RE: 661 4E`s shot down

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 661 4E`s shot down

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: 661 4E`s shot down

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 12:52:21 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

And Pas is just a cranky ol' geezer...once you get used to his humor, he is rather entertaining...takes a while though...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 61

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 12:53:12 AM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

Basically, the kids won out and it's Lucky Charms for breakfast instead of fibre rich Muslix.

Hmmm. I dont feel like I'm lucky, or charming...

But anyway, the idea seemed good to me at the time. I remember waiting for the dang pool of KttyHawk III's to fill out so that I can upgrade the Australian Whirraways to sumthin useful. Why not Hurricanes or Spit's, if I got a butt-load of those in the pool?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 62

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 1:22:10 AM

Captain Ed

Posts: 533
Joined: 3/21/2004
From: Victoria BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

In my PBEM it is March 43. My opponent has lost 820 4E bombers so far. And I am still facing flights of 100 to 125 on Lunga from places like Luganville, 250 from Hilo against Palmyra. Australia has a couple of hundred God only knows what is in India. We play with PDU on. If anyone doubts that PDU`s coupled with unlimited replacment rates will skew the game well this I think is proof. My PBEM partner and I had no idea this would be the result of choosing PDU`s and we both agree that we have changed the game fundamentally. However we soldier on. Just wanted to bring up the folly of implementing PDU`s in this game.

PS: to be fair I have over 800 Tony`s in play

I had to edit my post I forgot to add in the LB-30`s

_____________________________

THE FIRST DAY OF YOUR DIET IS THE HARDEST
THE SECOND DAY IS EASY CAUSE YOU QUIT

(in reply to Captain Ed)

Post #: 63

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 1:45:13 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

Basically, the kids won out and it's Lucky Charms for breakfast instead of fibre rich Muslix.

Hmmm. I dont feel like I'm lucky, or charming...

But anyway, the idea seemed good to me at the time. I remember waiting for the dang pool of KttyHawk III's to fill out so that I can upgrade the Australian Whirraways to sumthin useful. Why not Hurricanes or Spit's, if I got a butt-load of those in the pool?

I like the ability PDUs give the player regarding downgrading aircraft. Would help Japanese utilize old airframes for Kamikazes, facilitate on map training etc. Just too screwed up with the add water and stir logistics and industrial model though. Base forces should be limited to being able to service perhaps two fighter models and a bomber model, be nationality driven, have AV points pertain to # of engines, not frames, and cost major PPs and suffer downtime/performance penalties whenever a type is changed.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 4/18/2006 1:48:06 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 64

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 2:09:35 AM

Black Mamba 1942

Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Black Mamba, I feel your pain. Who are you playing against, if you don't mind my asking?

I was hoping for something more historical. but I can play Age of Empires with the best of them.

So far the only thing historical are the names of ships and aircraft in this game.

I actually had no idea that the Japanese could just swamp the entire map in a few weeks.
Now I know.

Just load everything that you can and throw it out as fast as you can.
Sail around with Amph TF's until you find where the Allies have tried to dig in.
Invade and destroy them. Load the group back up, and do it over and over again.
If you find a place you can't take. Just reload the troops back on the TF in one turn, and go look for another easy target.
No preparation. Just go.

As soon as I saw what he was doing, I sent subs to every base that I could get to fast.
Then I started loading fragments of everything that I could.

There's no way the Allies can sink every Japanese merchant ship in their arsenal.

Not by 2/42 anyway.

Uhmm, who the hell am I playing anyway?
Can't remember. I must be getting old.

(in reply to joliverlay)

Post #: 65

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 2:25:18 AM

rroberson

Posts: 2050
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

A Ranger sailor!!!! When did you serve on her...I made a couple of Westpacs with her (1985-1990). Good old days.

I reported aboard 26 January, 1986, as a Data Systems Technician 3rd Class. (Two days before the space shuttle Challenger blew up.) Served in OED division, Operations Department.

I departed the ship, and the Navy, on 25 November, 1989.

Two WestPacs (1987, 1989).

One Surge Cruise (1986, out to Japan and back via North Pacific. Port visits in Saesebo and Pusan. And Vancouver? I forget. What-ever year the World Fair was in Vancouver, I stood a watch out on the weatherdeck, sponson #8, 0000 to 0400, in the freezing cold!).

