Morning Sun Personal Opinion

[simcc]

First off, a nice game will put my score 6/10 for this game compare to much higher rating i give to OOB Pacific as reason as below;

1. AI is very different, need major improvement
- I notice the AI always reinforce even during the worst moment and not aggressive in attacking. I have seen too many times that 1 of my unit facing 3 enemy infantry and instead of attacking they reinforce note its 3 strength 7-9 unit versus my strength 6 unit which they can easily dish out damage to my units.
- AI plane would pick the worst target ie they always comes into my AA range and i have notice that the fighters even engage my AA gun which is lame.
- AI plane would run home to land on the worst time ie when my tank is beside their airfield, i even tested by not capturing the airfield so i can destroy all the planes and to my surprise the AI plane keep landing and there is other airfield avail for them by the way.
- AI plane will forget to bomb you even when they are on top of your unit, happens many times, they just sit there and skip their turn.
- AI tank or armor will engage even if your unit is protected by AT guns. I have a few instance that i just sit in a bridge with 2 AT guns just to kill tanks easy and they keep attacking even when the first tank was destroy by supporting AT fire.
- the AI seems to forget to cut off your supply line for those expose unit unlike in pacific where AI is very good at supply cut off. They just idle there right beside the cut off point which i find it very strange.
- lack of counter attack from AI
- didn't even lose a single core unit after complete the campaign and end up with 2k rp on the last mission.

2. Scenario badly design
- too many empty place on most map with absolutely no unit what so ever.
- can complete scenarios way faster than turns given.
- most objective reward is boring with only extra RP given.
- auxiliary unit vanish during event time which was widely hated during OOB pacific Guadalcanal scenario and yet it happens in morning sun again.
- overall it was not exciting except 1 scenario which i find it interesting only. i was expecting more survival mode style since the Chinese have far bigger army but didn't find that feel at all.

3. Story line of campaign
- i was expecting the DLC to be a build up to a grand campaign like PzC, but it is not so a bit disappointed. i was hoping this was like a pre OOB pacific and after complete you can import the core to pacific and looking at the design all future DLC is not like in terms of force import which is boring as you won't get the feel that you unit is special and can travel with you on all DLC.
- not playable as Chinese faction
- only 1 specialization is available which is disappointing cant even build bunkers of MG foxhole.

Overall i think its just an enjoyable game with not much replay value so i hope future DLC have better scenario design so it gives you multiple option to complete hence increase the replay value and a campaign tree like PzC where major and minor victory actually means a difference. Also AI must improve so it not lame to play against.

Thank the developer for the game i did enjoy playing it.

[terje439]

No need to open another one like this, so I will post my initial thoughts in this thread.

Ok, so I have only played the first two scenarios of the campaign, but still, here is what I am thinking so far;

1. The map still does not do it for me, but I was expecting this, since that was also the case with the original game. The map is not clear enough (in lack of a better term) for me. I find it hard to find my units when zoomed out etc.

2. Scen #2. I tried to get on that road for ages. Thinking it might be a hex that is bugged. On turn 3 or 4 I realize; "oh ffs, that must be the Great Wall"...Again goes to the map.

3. Scen #2. My army command point limit is lower than in scen #1, forcing me to leave one unit out of the fight. Highly annoying.

4. Scen #2. Since my army was pretty much pre-bought at scen #1, I arrived with only 1 fighter. And then the scen requirements (secondary, but still) forces me to down an enemy fighter. In Panzer Corps, no biggie, however with the reworked air mechanics in this game, (atleast for me) not doable unless I am very lucky with some rolls.

My main issue is still #1 and with that, also #2. I really do not like these maps. I wish they were clearer like the ones in Panzer Corps. Apart from that, the game is still fun to play, and it is the Pacific Theathre, which add something new for me. All in all, 75%. Yes, maps are that big a deal to me

[MarechalJoffre]

- overall it was not exciting except 1 scenario which i find it interesting only. i was expecting more survival mode style since the Chinese have far bigger army but didn't find that feel at all.

Just going to answer that, apart from that I highly agree with. You know like Japanese had the edge in nearly every other battle in history right? Their offensives in the early war were devastating, and I doubt if they ever faced a survival situation like that.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I certainly don't think they had serious trouble up to 1939/40 anyway.

- BNC

[kongxinga]

Since I had beta tested, I knew what I was getting, and I was kinda sad there was no Chinese content. I am ok with no campaigns, but how about a couple of scenarios or multiplayer maps. Nat Chi OOB is fully fleshed out for air land battles (not sea of course but early war Japanese versus Nat Chi would have been interesting.

