Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Use Nik's mod. Good luck getting the mass 4E's any time soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

This thread, to me, is just further evidence of what went wrong when the decision was made to let the kiddies take over the sandbox. Nowhere anymore is there the slightest hint of "the game presents me with a situation, and I am responsible for doing better than my historical counterpart did. I operate at ________ level of command without control of various matters that are above and below that level of command, and I do what I can."

Instead, it's all become "I want control, I need control, I am god, the game conditions are nothing unless I dictate them."

This is not what I wanted from wargaming when I started playing, and it is not what I want now. Time to quit trying to believe in computer wargames, I think, except for the very few that maintain some design integrity, like Birth of America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I really like the PDU, but then again I'm not such a stickler for accuracy. if we wanted accuracy, I suppose we would have to eliminate more than just PDU if we were to get close to the situation in ww2.

I think the fact that there is an option for turning on or off PDU is a great solution. if you're the type of player that wants the battles fought just like they were in history, then play with them off and a dozen house rules.

otherwise, play in a manner where you think you can guide the ENTIRE war effort better than history. sure its not historical, but its far from "fantasy" as many have labeled it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I started a new PBEM game of WITP in the hopes that it would at least be a little historical.
My mistake.

I dropped that notion on the first turn when the US CV's were targeted, and all the Eastern Pacific Islands were invaded on Dec 7+8th.
Yeah right, what BS.
A 3 week bonus move for the entire IJN with NO fuel expenditure.
What genius thought that one up?

So on turn two I started treating this game as an Age of Empires RTS game.
Because that's what this game is.

When I see posters trying to validate this nonsense it really PO's me.
I guess they watch the history channel and don't read books.
Sorry if the truth hurts.

As long as you don't think in historical terms, this game is OK.
If you want an historical game, you better look elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I started a new PBEM game of WITP in the hopes that it would at least be a little historical.
My mistake.

I dropped that notion on the first turn when the US CV's were targeted, and all the Eastern Pacific Islands were invaded on Dec 7+8th.
A 3 week bonus move for the entire IJN with NO fuel expenditure.

So on turn two I started treating this game as an Age of Empires RTS game.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

I started a new PBEM game of WITP in the hopes that it would at least be a little historical.
My mistake.

I dropped that notion on the first turn when the US CV's were targeted, and all the Eastern Pacific Islands were invaded on Dec 7+8th.
A 3 week bonus move for the entire IJN with NO fuel expenditure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I really like the PDU, but then again I'm not such a stickler for accuracy. if we wanted accuracy, I suppose we would have to eliminate more than just PDU if we were to get close to the situation in ww2.

I think the fact that there is an option for turning on or off PDU is a great solution. if you're the type of player that wants the battles fought just like they were in history, then play with them off and a dozen house rules.

otherwise, play in a manner where you think you can guide the ENTIRE war effort better than history. sure its not historical, but its far from "fantasy" as many have labeled it.

I think that the moment players turn off japanese sub ops they can no longer complain about accuracy...or realistic or any of those other things.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Have a ground rule not to upgrade all bombers to 4Es works well. B-25s and B-26s are tough too though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

We agreed on self restraint actually once we realized the magnitude of the issue. Don`t forget we started this game before anyone had gotten experience with PDU`s. We have a lot of time invested in it at this point. As such only 4E to 4E is being done but of course some units had been changed. I do think that replacment rates are way to high and couple that with PDU and you can see how massed bomber assaults will happen. As for my experience with Japanese PDU and production on, it also has weird results hence my overabundance of Tony`s needed to counter the overabundance of 4E`s. On and On it goes. I only post this to give players a heads-up on some of the options you choose at the start of the game.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I started a new PBEM game of WITP in the hopes that it would at least be a little historical.
My mistake.

I dropped that notion on the first turn when the US CV's were targeted, and all the Eastern Pacific Islands were invaded on Dec 7+8th.
A 3 week bonus move for the entire IJN with NO fuel expenditure.

How would you feel if HALF the Japanese tankers (there are only six in the game - there should be eight to be historical - but all eight should have somewhat lower capacity - and the ships should use rather more fuel) were forced to appear two weeks later (at Yokosuka - that is Tokyo) to represent they were empty on Dec 8 (Dec 7 US time)? That means only half the fuel is available mid-Ocean (on the tankers anyway).

Other Japanese forces begin in port and so must expend fuel to reach whatever point. But the KB and a few Allied TFs at sea get a bit of free fuel - more or less in compensation for each other - because either they get that - or they must begin in port.

Finally, how would you feel about a game beginning two weeks early - with NO war - and players are forbidden to attack by house rules - permitting both sides to maneuver for initial position?
Then ALL units start in port - no free fuel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

We agreed on self restraint actually once we realized the magnitude of the issue. Don`t forget we started this game before anyone had gotten experience with PDU`s. We have a lot of time invested in it at this point. As such only 4E to 4E is being done but of course some units had been changed. I do think that replacment rates are way to high and couple that with PDU and you can see how massed bomber assaults will happen. As for my experience with Japanese PDU and production on, it also has weird results hence my overabundance of Tony`s needed to counter the overabundance of 4E`s. On and On it goes. I only post this to give players a heads-up on some of the options you choose at the start of the game.

