Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The relative strength of both sides in WITP

 
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 >> The relative strength of both sides in WITP Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 3:55:06 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...
Post #: 1
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 4:13:14 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline 		I disagree. Even though I play Japan I think Japan has a huge advantage until late 42. China and India can be taken and even Russia can be taken later. Against a good Allied player Japan should have a 50-50 chance of an auto victory.

If auto victory is ignored the game is almost totally balanced from there as long as Japan was agressive in 41/42.

In my last PBEM "The battle for New Jersey" we played all the way to the end and still ended up in a draw. As long as Japan racks up points early on the Allies have a hard time getting to 2:1 despite overwhelming numerical and qualitative advantages.

While is is not fun to play the Allies in early 42 or Japan from mid 43 on the game itself is balanced. Early on the Allies have to focus on not getting killed and in 43 Japan has to focus on making the Allies pay for every victory.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 2
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 4:35:21 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		I just talk about relative strength. From summer 1942 on allies have more battleships, CVs, cruisers, destroyers, almost everything, than Japanese. I would say 100% is really an under estimate.

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 3
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 4:36:25 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		So as I understand you, it's only fun to kick the Allied puppy around for 9 months.

Got it.

Next batter.

-F-



(not "in reply to Rupd", I hate that "feature"). 

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/9/2008 4:37:09 AM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 4
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 4:53:20 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Most Japs players simply quit after those months. A matter of fact.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 5
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 4:58:38 AM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

I just talk about relative strength. From summer 1942 on allies have more battleships, CVs, cruisers, destroyers, almost everything, than Japanese. I would say 100% is really an under estimate.

In the pacific war more than any other in WW 2 the "relative strength" as the poster above it was a war of so large a scope that that factor does not play a real factor in the results. It takes much more that greater numbers to beat Japan. Only so many forces can be applied at any given time and the game is perhaps more balanced than one would think

Lawrence

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 6
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 5:34:10 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I would like to officially respond----CRAP!

I have just entered into Mid-December 1944 in my longterm campaign against Paul Layne and am having a BLAST!  I kicked butt throughout 1942, 1943 was--actually--very fun because I had the advantage for a portion of it and balance for the rest of it.  In 1944 I still managed to surprise him several times and get in some solid shots.  Don't get me wrong, I love the attack mode (witness my AAR versus Canoerebel right now) but find the other perspective to be just as much fun.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to madgamer2)
Post #: 7
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 5:35:06 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...



KEY WORD. I notice no mention of any actual statistical analysis or comparison..., just your opinion. And I think we all already knew that..., so what are you offering us? Basically just more rantings and no facts. As to the "game is becoming meaningless", I think RUPD3658 offered an excellent counterpoint to that claim.

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 8
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 6:31:46 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Most Japs players simply quit after those months. A matter of fact.


t - I'm not so sure this is a matter of fact.

Also there have been forum members who have claimed that the Japanese have way too many advantages, etc. And there have been the opposite claiming that the Japanese cannot win.

Certainly different people even have different ideas about what winning and losing means - in a game like this - and also differing ideas about whether such a concept even matters.

And we might say that some people want a game that is more historical - and others want a game that is more fun. Hopefully these people can co-exist on the same forum - though sometimes I wonder!

But certainly, if you are going to play PBEM then it is most important to find a player that is very compatible with you in terms of why you are playing the game, what victory means, whether history is important, whether "balance" is important etc. My personal opinion is that one of the reasons we see so many AAR PBEMs fail is that players launch into a game (which is a 1-2 year commitment) in a wave of enthusiasm with no knowledge of their opponent and only a few emails worth of discussion. I would suggest that if a player does not know an opponent, that they play a shorter scenario first, not Coral Sea, that is too short. But something like a few months long anyway. Playing a full campaign game of WITP is a bit like a marrige. The long running successful games like Pauk/Andy or PzB/Andy are as much due to their abilities to communicate with each other and work through problems as it is their knowledge of the game. They truly set an example for the rest of us in terms of their ability to sustain their game through the issues they encounter, whatever the cause. And I don't say this because I "like" these guys - but because I "respect" their skills as players - as negotiators - to keep the game going. They are "good sports" - and I learn from them in this regard.