[simcc]

Yes i am well aware that historically Japs attack in early days are devastating but the Japs are facing heavy resistance both in geographical/supply challenge and local population and scenario design can make it interesting. Besides certain scenario don't follow historical facts hence i don't see the point why the scenario design can't make it more challenging.

Also note that I don't meant for a scenario that literally destroy your army but at least the scenario can be design to destroy your vanguard army. Its not that hard to design the AI to cut off your advancing army by flanking and like i mention none of my unit was destroy at all after the campaign. Well in OOB Pacific my engineers keep dying and i always use them to break entrench enemies but in morning sun my engineers can earn up to 3 stars with just normal replacement which translate to how little damage they receive during the campaign. Also note that Japs tanks are very powerful and I am pretty disappointed that AI action on dealing with my tanks. If they do not cut off the supply they have no chance of defeating it and i never encounter a cut off in supply in the entire game again unlike OOB pacific where the AI is good at supply cut off.

Also note that there is alot of rp reserve i have again unlike OOB pacific hence translate into either my unit didnt die or need replacement or that they didnt give you enough option to buy stuff which again its a disappointment.

Like i mention its the scenario design and AI programming that can make a big difference.

[simcc]

Just to add on on scenario design is much better in PzC and developer should look at that to get some in sight on how to develop a challenging scenario.

Eg. Grand campaign 39 PzC, Polish was suppose to be defeated by Germans and fast in historical mode yet scenario design makes me feel that while the Germans win but its not an easy task, scenario like defending the bridge against Polish counter attack, the forest hunt scenario and generally most of the scenario is challenging. The time factors and smarter AI programming makes a huge difference in scenario design. Again look at grand campaign 41/42 PzC where the Germans take on Russian, it was very tough fight because the scenario design was very good even when they lack the supply design where i think its the jewel of OOB games. In Japs versus China it should be like Germans taking on Russian as China is vast and was losing but draining Japs resources and army so i believe the scenario should be design to reflect that and make us players decide should i go for the secondary objective? Is it worth it for that extra RP gain etc.

Just take the Partisans in the game as example, to me these unit seems to lost their objective in terms of AI programming, Partisans in game have no real objective and that do not reflect Partisans role at all, first off I would give or program them to go to certain supply point and destroy supply (which is their role IRL) and avoiding your unit not engaging them like the game happens to be (again IRL they will not engage enemy rather than avoid detection), also note they didnt blow up bridge etc where again in real life thats their role to slow down advancing enemy. If Partisan been program well it gives players the dilemma to place some unit to defend towns or supply point hence weaken the vanguard army or hunt them down using light mobile army etc it will create far better interesting play. Having said that i suddenly realize i didnt build a single bridge unlike in OOB Pacific where bridge have to be rebuild for fast advance.

Like i always said PzC grand campaign is a very good point of reference in terms of scenario design and i do hope the developers can take a look into that and design a better scenario. Personal opinion on scenario design is that it should be like a puzzle for players to solve (agree with terje on map issue as we need better maps to solve puzzles, i often look at tactical map in PzC but not in OOB) more options or route to complete the objective and secondary objective should be a risk versus reward action.

[Erik2]

Re simcc's first post.

1) Interesting. Most of the comments during beta stated that the AI was too aggressive, often attacking with under-strength and low-efficiency units. This may have changed when MS went official though.
As for AI air units landing on contested airfields. This could be prevented setting up a trigger/effect that would switch the base to a safer one. Should be easy to fix by the designer.
AI units have been good at cutting supply and performing flank attacks earlier, so not sure what is happening here. Maybe a combination of terrain/space/player units make it difficult. Hard to know without analyzing a specific situation.
Generally the earlier scenarios are very generous with allocating RPs, later on you will probably wanting more.

2) Sometimes you will have have 'empty' places on a map where not much is happening if you stay fairly historical. You have an objective in one corner, but nothing in another. Personally I think the unit density was fine.
You need the extra turns to give players a chance to finish on higher levels, try 'Kamikaze' and see if you are able to finish in time.
It is difficult to come up with new and exciting rewards for every scenario. There are only so many variables you can use; adding RPs/CPs/units or removing same for the enemy. Maybe if specializations could be rewarded...

3) The current campaigns are linear by design. There is some possibility to branch, but I think it has not been implemented properly yet. The devs have said the plan to link the MS campaign with the stock Japanese one and you should be able to carry your core over.
I would at least expect some custom Chinese single scenarios in the future, but presently there are not many other besides yours truly that have published anything custom...
A Chinese campaign would be interesting, but I think the devs have at least four other campaigns planned this year.