One Fleet Ex/ Pineapple cruise. (I forget the year.) I remember that the ship did a big loop around the Hawaiian Islands, "attacking" PH. The defenders, the USAF, could not locate us, and demanded that we give them our position so they could practice "bombing" ships at sea. We gave them positions 6 hours old, and hightailed it outta there. Never was attacked. Hehe. When this cruise was superimposed on a map of the continental USA, we basically looped over an area larger than the US. Kinda makes the point that CV's are uniquely flexible, and hard to find in the vastness of the oceans.

In both of those two cruises, we took pride in our "stealthness". The ship ensured that no radio comms or radar emissions "gave away" our position, using aircraft radar for searches and passive radar sensing as much as safely possible. For the Japan cruise, we got to within one days sailing distance of the Tsugaru-Kaikyo(?) strait (The one between Hokkaido and Honshu.) before the Russkie's knew we were there.

I only served 6 years active duty, but they were definately a formative time in my life.

Small world.

I served during the same time...all the same cruises. I was in the OP division...one of the fighting photomates. Made it all the way to 2nd class during my 5 years (all on Ranger) I made the surge cruise too...though I thought it was Pusan and Vancouver (where I met Bob Hope at the world's fair!!! OF course being a photomate I managed NOT to get a photo of him...) I missed the Saesebo cruises I was in C school learning how to fix cameras (something I still suck at to this day). If you think your watch was bad...remember when they stopped allowing us to throw plastic garbage over the side when underway? I got to stand a 7pm to 7am (because my reliefs failed to show) watch on the fantail ...guarding the garbage while we were anchored off Hong Kong...good times indeed.

_____________________________

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 66

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 2:28:28 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Rob, you must have some amazing photos! Care to post some?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 67

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 2:38:04 AM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

remember when they stopped allowing us to throw plastic garbage over the side when underway?

Omigosh! That's right! Forgot all about that. (And the smoking bans, too.) Political correctness has got the military by it's, er.., family credentials now-a-days.

quote:

I like the ability PDUs give the player regarding downgrading aircraft. Would help Japanese utilize old airframes for Kamikazes, facilitate on map training etc. Just too screwed up with the add water and stir logistics and industrial model though. Base forces should be limited to being able to service perhaps two fighter models and a bomber model, be nationality driven, have AV points pertain to # of engines, not frames, and cost major PPs and suffer downtime/performance penalties whenever a type is changed.

Nothing you have suggested here seems unreasonable to me.

I usually "demobilise" some aircraft (like the whirraways) to some remote backwater until I can upgrade them. I figure, the two or three months that they are in Perth/Wellington throwing darts at pictures of Tojo, instead they are training in new type/models.

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 68

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 2:43:18 AM

rroberson

Posts: 2050
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

Ill have to see what I can dig up. I have a giant box filled with them.....(drives my wife crazy to move them everywhere we go :) ).

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 69

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 2:46:32 AM

rroberson

Posts: 2050
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

Basically, the kids won out and it's Lucky Charms for breakfast instead of fibre rich Muslix.

Hmmm. I dont feel like I'm lucky, or charming...

But anyway, the idea seemed good to me at the time. I remember waiting for the dang pool of KttyHawk III's to fill out so that I can upgrade the Australian Whirraways to sumthin useful. Why not Hurricanes or Spit's, if I got a butt-load of those in the pool?

I like the ability PDUs give the player regarding downgrading aircraft. Would help Japanese utilize old airframes for Kamikazes, facilitate on map training etc. Just too screwed up with the add water and stir logistics and industrial model though. Base forces should be limited to being able to service perhaps two fighter models and a bomber model, be nationality driven, have AV points pertain to # of engines, not frames, and cost major PPs and suffer downtime/performance penalties whenever a type is changed.

Agreed. I remember being very disappointed with the production schemes (or lack there of) when the game was getting close to launch. I love to tinker..(makes me a fantasy player according to past)...see if I can do better then tojo and nimitz. Frankly, I hope that the new team will take a hard look at production with the next patch or two and give us kids more abilty to tinker.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 70

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 3:09:03 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

remember when they stopped allowing us to throw plastic garbage over the side when underway?

Omigosh! That's right! Forgot all about that. (And the smoking bans, too.) Political correctness has got the military by it's, er.., family credentials now-a-days.

quote:

I like the ability PDUs give the player regarding downgrading aircraft. Would help Japanese utilize old airframes for Kamikazes, facilitate on map training etc. Just too screwed up with the add water and stir logistics and industrial model though. Base forces should be limited to being able to service perhaps two fighter models and a bomber model, be nationality driven, have AV points pertain to # of engines, not frames, and cost major PPs and suffer downtime/performance penalties whenever a type is changed.