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 9
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 7:27:03 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I would like to officially respond----CRAP!

I have just entered into Mid-December 1944 in my longterm campaign against Paul Layne and am having a BLAST!  I kicked butt throughout 1942, 1943 was--actually--very fun because I had the advantage for a portion of it and balance for the rest of it.  In 1944 I still managed to surprise him several times and get in some solid shots.  Don't get me wrong, I love the attack mode (witness my AAR versus Canoerebel right now) but find the other perspective to be just as much fun.



This is an example of the proper attitude to have in a PBEM. As Japan you get to smack the Allies around for 6-9 months at will. BY mid 44 I was taking great pleasure in getting a single tanker through the Allied blockade or successfully evacuating a base and saving the units. Grand offensives are fun but the small scale stuff is gratifying too when it is all you can do. I got more satisfaction out of my late war "Long lance drive bys" than I did from taking the PI in a month. To be able to do anything against the late war Allied war machine (even if it is just making your opponant nervous) makes the game worth playing.

If it is no longer fun to play when you are not on the offensive, a long scenario might not be for you.


< Message edited by RUPD3658 -- 1/9/2008 7:30:20 AM >

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 1:09:56 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...



KEY WORD. I notice no mention of any actual statistical analysis or comparison..., just your opinion. And I think we all already knew that..., so what are you offering us? Basically just more rantings and no facts. As to the "game is becoming meaningless", I think RUPD3658 offered an excellent counterpoint to that claim.



Careful Mike. I presume trollelite has proved himself to be in your disfavor early on, but I don't have that as a benefit or problem. His logonid certainly isn't indicative of unbiased reason, though the post you are criticizing, in my estimates, is very untroll-like indeed. He actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about to me, even if it is mere opinion. I wouldn't expect anything other than opinion, even if it is very well reasoned from such an enormous analysis; I certainly wouldn't attempt it. You will also notice where he states the game is "becoming" meaningless. Yes, that's EOY of '45. Actually rupd offers no such successful counter-claim, as rupd's game is still in EOY '44. Will it still be of much meaning EOY '45?


< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 1/9/2008 1:10:49 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 11
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 1:27:15 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Most Japs players simply quit after those months. A matter of fact.


Why play then?

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 12
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 1:28:36 PM   
goodboyladdie


Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline 		Hi Charles

I suggest you read some of t's boastful rantings before you leap to his defence. The boy has an ego. He may be as good as he thinks, but he is certainly no better than GH as he claims elsewhere. His loading of HRs to remove any early Allied advantages certainly help him have his "fun". I am enjoying watching his game, but I cannot read his AAR as he winds me up too much. I am not surprised that people are starting to have a little bit of difficulty holding their tongues...

_____________________________



Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 13
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 1:54:05 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...


I disagree here mate.
It all depends under which point of view you look at things.
If you look at witp as a normal game you'll surely be disappointed because the game is never balanced. In the first year of war the Japs, if well leaded, can do almost everthing they want and the allies simply have to accept it and try to do their best not to lose the war. Then the roles shift back.
the key is to have fun and enjoy playing just for playing. As long as you do not like or enjoy this state of things it's better not even to commit to this game.

I really hope you're having enough fun playing with me, at least as much as i have playing with you (and i'm really enjoying our game, even if you'r kicking my butt out of the map). I've been there, as japs, and i know how sometimes you feel frustrated because you feel that the time is running out and you must grab everything you can before the tide changes. Against MC i've played we've played till 44 and till late 43 i, as japan, was still ruling almost everywhere. then i made a mistake and lost the decisive carrier battle in late 43 but anyway i had fun till the end cause, as someone else sais, playing on the defence can also be really interesting and challenging.