[Erik2]

Re Terje's map problems.

I have not the best eye-sight in Norway, but I have never had problems with the map. I do play fairly zoomed in though.
In fact, I love the map (and the units) so I often zoom way in when performing the attacks. Then zoom a bit out for moving and getting the broader picture.

Have you tried the various 'Unit accenting Glow' variations in the Options?
It should allow you to spot units lost in the jungle.

[Erik2]

Re PzCorps campaigns.
I liked the early/middle Blitz-Krieg scenarios very much.
The later East Front scenarios I found tedious as you would only confront hordes of Russian armor. Maybe realistic, but not much fun.
And don't get me started on over-strength units

Re partisans.
I partially agree. The commandoes/raiders etc in OOB can't cut supply lines and are unable to occupy objectives. So it is hard to create scenarios using them in these roles, I have tried.
I would give them these abilities, but compensate for making them more brittle (they are smaller units than regular army). Make them dependent on air-drop supply or foraging local supply dumps.

Re puzzles.
Players are obviously divided on this. Some hate them as the games may become more role-play than military/strategy oriented. I like puzzles that stay true to the game, ie a strategic or tactical puzzle is OK.

[KarlXII]

Interesting. Does the A.I differ in Morning Sun from the vanilla OOB: Pacific ?
In my opinion the same issues with the A.I could be found in the OOB: Pacific.

Anyone knows when a next patch with the skirmish mode might arrive ? or if any developer could step in and say anything about if they will try to improve the A.I ?
I am fine with waiting for it, just so that I know it will be done.

[Mojko]

I'm not done with the campaign yet, but here are some of my impressions:

1. AI is very different, need major improvement

I actually think the AI is improved compared to the original. Pulls back injured units (and heals them), is more aggressive (AI put a good fight in battle of Shanghai, mounting counter offensives and even pushing me back a little) and no longer suffers from the cut supply line trick (this is where you setup one of your units to a position where its supplies can be easily cut, but the AI has to use a well fortified unit and abandon its position).

2. Scenario badly design

I find the scenario design fine so far, but this is probably subjective. I just wanted to add that objective rewards are now given even for the main objectives which was not the case in OOB Pacific. Removal of auxiliary units does not bother me that much since it creates interesting new situation you have to resolve.

3. Story line of campaign

Overall, I don't mind playing only one side as long the campaign is good (which it is so far). I also enjoy that campaign is not branching, because I understand that it is much more difficult to develop a branching campaign to a linear one. Instead of branching we have objective rewards that carry over the other scenarios, which is enough for me.

[bru888]

I'm a latecomer, so you will have to excuse me in that I am still in the middle of the Pacific campaign (and having a grand time). Yet, I do have an opinion on Morning Sun already.

I missed it in this thread but learned as I was scanning the Steam forum that there is no provision to play as the Chinese! No doubt Morning Sun is a fine piece of work but if it's historically accurate, then it may not be the challenge that I expected. My history is a bit short here but from what I can recall, it seemed that the Japanese did pretty much whatever they wanted to in China and were limited only by the size of their potential conquest (which, thankfully, meant biting off more than they could ultimately chew).

To enjoy Morning Sun, we must play as the Japanese. I was looking forward to the challenge of meeting them as Chinese. Plus, I will be frank (and this is not meant as an insult to the Japanese people) but I find it difficult to associate myself with the Japanese military of the 1930's and 1940's. Especially in China. Something about Nanking keeps coming to mind . . .

So while I don't mind having purchased Morning Sun, and I will probably play it once I have finished the Pacific campaign, some of my enthusiasm for this expansion is gone now. Is there any chance of having a Chinese campaign included in an update? Probably a lot to ask, I know.

[WWII44]

The AI in MS really pissed me off as it would regen unit health almost constantly causing me to bog down in certain places. Combine that with the fact that the Computer takes forever and a day to take it's turn then it gets really anoying, I found my self having to turn off the AI at certain points just so I could progress quite often.