Nothing you have suggested here seems unreasonable to me.

I usually "demobilise" some aircraft (like the whirraways) to some remote backwater until I can upgrade them. I figure, the two or three months that they are in Perth/Wellington throwing darts at pictures of Tojo, instead they are training in new type/models.

Wow, I do this sort of thing too! I limit aircraft to same nationality AV support, leave ships in port longer for their refits if big refits, give subs minimum 2 weeks in port, only send ships up for refit to major west coast or PH naval yard if USN etc. I'm a wee bit of a geek.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 71

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 3:10:46 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Ill have to see what I can dig up. I have a giant box filled with them.....(drives my wife crazy to move them everywhere we go :) ).

Very very cool if you could. And don't let the lady bug you into turfing your memories!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 72

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 5:42:27 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Wow, I do this sort of thing too! I limit aircraft to same nationality AV support, leave ships in port longer for their refits if big refits, give subs minimum 2 weeks in port, only send ships up for refit to major west coast or PH naval yard if USN etc. I'm a wee bit of a geek.

Wee bit, eh?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 73

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 6:16:29 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Sounds nice in theory but I wouldn't link av support to the number of engines. I haven't calculated it but I doubt there would be enough av support in 44-45 for the allied airforce. You'd end up w/ the IJNAF/IJAAF having higher service rates than the allies, that seems wrong especially for that period. To simulate the raids in 6/45 that happened historically an allied player would have have to park 2500+ av on guam, tinian and saipan.

I do like the idea about downtime when switching types, making it less likely that those switches occur at a frontline base.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 74

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 6:51:20 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Here's a funny result of playing with PDUs... the 9th PRS has just arrived in Seattle before enough F5As have been built, so it arrived equipped with Dutch CW22s!!! (there weren't enough F4s in the mix either as the earlier two US PRSs were using them)

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 75

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/18/2006 7:11:27 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Here's a funny result of playing with PDUs... the 9th PRS has just arrived in Seattle before enough F5As have been built, so it arrived equipped with Dutch CW22s!!! (there weren't enough F4s in the mix either as the earlier two US PRSs were using them)

Well, that is what i call good cooperation!

< Message edited by pauk -- 4/18/2006 7:12:21 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 76

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 9:52:26 PM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

In my PBEM it is March 43. My opponent has lost 820 4E bombers so far. And I am still facing flights of 100 to 125 on Lunga from places like Luganville, 250 from Hilo against Palmyra. Australia has a couple of hundred God only knows what is in India. We play with PDU on. If anyone doubts that PDU`s coupled with unlimited replacment rates will skew the game well this I think is proof. My PBEM partner and I had no idea this would be the result of choosing PDU`s and we both agree that we have changed the game fundamentally. However we soldier on. Just wanted to bring up the folly of implementing PDU`s in this game.

I still can never understand why people attribute this problem to PDU's. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the cause is aircraft production rates that are wildly and insanly non-historical. Isn't this very obvious to everyone? Or did the allies really have this huge surplus of heavy bombers.

Reducing aircraft production rates to an historical level seems the simple solution.

(in reply to Captain Ed)

Post #: 77

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 10:01:07 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

In my PBEM it is March 43. My opponent has lost 820 4E bombers so far. And I am still facing flights of 100 to 125 on Lunga from places like Luganville, 250 from Hilo against Palmyra. Australia has a couple of hundred God only knows what is in India. We play with PDU on. If anyone doubts that PDU`s coupled with unlimited replacment rates will skew the game well this I think is proof. My PBEM partner and I had no idea this would be the result of choosing PDU`s and we both agree that we have changed the game fundamentally. However we soldier on. Just wanted to bring up the folly of implementing PDU`s in this game.

I still can never understand why people attribute this problem to PDU's. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the cause is aircraft production rates that are wildly and insanly non-historical. Isn't this very obvious to everyone? Or did the allies really have this huge surplus of heavy bombers.

Reducing aircraft production rates to an historical level seems the simple solution.

Well, ops losses and wear and tear are not high enough so even with historical figures as in CHS aircraft are building up in the pools. Perhaps tying Political Points to more than just what we have now is an option. Replacements cost PPs, ship refits cost PPs, base expansion costs PPs, forming TFs costs PPs etc.