Just my 2 cents btw

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 14
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 1:59:35 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Hi Charles

I suggest you read some of t's boastful rantings before you leap to his defence. The boy has an ego. He may be as good as he thinks, but he is certainly no better than GH as he claims elsewhere. His loading of HRs to remove any early Allied advantages certainly help him have his "fun". I am enjoying watching his game, but I cannot read his AAR as he winds me up too much. I am not surprised that people are starting to have a little bit of difficulty holding their tongues...



yeah, I´m definetely a Japanese fanboy but what trollelite states all the time is just...

I said it before, what he´s looking for is risk, the boardgame...

_____________________________


(in reply to goodboyladdie)
Post #: 15
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 2:23:13 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner


quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...


I disagree here mate.
It all depends under which point of view you look at things.
If you look at witp as a normal game you'll surely be disappointed because the game is never balanced. In the first year of war the Japs, if well leaded, can do almost everthing they want and the allies simply have to accept it and try to do their best not to lose the war. Then the roles shift back.
the key is to have fun and enjoy playing just for playing. As long as you do not like or enjoy this state of things it's better not even to commit to this game.

I really hope you're having enough fun playing with me, at least as much as i have playing with you (and i'm really enjoying our game, even if you'r kicking my butt out of the map). I've been there, as japs, and i know how sometimes you feel frustrated because you feel that the time is running out and you must grab everything you can before the tide changes. Against MC i've played we've played till 44 and till late 43 i, as japan, was still ruling almost everywhere. then i made a mistake and lost the decisive carrier battle in late 43 but anyway i had fun till the end cause, as someone else sais, playing on the defence can also be really interesting and challenging.
Just my 2 cents btw


playing on the defence is the most fun aspect of this game. I love the defensive side in my PBEM's so far as Allied i ejoy and thrive on the challenge.

Building a mega stack of units and going on the rampage on the map, ham stringing opponents with stringent HR's (both sides), and just going for a kill is neither war gaming or thinking strategically either. Each person has his or her style (any her witp'ers?) and should be respected and like GBL has said above, people will not hold their tounges with someone who seems to like to setup his games to give himself a 100% advantage at his opponents expense and not take strategy into account. If trollelite's opponents accept his conditions then good for them if not then he shouldn't be bragging about his prowess at the expense of others and if he knows his History then he shouldn't be too surprised with the "relative strength of both sides in witp".

my 2p's worth


_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 16
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 2:31:54 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...
[/quote


re the above :-


1) Surely in this type of game simulating 4 years of warfare it does not matter if one side or another is going to have a preponderance of soldiers, planes and surface vessels at any one time . The main aim is to enjoy playing the game ( either against the AI or a human opponent ) and then try to improve ones score/achievements the next time.
There are no prizes for winning and no stigma attached to losing .

DavidR

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 17
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 2:43:19 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
Sixteen house rules with only two applying to the Axis?? You are a true gentleman GH.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 18
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 5:03:48 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline 		"Late war Long Lance drive bys."

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 19
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 5:19:18 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Careful Mike. I presume trollelite has proved himself to be in your disfavor early on, but I don't have that as a benefit or problem. His logonid certainly isn't indicative of unbiased reason, though the post you are criticizing, in my estimates, is very untroll-like indeed. He actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about to me, even if it is mere opinion. I wouldn't expect anything other than opinion, even if it is very well reasoned from such an enormous analysis; I certainly wouldn't attempt it. You will also notice where he states the game is "becoming" meaningless. Yes, that's EOY of '45. Actually rupd offers no such successful counter-claim, as rupd's game is still in EOY '44. Will it still be of much meaning EOY '45?



I was being carefull. When DD696 offered us his viewpoint on "PBEM's not going the distance" he at least backed it up with a statistical analysis of the AAR reports to support his claim. TROLLELITE has simply provided us with his "assertions" on the relative strengths of the Japanese and the Allies. I can "assert" that the Sun will rise in the West tomorrow..., but that doesn't make it so.

