonna get to use the Specializations that deal with this You and me both know there was hardly any opposition on Okinawas beaches, nor Guadalcanals for that matter, but i am sure many other players dont so it could be somewhat of a surprise to them, at least the first time around. For me its more a matter of completness, i just want the whole experience

[rezaf]

Indeed, i am quite aware of that, however i would still prefer to have control over the initial landings myself. This would go for all scenarios that include assaulting an enemy shoreline, when else are we gonna get to use the Specializations that deal with this You and me both know there was hardly any opposition on Okinawas beaches, nor Guadalcanals for that matter, but i am sure many other players dont so it could be somewhat of a surprise to them, at least the first time around. For me its more a matter of completness, i just want the whole experience

I'm not sure I agree with the notion. I mean, sure, it's nice to pick where and when to land, but in 95% of cases, it's beeline to the shore anyway, so in other words you'd go through the same motions mission after mission, to little or no benefit.
That said, overall I feel the scenario and even campaign design were too much concerned about historical authenticity. Well, except for the late japanese campaign with the Australia landing - it probably would have been impossible for Japan to deal with the logistics involved - and the last mission of the US campaign where you land on the Japanese mainland just for the heck of it.
The missions are all too often slavishly based on history down to details like the fleet only appeared later on this theatre, so the player also only gets access to it later.
There should have been at least two scenario designers and at the very least some minor alt-history missions based on player performance.

Compare this with Panzer General - you only get Norway if you do well enough, if you are lightning fast in France and the Low Countries you get Seelöwe, you can chose to go to Afrika or to the east, if you do well enough on the eastern front you get early Moscow, if you do badly you start "losing" and end up in Berlin, otherwise you can end up in Washington.
OOB is a nice game in many respects, but if you compare it's campaign with that of PG, OOB scores incredibly low.
_____
rezaf