But I'd go further and say not only are the production rates possibly out of whack given the lack of hindrances to compensate, I still say that there is simply too much supply and resources hanging around. This is the case in my experience anyway. But I'm also aguy who thinks Japan should not be so capable of manufacturing thousands of advanced airframes and fuel endless offensive expansions as we see in basically every AAR.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 4/18/2006 10:05:16 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 78

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 10:06:50 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

I don't think PPs is the answer. Many people abuse that system by not using PPs to move from one command to another. They use PPs to get units out of restricted commands. I use my PPs to move from command to command. I have a chronic shortage of them. I have ground units in the Southern Command that I'd love to send to Burma, but I don't have the PPs to do it, so I won't.

Anyway, my argument is that if you use PPs properly, they will be used up. Adding uses for PPs that people are not required to use isn't the answer.

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 4/18/2006 10:07:19 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 79

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 10:16:27 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I don't think PPs is the answer. Many people abuse that system by not using PPs to move from one command to another. They use PPs to get units out of restricted commands. I use my PPs to move from command to command. I have a chronic shortage of them. I have ground units in the Southern Command that I'd love to send to Burma, but I don't have the PPs to do it, so I won't.

Anyway, my argument is that if you use PPs properly, they will be used up. Adding uses for PPs that people are not required to use isn't the answer.

'' Many people abuse that system by not using PPs to move from one command to another. "

What "system" is this?

If it was a system of some sort, there would be a few functioning parts. I really don't see why they even bothered with PPs considering how little is actually controlled by PPs. Like, if they wanted players to not "game" the PPs for say, LCUs as you mentioned, then maybe they should have designed it so players needed to pay the PPs to utilize the units outside of the HQ territory in the first place. I would not be surprised if someone were to list the number of house rules people have come up with that the size of the document would rival the darn manual.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 4/18/2006 10:18:26 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 80

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 10:27:36 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

For me it's simple. If you want to move an air or ground unit to a specific command and it not a part of that command, you pay the PPs first. Basically, I treat every command as I would if it were restricted.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 81

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 11:28:59 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi,
A. Take the number of aircraft per type produced
B. Subtract state side/training op loss
C. Use this number for base production rate.

Allied aircraft are free. They only cost supply to place on map.
Japanese aircraft cost have production cost and then a further cost to place onto map.

(It is not too difficult for Japan to wind up with pools of aircraft she can't pay to place onto map)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 82

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/18/2006 11:29:09 PM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Well, ops losses and wear and tear are not high enough so even with historical figures as in CHS aircraft are building up in the pools

Perhaps so but still the place to start is to get the replacement rates correct. Then things like wear and tear and ops losses can be tweaked. But as long as the allies ( and Japan) are getting thousands more then the historical planes you are going to have problems.

In any event PDU's are not the problem.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 83

RE: 820 4E`s lost - 4/19/2006 1:03:01 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
If it was a system of some sort, there would be a few functioning parts. I really don't see why they even bothered with PPs considering how little is actually controlled by PPs. Like, if they wanted players to not "game" the PPs for say, LCUs as you mentioned, then maybe they should have designed it so players needed to pay the PPs to utilize the units outside of the HQ territory in the first place. I would not be surprised if someone were to list the number of house rules people have come up with that the size of the document would rival the darn manual.

Ron, you need to get your PP under control.

I totally agree with you, but would go much further (don't I always?). Let's start with the name of the beast: "political points." What the Sam Hill is that supposed to mean? I see this as just another place where game design gave way to "Jeez, I don't know what to do, so I'll throw this in." The area of the game affected is command, not politics. If there is a price to be paid for reassigning a New Zealand division to Southwest Pacific command, it should be reflected in matter internal to the game, not considerations that are wholly external (you are supposed to be the supreme military commander for your side, not the supreme political commander, and such things should be outside your sphere of operation - of course, I'll get reamed six or seven different ways for saying this YET AGAIN, but I think I'm getting used to it and maybe will eventually even wind up liking it).

If the idea was to restrict free transfer of units from one command to another, the place to have started would have been with making command actually mean something. That is, high command HQs should have had the movement restrictions built into their functions, and their subordinate units should have been subject to them. Changes should be "paid for" through command, control, and logistical assets (for example, historically, units reassigned from one theater to another had to spend some time retraining, reorganizing, and being assimilated into the new command structure. This could have been reflected in some movement and combat constraints that would attenuate over time after the reassignment, but, in this regard as in so many others, no thought was apparently given to reflecting history in the game, only to what was expedient and had some faint smell of being historical, notwithstanding whether it worked properly).