And I thought RUPD's counterpoint was valid. TROLLELITE seems to think that the game is over when the Allies start becoming stronger..., and RUPD was saying he was still having a good time in 1944. TROLLELITE's view comes across as one of "The Allies have gotten too strong for me to beat on..., so let's quit and start over". He even states it himself "Most Japs players simply quit after those months. A matter of fact." That may be a truth, but it's a sad one. Why should anyone want to play the Allies in that case? Get "beat on" until you can finally halt Japanese Expansion..., then hear "I've had my fun---I quit. Oh, and this game is unbalanced in your favor."

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 20
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 9:26:51 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I would like to officially respond----CRAP!

I have just entered into Mid-December 1944 in my longterm campaign against Paul Layne and am having a BLAST!  I kicked butt throughout 1942, 1943 was--actually--very fun because I had the advantage for a portion of it and balance for the rest of it.  In 1944 I still managed to surprise him several times and get in some solid shots.  Don't get me wrong, I love the attack mode (witness my AAR versus Canoerebel right now) but find the other perspective to be just as much fun.



This is an example of the proper attitude to have in a PBEM. As Japan you get to smack the Allies around for 6-9 months at will. BY mid 44 I was taking great pleasure in getting a single tanker through the Allied blockade or successfully evacuating a base and saving the units. Grand offensives are fun but the small scale stuff is gratifying too when it is all you can do. I got more satisfaction out of my late war "Long lance drive bys" than I did from taking the PI in a month. To be able to do anything against the late war Allied war machine (even if it is just making your opponant nervous) makes the game worth playing.

If it is no longer fun to play when you are not on the offensive, a long scenario might not be for you.




Yes, you are entirely right. As I wrote in a earlier post, sometimes just getting a crippled ship home is the best kind of victory. You almost forget that there is a war to fight when you get involved with one unit. I suspect AE will even increase this sort of thing.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 21
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/9/2008 10:25:17 PM   
DaveB


Posts: 151
Joined: 8/4/2003
From: Forres Scotland
Status: offline 		I agree with Mike I reckon,
plus:
The game isn't balanced, except possibly there's some point during some almost random day when the advantage shifts fdrom one side to the other, a day that will vary depending on who is playing who. The lack of balance isn't a problem, there are doubtless other measures to use, but here are two I've applied when battling the (as well all know) superlative AI....
1) How am I doing compared to WW2?
If I lose the PI in November 1936 I reckon I'm not doing too well.
If I keep Rabaul from the start, and expand from there to Truk and beyond, I'm doing okay.
I play Big B mod () and I do tend to do the same things to an extent - having played the first year or two as allies (as challenge reduces I restart, but save games 'cos I'll fight the war out one fine day) - I've held Rabaul every time as Allies, captured it on my current game playing Jap for the first time.

2) How an I doing against previous efforts?
I keep lots of notes, as Allies I contrast losing Jolo in 2 weeks sooner in my second game as Allies with the fact that I have managed to save a lot more LCUs during the first 2 months, whilst also damaging 3 Jap carriers. In my Jap game I can contrast how I'm doing with how the AI did in my last 2 games - I've taken Rangoon (the AI never did), ditto Rabaul, I've cut across from Kwaj and Makin to Baker Island on one map section whilst kicking Chinese units off MY railroad and I'm into Jan '42 with a fair chance of having a strong base at Rangoon that lets me wreak havoc on the Indian Ocean.

Will I win WW2? No chance, although I might get some sort of points win given luck - but success is measured against previous efforts, and satisfaction comes from doing better than last time.... winning isn't about coming first, it's about doing the best you can and knowing it.
(Then going out and doing better)
UV and WITP - 4 years of addiction for the price of a good night out. (For a pleb like me - for the ostentatious that's the cost of a decent bottle of red I guess <g>).