[Boarspear]

This is my favorite game so far of Order Of Battle, and unlike others I don't have problems with the AI -- it can't replace a human, ok? Well, maybe in the future we'll have a scary AI that can think like a human, but this one does it's job -- it will try to do a few things right, like advance into vacant areas in one's lines, and replace health rather than attack and be destroyed. Overall I have just enjoyed the freedom from the buggy and fairly boring naval battles -- having naval support, or small actions, is really cool. I like how established airfields can launch multiple planes, while constructed ones can only launch one. I am into my second campaign, and so far I have only encountered two bugs that weren't game-ending. Had a couple of crashes, mostly on loading. Really great job, overall, and I only wish the campaign was longer. It would be really interesting to play as the Chinese and have the Flying Tigers as air support ... maybe a Burma campaign with Stillwell and Orde Wingate missions. Ambitious, I know, but I think the designers are capable of marvelous things.

[rezaf]

Well, I'm kinda late to the party to this one - but here's my $0.02.

I once played a WW1 game - it's name escapes me now. It had all the parts in place, the infantry, the machine guns, the howitzers, the tanks, you name it. And it wasn't a bad game, not spectacular either, but solid.
Just, the way you played it didn't fit with the expectations one connects with WW1 at all. In the west, there basically was never a solid frontline, and if one existed it was short-lived and not at all in the locations you expected.
So no real trench warfare.
In the east, recreating historical events was nigh impossible, instead you had to retreat to german held areas and do the trench thing there, lest you were overrun by the numerical superiority of the russians.
And so on and so forth.

Anyway, that's my problem with Morning Sun: It's solid, but it doesn't meet my expectations of the Japanese fighting in China at all. The Chinese units are very numerous. So much was to be expected.
But they also appear to be on-par with their Japanese counterparts. There's tons of heavy infantry fortifying the cities, and Japanese troops have a really hard time getting the upper hand on them.
There's plenty of artillery support, AA and AT guns, a sizeable amount of armor even, whereas usually the players Japanese force will be hard pressed to bring similar numbers of either to the field.
The Chinese usually have air superiority and the outnumbered Japanese planes perform abysmal when engaging them.

This all creates a flow that runs totally against anything I'd expect - outnumbered but individually far superior Japanese troops overwhelming a technologically outclassed opponent.
Instead it's a bit of a slog. Fortified city after fortified city. Defense line after defense line. Constantly you have to run the gauntlet and take heavy air attacks because even if you bring three fighters vs. one from China, they are hardly going to put a dent into it. Ground attacks often feel like the charge of the light brigade. Yeah, you can still win by exploiting the fact that the AI ain't too bright (it's ok, no complaints here, but of course not as smart as a human), but it's more like a chore.
Once you capture a city, it's time to sigh and move on to the next, and you always know: It'll be the same uphill struggle again.
The Chinese airforce will be toggled and your planes will have to make a run for it.
Armor will activate and your puny tanks will have to cower behind the infantry.
Some long range artillery will start to shell you and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
That 4-0 combat prediction will turn into a 3-0 and that last remaining figure will respawn back to a 10 in no time.
But you will soldier through it, and then you will valiantly complete some bonus objective that was hard to pull off and be rewarded with 20 resource points. Yay!

I have to admit, compared to OOB:P, I'm quite disappointed.
At least I guess I can relate to the scenario designers. I think by now I bring as little enthusiasm into playing the scenarios as they brought into creating them.
_____
rezaf

[bebro]

Anyway, that's my problem with Morning Sun: It's solid, but it doesn't meet my expectations of the Japanese fighting in China at all. The Chinese units are very numerous. So much was to be expected.
But they also appear to be on-par with their Japanese counterparts. There's tons of heavy infantry fortifying the cities, and Japanese troops have a really hard time getting the upper hand on them.
There's plenty of artillery support, AA and AT guns, a sizeable amount of armor even, whereas usually the players Japanese force will be hard pressed to bring similar numbers of either to the field.
The Chinese usually have air superiority and the outnumbered Japanese planes perform abysmal when engaging them.

Well, indeed the Chinese do have a bit more arty, air and tanks than they did field historically, simply because having every battle (with few exceptions) with 95% infantry on the enemy side would not be that interesting IMO. Also they did receive substantial help from the USSR in 1938, especially in tanks and planes.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that Jpn tanks or fighters would not be effective - I found them always the most useful units. Of course you can't just dash into an AT protected position using tanks, and initial biplane fighters are not wiping the floor with the enemy, but with the right use there should not be much of a problem, esp. not later when you have better equipment or even heroes atttached.

[bebro]

To enjoy Morning Sun, we must play as the Japanese. I was looking forward to the challenge of meeting them as Chinese. Plus, I will be frank (and this is not meant as an insult to the Japanese people) but I find it difficult to associate myself with the Japanese military of the 1930's and 1940's. Especially in China. Something about Nanking keeps coming to mind . . .

