First, to the Developers of this game -- it is an excellent game with very intriguing new features! I especially like the secondary objective as they provide a real challenge and offer significant rewards. Also, the supply and efficiency mechanics are interesting and create a game where you really have to plan and allocate your units to achieve the best possible force for each scenario. The leaders are a welcome addition, too. Bravo!
Now for my critiques:
[I have only played through the Japanese campaign, so some of these issues may not be applicable to the US campaign]
1) Land-based aircraft -- there are a lot of choices to choose from for fighters and all of the strategic bombers are land-based (i.e. not carrier-based). Unfortunately there are very few scenarios where an airfield is accessible early, so the player is forced to utilize carrier-based aircraft for the majority of a battle.
Suggestion: Amend the scenarios in the Japanese campaign to have more land airfields readily available.
2) Unit Statistics -- Some values are difficult to determine.
- Carrier capacity needs to be visible; I think this has been covered in other forum topics, but I just wanted throw in my support for it.
- "Switch" statistics need to be visible. If a unit can switch from one mode to another (example: an AT unit that can switch to artillery), then the stats from both modes needs to be visible.
- Spotting values and torpedo attack effectiveness should be developed and displayed. I have seen other topics that have discussed this and an explanation was given about the dynamic variables for spotting, but I really do think that a relative value should be assigned to units to demonstrate how some units are more effective at spotting than others. The same can be said for torpedo attack effectiveness. The players need these values so they can make informed decisions about what units to purchase and upgrade. How am I supposed to determine which recon unit is best for spotting, or which tactical bomber unit is best for torpedo attack? Are all spotting and torpedo attack values the same regardless of unit type and model? If so, then why would I ever upgrade a recon unit, torpedo bomber, or sub?...I would just buy the first available model of these units and never upgrade them.
- Some units have statistics, but are unable to actually utilize them. An example of this is the Japanese HW Infantry '45 and the Japanese recon aircraft Aichi E13A. Both of them have a value for "small aircraft attack" but they are not able to engage small aircraft. Do these values actually represent the value that these units use to return fire when attacked by enemy fighters? If so, then I recommend putting a bracket around the stat (such as a "[3]") to denote this, similar to how Panzer General and Panzer Corps have tackled this issue. Small Air Attack is not the only type of stat where this is a factor, it is present in other units and with other values throughout the game. Again, it makes it difficult to select units for a core force without a clear understanding of how a unit operates.
- Land transport statistics need to be visible so that the player can make an informed decision about what type of trucks to purchase/upgrade....the statistics are significantly different and varied between the various land transport options. [disregard this comment...I located the land transport stats after looking closely
]3) Some unit types are of little/no value. I never used Interceptor fighters because they are land-based, but even if they were carrier-based I would still never have used them because I never really had a significant Strategic Bomber threat to deal with...for the few strat bombers that appeared, the dogfighters were able to adequately eliminate them. I never used recon units, because they could not take land objectives and because their weak attack/defense values usually meant that the AI would quickly eliminate them. And aerial recon planes could easily be replaced by bombers and fighters (one of the tips that is displayed during the loading of a saved game even recommends this!); since bombers and fighters can also destroy enemy targets, I never used aerial recon. Submarines' movement is too slow; their torpedo attack skill is minimal; and their reload time is too long, so for these reasons I never utilized subs...torpedo-equipped aircraft are much better options for dealing with enemy capital ships. All of these types of units should be drastically modified in order to provide a real value to the player, otherwise I suspect they are rarely utilized by the majority of us.
4) The upgrade options for some units do not provide any significant advantage. There were countless examples of new units available, but the only value that changed was an increase of 1 for the unit's small air defense as an example. In some cases a newer version of a particular unit actually had worse statistics...I don't have specific examples, but I can remember some naval units "large" and "small naval attack" values decreased when a newer version of the unit were available. I seriously could have purchased the basic "1941" version of the majority of some units and never upgraded them and there would have been no appreciable difference in their performance when compared to their "1945" versions. This was not true for all unit types, mainly for aircraft and ships.
5) Some units are duplicated between the various classes. An example of this is the Japanese Type 99 88mm AT/AA gun. It is the exact same unit that can switch between AT and AA modes, so why not just offer it as an AT (or AA) unit. There are numerous examples of this in AT, AA, Artillery, and Tac Bombers. In the interest of streamlining the number of available units, you should just offer a particular unit once.
6) Specializations -- this aspect of the game has so much potential, but it falls short of actually creating an enjoyable gameplay experience. Since this has been covered in depth, I'll be brief with my impressions. For the Japanese campaign, the specializations are just not usable. Either they provide no benefit (like Forced labor), or they are available too late in the campaign to be appreciated (like Wunderwaffe). The "Defensive Doctrine" specialization may have some benefit, but by the time it is available there are very few instances where the Japanese player is on the defensive (the first half of the New Zealand campaign is the only time I can remember where it could be effectively used). In my opinion, this aspect of the OOB should be enhanced as the highest priority for a game patch. If none of my other critiques are incorporated, then please adjust the specialization aspect of the game!
The above list may seem like I am unsatisfied with the game, but this is not the case...I really like this game! I just wanted to provide my impressions and hopefully some of them will be included in future patches for improvement. Many of my critiques involve the unit purchase/upgrade process. Overall, I feel like that particular process is "clunky" and difficult to manage. Improvements to the purchase/upgrade process would definitely enhance the gameplay experience.
Also, are there any plans to add-on new scenarios to the stock campaign? I think it would be really cool if the campaign path branched at some point. You could hinge it on one scenario...say Guadalcanal for the Japanese campaign. Add a challenging victory criteria that, if achieved, would propel the player toward Australia with no change to the current structure of the campaign tree...if this new victory condition was not achieved, then the player is forced to fight defensively at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and perhaps a fictional defense to the Allied invasion of the Japanese mainland. This would enhance the replay capability of the game.