Dave

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 22
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 12:01:50 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Well I'm one of those people who only ever played about 6 months of a PBEM. As both sides mind you. The reasons for quitting were nothing to do with how I was doing in those games though. More like the state of the engine at that time (bugs) and real life issues.

Anyway, for myself I vastly prefer playing on the defence, regardless of the odds. Why?

1) You don't have to move so much stuff around, which is let's face it rather tedious.
2) You don't have to invade anywhere, which is a) tedious (again) and b) difficult.
2) Most importantly, defending boils down to a much more tactical affair i.e. how can I hurt the enemy? When you can pull if off it's very nice :)


< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 1/10/2008 12:03:53 AM >

(in reply to DaveB)
Post #: 23
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 12:33:32 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Using Japanese side as 100%, allies then has

1941, 70%-75%

Spring, 1942, before May, 85%-90%

Summer and Autumn, After July, 1942, at least 100%

Winter, 1942-43, 120%

Summer, 1943, 150%

Autumn, 1943, 200%

Winter, 1943, 300%

Summer, 1944, 500%

Winter, 1944, 1000%

1945, more than 1000%, to more than 2000% in the end of year. Game is becoming meaningless.


This is estimation under condition that PDU is on, using CHS or stock scenario, and providing both sides with about equal skill and luck...



KEY WORD. I notice no mention of any actual statistical analysis or comparison..., just your opinion. And I think we all already knew that..., so what are you offering us? Basically just more rantings and no facts. As to the "game is becoming meaningless", I think RUPD3658 offered an excellent counterpoint to that claim.



Careful Mike. I presume trollelite has proved himself to be in your disfavor early on, but I don't have that as a benefit or problem. His logonid certainly isn't indicative of unbiased reason, though the post you are criticizing, in my estimates, is very untroll-like indeed. He actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about to me, even if it is mere opinion. I wouldn't expect anything other than opinion, even if it is very well reasoned from such an enormous analysis; I certainly wouldn't attempt it. You will also notice where he states the game is "becoming" meaningless. Yes, that's EOY of '45. Actually rupd offers no such successful counter-claim, as rupd's game is still in EOY '44. Will it still be of much meaning EOY '45?


You might want to try reading RUPD's AAR - it finished in late 1945, and from what i can tell it was rewarding to him. IIRC, his opponent had to quit a bit earlier due to real life concerns.

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 24
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 12:35:27 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Trollelite is exactly right. The percentages work out just as he said. The game pieces are unbalanced; but the Pacific War was unbalanced, so .. so what.

“Games” are traditionally considered to be “zero-sum” exercises; balanced models with an equal chance for each side to win. If you “win”, then I “lose”.

WiTP is not like that. The thing that makes this game so fascinating to the grogs, and so frustrating to everyone else, is that WiTP is a game of “process”, not conclusion. We all know how the war ended, and we all know how the war will end; period.

What matters, is how well we die (if we must), and how elegantly we succeed (if we do).

My wargame group uses WiTP as a tool. We set up scenarios, and make a concerted effort to define realistic “victory” conditions for both sides; and realistic means success in some positive undertaking; not just survival of a minesweeper. People would be very surprised at the degree of success, that a well managed IJN TF, or IJA Corps, can achieve, even in late ’44 or early ’45, so long as their mission is defined in terms of their capability.

Last thoughts. This is a war-2 simulation computer wargame. It is neither chess, nor a re-enactment. Take it for what it is, and use it for what it can provide.


< Message edited by JWE -- 1/10/2008 12:37:14 AM >

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 25
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 12:53:49 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Speaking as I did earlier in this thread, I love the swings a player goes through as the Japanese.  In my Dec 1944 Campaign, I am thinking of an offensive.  It scares the heck out of me but I am thinking about it!

Planning...Planning...Planning

I love to coutner-punch like Lee did in the last two years of the Civil War.  Thinking on one's feet while badly outnumbered can be a ton of fun!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 26
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 1:46:54 AM   
bobogoboom


Posts: 3799
Joined: 2/13/2006
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I would like to officially respond----CRAP!