So while I don't mind having purchased Morning Sun, and I will probably play it once I have finished the Pacific campaign, some of my enthusiasm for this expansion is gone now. Is there any chance of having a Chinese campaign included in an update? Probably a lot to ask, I know.

Re the 1st pt. - MS is not a politcal statement pro Japanese policy in the 1930ies. I never saw PG/PzC in this light either. I can certainly understand why players would ask for a Chinese campaign - whether it materializes or not I simply can't say at this point.

[bru888]

I have to agree with your response, pending my actually PLAYING the Morning Sun campaign, of course (I just reached Tokyo in the Pacific campaign). Basically, as Wikipedia sums up the Second Sino-Japanese War:

The Second Sino-Japanese War was the largest Asian war in the 20th century. It accounted for the majority of civilian and military casualties in the Pacific War, with anywhere between 10 and 25 million Chinese civilians and over 4 million Chinese and Japanese military personnel dying from war-related violence, famine, and other causes... Initially the Japanese scored major victories, such as the Battle of Shanghai, and by the end of 1937 captured the Chinese capital of Nanking... By 1939, after Chinese victories in Changsha and Guangxi, and with stretched lines of communications deep into the Chinese interior territories, the war had reached a stalemate. The Japanese were also unable to defeat the Chinese communist forces in Shaanxi, which continued to perform sabotage operations against the Japanese using guerrilla warfare tactics... After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the war would merge into the greater conflict of World War II.

So basically, this war WAS a slog (using rezaf's term) which ground to a halt as Japanese attention and resources were diverted elsewhere. China was too big and the Chinese were too numerous to defeat.

Would it be wise to create a game expansion that was utterly faithful to this history? Sounds like it may be a bit boring in the end, having to conquer vast territories and vanquish hordes of ill-trained and ill-supplied ground troops, wave after wave. I can see the scenario time limits being the major factor in victory or defeat and "Shift-C #overtime <>" getting used repeatedly!

That said, however, I would welcome the chance to play AS the Chinese, using my hordes of ill-trained and ill-supplied ground troops, plus maneuvering and sabotage, to delay Japanese advances to the point where I would win on time. That was what I was anticipating from Morning Sun and was a bit disappointed to see was not the case.

Still, Morning Sun is welcome in my book; any expansion of OOB:Pacific is a good thing! (Europe next, though, not more Pacific Marines.)

[rezaf]

Hey there bebro, good to see you.

Well, indeed the Chinese do have a bit more arty, air and tanks than they did field historically, simply because having every battle (with few exceptions) with 95% infantry on the enemy side would not be that interesting IMO. Also they did receive substantial help from the USSR in 1938, especially in tanks and planes.

I agree - missions like the "battle of kursk" one where the Chinese make an armored attack are a nice idea, but the execution is not so good, imo.
I guess one of my main gripes is that the scenario design is really really uninspired. The minor objectives are for the most part boring and offer boring rewards, usually a lousy amount of resource points.
There's a couple of ideas in my head that would spice things up imo, but it's not that any of them would be implemented at this point, so who cares?

I'm a bit surprised to hear that Jpn tanks or fighters would not be effective - I found them always the most useful units.

Well, the most useful unit for me is basically infantry, because you can't get anything done without a sizeable infantry force. Tanks do ... ok. But there's basically only two varieties at the point of the game I'm at, the slightly slower and slightly stronger and the slightly faster but slightly weaker one. Anyway, this isn't really criticism, it's obviously a historical fact that the Japanese didn't have the best armored forces.
Don't get me started about fighters, though. Even with an ace pilot, I get 3:2 combat predictions vs. Chinese fighters, which then regularly turn into 2:2 or 3:3. And if I have 2 fighter wings, the Chinese have 4 or even more. The only reason you don't get obliterated is that fighter AI sucks and will happily leave injured fighters sitting there to buzz off and do a strafing run on some infantry.
That tactical bombers are weaksauce in the OOB engine stings more this time around than it did in the original campaign as well.

Of course you can't just dash into an AT protected position using tanks, and initial biplane fighters are not wiping the floor with the enemy, but with the right use there should not be much of a problem, esp. not later when you have better equipment or even heroes atttached.

That you have to consider things like AT guns actually ranks amongst my favorite things, if only it it weren't so similar to the issues in the original PzC campaign, where the AI would use it's prestige allowance intended for repairs to surround every city with cheap, but reasonally effective AT, ART and AA guns. In MS, the scenario designers just plunked down the same basic defenses in way too many cities. You just deal with the same problems/situations over and over and over again.
_____
rezaf