But it's way too late now to argue for this kind of change, so, like my old Uncle Howard said at Grandma's funeral where the rumor was that Grandpa had "offed" the old girl for the insurance and Social Security money, "No post mortems." If there is to be a WitP II (which I doubt will ever happen), this is the kind of thing that militates in favor of a completely fresh design start, not some lame attempt at fixing this duck.

And nobody's putting one over on this little black duck.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 84

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/19/2006 1:04:24 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

And Pas is just a cranky ol' geezer...

What do you mean "just"?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 85

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/19/2006 1:25:09 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

Love ya like a brother man...or father...or grandfather...whatever...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 86

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/19/2006 1:57:59 AM

Oznoyng

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I don't think Pasternaski is belching over modders using the editor. Fill your boots I bet he would say. It's an editor. What he is pointing to I believe are features added under pressure from the forum community, in this case Real Time Strategy fans clammering for PDUs, when really any effort should have been put towards making the product function as advertised first. In the end we got what the RTS types ("the kids") wanted, a near useless feature unless smothered in yet more house rules instead of operational limits on ports, or a more acceptable air model, functional land model etc.

Basically, the kids won out and it's Lucky Charms for breakfast instead of fibre rich Muslix.

I was and am a proponent of the PDU change. Strangely enough, I am not much of an RTS fan. I've owned a few, but most of them aren't much fun to me. While I'm not an old fart, I am in my thirties. I find the characterization as Kiddies, RTS type, etc. as offensive. So if I call you names, don't whine to me about how you are simply making an argument and I am getting personal...

My reasoning for supporting PDU's is simple. Events in WW2 dictated the options available and choices made by the Japanese in WW2. If I change those events, then the options available to me need to change too. The OOB is unduly restrictive in that successes by the Japanese player are not accounted for in the OOB. Reinforcements come at the same rate regardless of losses or gains compared to history. The outcry against PDU stems more from other errors: 1) aircraft manufacturing plants are too easy to expand, 2) operational losses of planes (without loss of pilots) are too low, and 3) aircraft repair too quickly. We start the game in December of 1941, and from then on, games diverge from history. All kinds of things could make more airframes more or less available to the Japanese player. If more Ki-44 Tojo airframes are available, then more Daitai should be able to convert to them. If fewer, then fewer Daitai convert. The problem is that some game design errors have been exposed by the change.

Just as you see Port limits, the air model, and the land combat model as problems, I saw (and still see) the "static air OOB" as a problem. I am even more inclined that way when it comes to ships. As for your "issues", I happen to agree with you on most issues (supply being the only one I can think of where I disagree). Your complaint is that my pet peeves got addressed before yours (though in fairness, you got action on ASW effectiveness). Since things did not get fixed in exactly the order of importance that you ascribe to the issues, anyone supporting an opposing viewpoint is labeled in a derogetory manner. Someone had the temerity to disagree on the relative importance of issues with you, you got your panties in a wad, and now you are acting like it is your right to call anyone that supports the idea of PDU's kiddies, Lucky Charm eaters, etc. Sorry, but if you want to talk about who is acting the child, I'm of the opinion that you are acting like one.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 87

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/19/2006 2:38:24 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Before mucking around with cutting aircraft production to the bone, has anyone tried a simple delay in replacing aircraft? Just 'cause you have 'em sitting on the tarmac stateside don't mean they can be in Gili Gili the next day. I think taking that into account would be a better solution than farting around with PP costs and the like.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 88

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/19/2006 3:12:22 AM

Dino

Posts: 1032
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Serbia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

you are supposed to be the supreme military commander for your side

OK... As a supreme military comander I draw up a strategy which doesn't call for taking Solomons... What do I do with SOPAC?

As much as I would like to assume (at least) the position you proposed, I don't see how it is possible if I stick with historic OOBs.

Fix replacment rates, fix A2A, fix wear&tear, fix logistics, do anything it takes to make things realistic...but once you have done all the neccessary adjustments, let me play the game.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 89

RE: 661 4E`s shot down - 4/19/2006 4:26:04 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Polictics does not always refer to civiilan goverments. Politics exist inside many organizations the military being among the most politcal.

what HQ is assigned what formations and their objectives is often a result of politics inside the military structure.

Not in WITP is the politics that result in a field commander not entering a battle because he does not get along with an officer already involved in the battle. Or with holding air or naval support.

In WITP not being assigned the correct HQ impact combat performance and replacements so even though you can move a unit to a new location without paying the PP you will pay some type of cost.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/19/2006 4:27:51 AM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Dino)

Post #: 90