I have just entered into Mid-December 1944 in my longterm campaign against Paul Layne and am having a BLAST!  I kicked butt throughout 1942, 1943 was--actually--very fun because I had the advantage for a portion of it and balance for the rest of it.  In 1944 I still managed to surprise him several times and get in some solid shots.  Don't get me wrong, I love the attack mode (witness my AAR versus Canoerebel right now) but find the other perspective to be just as much fun.


especially when he attacks as the allies in 1942

_____________________________

I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that bar.
Member Texas Thread Mafia.

Sig art by rogueusmc

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 27
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 6:52:40 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		WITP is rather like a transcontinental bicycle trip - it isn't the destination that matters but rather the journey. If reaching the final destination is all that matters to you, then buy a plane ticket. We ride our bicycles long distances because we enjoy the daily challenges. I play WITP to experience the war and don't care about winning or losing (otherwise I wouldn't have started a PBEM against such an experienced player as ChezDaJez!). It is watching the war develop that intrigues me...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to bobogoboom)
Post #: 28
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 2:24:11 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Hi Charles

I suggest you read some of t's boastful rantings before you leap to his defence. The boy has an ego. He may be as good as he thinks, but he is certainly no better than GH as he claims elsewhere. His loading of HRs to remove any early Allied advantages certainly help him have his "fun". I am enjoying watching his game, but I cannot read his AAR as he winds me up too much. I am not surprised that people are starting to have a little bit of difficulty holding their tongues...

The main point of what I was trying to make, is that sometimes we forget that otherwise irritating people can sometimes come up with gems. I don't think they're encouraged to overcome their bad habits of whenever they do, and come up with what I viewed as a good one in this case, if we never give them a break to keep reminding them of their disbehavior all the time.

I also posted to show just how one can easily let our past views of their posts, obscure every particular post they may have. It may be entirely true that Mike was looking at the post objectively and just thought it was trash anyway, but it sure sounded like just a way to punish somebody who elsewise might often be misbehaving. So see how differently I viewed it? His logonid told me something, but I had never noticed him stand out, but then I don't read AAR's anyway. Surely there are at least times where we should take a good idea for what it is worth, and disregard that we may be wanting to give them yet another spanking? I don't see why anybody who has got on the downtrodden list, would ever want to post again if that is the case, but maybe that's the entire purpose to harangue people when they are general misbehavers, to get them to not post anymore. Just throwing out some possibilities out here mind you. I saw Mike responded, but haven't read it yet.

(in reply to goodboyladdie)
Post #: 29
RE: The relative strength of both sides in WITP - 1/10/2008 3:26:09 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a view on game balance nothing wrong with that - you can either agree/disagree or stay quiet.

Trollelite is commenting on a scenario I dont really know that well.

Personally I would disagree with that analysis from stock as Japan recieves the LCU's for defending the HI while the allies don't recieve the replacements they need.

I also would point out that in stock Hellcat production is about 50% of what it should be in the key day fighter variant (144 v about 280 it should be historically never mind with the stock A2A model).

So stock for me is far less dominent for the allies than 2000% especially as strategic bombing is not particularily effective and forts so easy to build to lvl 9 reduce the allied benefit.

i.e. in STOCK allies have less dominance in 44 and 45 than 500% - 2000% IMO

They are dominant but IMO its only 200 - 400% in 1944 (and then only because Burma is to easy to attack) because of the need of the allies to attack deeper targets into the teeth of PDU japanese airpower.

In 45 when all the Essex's arrive and the Russians are active it probably rises but not as much as you would think because the Russians face lvl 9 forts and some real tricky terrian to overcome and the allies are attacking lvl 9 bases in mountainous terrain which ois dammed hard to take.

Trollelite figures are probably closer in pure naval terms but by 44 the focus switches to air and land and in these areas allied dominance is far less IMO

Andy

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The relative strength of both sides in WITP Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.359