Give us a pic of the numbers Capt Ed!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I really like the PDU, but then again I'm not such a stickler for accuracy. if we wanted accuracy, I suppose we would have to eliminate more than just PDU if we were to get close to the situation in ww2.

I think the fact that there is an option for turning on or off PDU is a great solution. if you're the type of player that wants the battles fought just like they were in history, then play with them off and a dozen house rules.

otherwise, play in a manner where you think you can guide the ENTIRE war effort better than history. sure its not historical, but its far from "fantasy" as many have labeled it.

I think that the moment players turn off japanese sub ops they can no longer complain about accuracy...or realistic or any of those other things.

What a crock. Japanese sub doctrine in the game is vastly different from RL. The doctrine should be directed from the top (the player), not have it programmed for us. The Japanese conducted quite a bit of mercantile warfare, and having this game doctrine on screws it. If you want to simply use your subs as fleet scouts and transports, go ahead. No need to nerf the ability to attack merchant shipping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I really like the PDU, but then again I'm not such a stickler for accuracy. if we wanted accuracy, I suppose we would have to eliminate more than just PDU if we were to get close to the situation in ww2.

I think the fact that there is an option for turning on or off PDU is a great solution. if you're the type of player that wants the battles fought just like they were in history, then play with them off and a dozen house rules.

otherwise, play in a manner where you think you can guide the ENTIRE war effort better than history. sure its not historical, but its far from "fantasy" as many have labeled it.

I think that the moment players turn off japanese sub ops they can no longer complain about accuracy...or realistic or any of those other things.

What a crock. Japanese sub doctrine in the game is vastly different from RL. The doctrine should be directed from the top (the player), not have it programmed for us. The Japanese conducted quite a bit of mercantile warfare, and having this game doctrine on screws it. If you want to simply use your subs as fleet scouts and transports, go ahead. No need to nerf the ability to attack merchant shipping.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons). It seems reasonable that an all-out blitz of the American west coast, the Panama Canal, and the approaches to Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and India would have caused the Allies more difficulty than did the naval deprivations that were actually achieved. Losing a significant number of merchant ships, and also needing to spread meager defenses even more thinly along two coasts, would surely have had some substantial consequences for the United States in 1942.


Not a crock. Its not what they used their submarines for. Yes they did sink some merchant ships here and there, but it wasn't their main use. That why I always always get a good chuckle anytime someone comes here screaming about the reality of this or that...yet their first move is to turn off japanese submarine doctrine.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I really like the PDU, but then again I'm not such a stickler for accuracy. if we wanted accuracy, I suppose we would have to eliminate more than just PDU if we were to get close to the situation in ww2.

I think the fact that there is an option for turning on or off PDU is a great solution. if you're the type of player that wants the battles fought just like they were in history, then play with them off and a dozen house rules.

otherwise, play in a manner where you think you can guide the ENTIRE war effort better than history. sure its not historical, but its far from "fantasy" as many have labeled it.

I think that the moment players turn off japanese sub ops they can no longer complain about accuracy...or realistic or any of those other things.

What a crock. Japanese sub doctrine in the game is vastly different from RL. The doctrine should be directed from the top (the player), not have it programmed for us. The Japanese conducted quite a bit of mercantile warfare, and having this game doctrine on screws it. If you want to simply use your subs as fleet scouts and transports, go ahead. No need to nerf the ability to attack merchant shipping.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons). It seems reasonable that an all-out blitz of the American west coast, the Panama Canal, and the approaches to Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and India would have caused the Allies more difficulty than did the naval deprivations that were actually achieved. Losing a significant number of merchant ships, and also needing to spread meager defenses even more thinly along two coasts, would surely have had some substantial consequences for the United States in 1942.


Not a crock. Its not what they used their submarines for. Yes they did sink some merchant ships here and there, but it wasn't their main use. That why I always always get a good chuckle anytime someone comes here screaming about the reality of this or that...yet their first move is to turn off japanese submarine doctrine.

But Rob, that's my point. Japanese sub doctrine as is modelled is basically wrong, Jap sub commanders attacked everything they saw, their bosses just did not send them on too many missions where enemy merchants were plentiful, they wasted the subs on special missions with the fleet or as sub transports. If you don't want to use them as pickets, scouts, transports or what have you, that is for you to decide, and you station and assign your missions to the subs accordingly. Let's say you decide to use them to form a scouting line ahead of KB...guess what, oods are they are not going to run into any merchant convoys along the way unless KB is heading for a major Allied port. The player determines sub doctrine, we don't need the game to tell subs to ignore merchants when that was not what happenned.