Japan 45

[Green]

The one glaring issue is the bunkers rated at 40/40. I will correct that and reissue the 1.01 patch. No need for a 'sandbox' as you say. As far as the bunker build percentage of 2.5% - you know, it's completely academic in my opinion. That is a 1 in 40 chance every turn. Neither side can afford the engineers (yes only engineers can build bunkers) to sit around building bunkers and if I saw a line of Japanese engineers happily building they would be priority targets for me.

There is logic, there was deep discussions and we all have our own take. If you feel the game is underdone and not to your taste, so be it - I expect we can get you a refund. Just be aware that we do keep updating these games and consider feedback and have proven that for the last twenty years. It will also mean you will miss out on Japan '46, the big brother to the currently released game, which I believe is an excellent title as well.

David

The bunker issue is academic? In a game where you decided to minimize bunkers, my question was why would you make them easier than normal to construct. This has not been answered. If there is a logical reason for this, then great, but what is it? If not then why not change it? Surely these values should be set in a meaningful way even if their effect is not perceived as great. And personally I am unconvinced by your reasoning for why bunker building would not be used by the Japanese. I as said before, for me this is a balance issue in anything but a small scenarios. But that is not the point. I am looking for there to be logic behind it. And, it hardly encourages someone to give feedback if you dismiss their views without properly addressing them.     

I also asked about the Range Effect Value. Maybe this is also academic but given the bunker value errors and bunker prob. issue, my concern was that a clear pattern was emerging that indicated the parameter data values had not been looked at carefully prior to release. This seems to be confirmed by Sgt_Rock's comment that " I had no idea that in the beginning the bunker defense value was set to "40" and only found that out after the game was out." This and the fact that testing did not discover the erroneous bunker values, erodes my overall confidence in the game. To my mind therefore, this is not academic.      

I have tried to better understand this game and its design choices but it has consumed a great deal of time for little benefit. The unusual optional rules choices are an example. Manual Defensive Fire was included as a default simply because its effect was not understood by the designer or the testers. So it is reasonable to wonder about some of the other choices. Is the Alternative Assault rule understood? A recent post by Sgt_Rock suggested that flamethrower tanks were one of the most effective weapons against bunkers because of their high assault value. It was pointed out that in this game, if using the default rules, they are actually particularly ineffective at this because of their low hard attack value. There was no response, so what are we to conclude? That the designer still believes that flamethrower tanks are effective against bunkers or that he knows that they are not but thinks this is fine? There is no perfect solution to the bunker problem but what I would have liked to have seen was a response that demonstrated that at least the problem was understood and that choices had been made for good reasons. I also asked for the logic behind the use of the Optional Surrender rule, as using it in this game struck me as strange. Perhaps there is logic behind it but since I got no response, I am forced to draw my own conclusions.

But what I would now be interested in knowing is whether the money back offer extended to Kool Kat applies to others unhappy with their purchase of this game? The fact that I would miss out on Japan '46 is academic.