RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

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: Ships too Fragile in AE???

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/2/2009 9:34:11 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

American CVE 56 Liscombe Bay was sunk by a single torpedo..

HISTORY

CVE 56 had a merchant ship hull. If you review the British stats, you discover that if you looked at a merchie cross-eyed, they had a 50% chance of sinking.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 61

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 12:21:31 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

let alone CV/CVL, BB, and CA/CLs. With the rapid improvements in RADAR, the understanding of how they could be most effectively employed, and the capacity to coordinate multiple ship CAPs from one station in the TF/TG, as well as the deck handling of aircraft, it would be well nigh impossible to get an undetected strike even close to a CV TF.

In confusion of combat with dozens of planes was always possible without reliable IFF's and much discrimination:

quote:

A notable action took place on 12 August 1942 when two Re.2001G/Vs modified to carry single 640 kg (1,410 lb) fragmentation bombs, accompanied by a fighter escort of Re.2001s, carried out a successful attack on HMS Victorious during Operation Pedestal. Reportedly, the Re.2001s were not challenged because of their similarity in appearance to Sea Hurricanes.[3] During the attack, a direct hit was scored on the aircraft carrier's flight deck but the bomb failed to explode and fell harmlessly into the sea.[4]

In this particular case the 2 Reggiane 2001's apparently approached the Carrier as a friendly fighters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re_2001

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 62

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 12:50:01 AM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

I Agree with you here, but (without making any claims) I would like to ask a humble way question,
most Game Designers make adjustments to fit the users, ie. giving the "good" side the better ability's overall,
and In WITP this might have been done as well ie. The absurd Allied CV Bonus from 1/44, who can't Evan be compared with the Zero Bonus.. Will this sort of considerations be taken in AE... knowing that the majority of the Customers and Customer base is American ect ect ect...

The United States Navy owned the skies over the Pacific in 1944, they picked an area of ocean and operated in it with impunity. The shattered and broken air forces of the empire were getting shredded anytime they took aim on the Big Blue Fleet in '44, hence the devine wind. No revisionist history will change that.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 6/3/2009 3:09:29 AM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 63

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 12:01:07 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

@RevRick I also hope it is the reason, Matrix Games in General are impressive IMHO, but just the name of the product "The Struggle Agianst Japan" has an "Allied twist" to it, and many Game Developers do take Customer based Considerations due to sales numbers ect. into account, Afterall that is why the game is made in the first plase!
Anyway, I'm not able to dudge anyone, only asking my very humble question as described in post above.

Regardless, Im very happy that the "waste majorety" of Bonuses has been removed in AE (From both sides of course), and I hope that both the sides get's accurately represented.

If they were accurately represented, then the Allied CVTF's will be nearly invulnerable to Japanese airstrikes from 1944 onward. How many bombs hit USN ships protected by CAP in 1944/45? Princeton got hit once, one or two CV's got hit by bombs later on, and that's about it (not counting kamikazes). How many sorties were flown against those same carriers? 2000? 5000? 10000? That's a good definition of "invulnerable" to me.

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 64

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 12:03:56 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The United States Navy owned the skies over the Pacific in 1944, they picked an area of ocean and operated in it with impunity. The shattered and broken air forces of the empire were getting shredded anytime they took aim on the Big Blue Fleet in '44, hence the devine wind. No revisionist history will change that.

Of course the Allies had supremecy in the sky, there is no doubt about that, and I do not see anyone claiming anything but that!

The thing here you see, is that The Allies had Total Air Superiority in 44, but Japan used Zekes and Zeros... poor pilots and poor Air Organizations. This is elements we as players must be (and are) able to change, we can Ie. remove all Zekes and Zeros and release them with Jacks (I did so in my current game), and we do not need to use poor pilots, we can have skilled pilots... (To a large degree i did that also in my current game), so... now the Situation is totally changed ...---...Should then the game anyway be programmed to give the same results as if it was Zeros you were fighting ???

Now I think you get the point!

A Good Thing is, that in AE All this stuff is removed.

< Message edited by Japan -- 6/3/2009 12:05:17 PM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 65

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 12:11:29 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

@RevRick I also hope it is the reason, Matrix Games in General are impressive IMHO, but just the name of the product "The Struggle Agianst Japan" has an "Allied twist" to it, and many Game Developers do take Customer based Considerations due to sales numbers ect. into account, Afterall that is why the game is made in the first plase!
Anyway, I'm not able to dudge anyone, only asking my very humble question as described in post above.

Regardless, Im very happy that the "waste majorety" of Bonuses has been removed in AE (From both sides of course), and I hope that both the sides get's accurately represented.

If they were accurately represented, then the Allied CVTF's will be nearly invulnerable to Japanese airstrikes from 1944 onward. How many bombs hit USN ships protected by CAP in 1944/45? Princeton got hit once, one or two CV's got hit by bombs later on, and that's about it (not counting kamikazes). How many sorties were flown against those same carriers? 2000? 5000? 10000? That's a good definition of "invulnerable" to me.

HISTORY

Just the suicide planes:

48 attacks on USN cruisers and battleships--44% hit
44 attacks on USN CVs--41% hit
37 attacks on USN CVLs and CVEs--48% hit
241 attacks on USN destroyers--36% hit
21 attacks on USN APs, APAs, AKs, and AKAs--43% hit
49 attacks on USN landing ships--22% hit
37 attacks on USN small craft--22% hit

_____________________________

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 66

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 12:15:23 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

!!! @John Lansford, @SuluSea

Sir, lets try to think of this in a larger perspective!

What planes did the Japanese use ? What Doctrines did they use ? and What Pilot Quality did they use ?

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

What I'm trying to say, is If we change all the Parameters, we replase the Zero and the Zeke with the Jack, (I replased in my game all the 800 Land Based Navy Fighter's i have with 800 Jack's)... so If you give them Modern Aircraft... and If you give them Professional "State of the Art" Pilots... and if you OUTNUMBER the Allied Carrier CAP as well..

So, now ALL parameters is changed....... Should your results then be "Programmed by the Game" Evan before the Battle Starts ?

When you change the situation, when we use state of the art planes and good pilots, then the result should not be the same as if we were useing Zeros and Zekes with Poor Pilots! Th�t is why I don't like the 1/44 CV CAP Bonus.

Now as AE has Removed this things (thank god), then it will enable for more Flexibility.

In WITP (PDU=ON) you can effect your airforce, In My Airforce I have 600 Frances highly advanced Torpedo Bombers, and arround 1800 other bombers ... and I have some 1500 Tony Fighters and 800 Jack Fighters...who is intended to be part of THE SAME strike when the Allies Come. With Other Words, My Strike Force is in the Numbers of 3000+ "State of the Art" Aircrafts, with at least 2500 Experienced Pilots. Japan historicly never had any of that. They never had that many Professional Pilots in Modern Planes, I doubdt they Evan ever assambled that Strength to be part of the same strike!
So, Should It be to much to ask for that my results are not Doomed to become the same as Japans Historicly due to a code in the game ?

Should with this force, and with the Experienced Pilots I have (now in 2/44).. I be forced to take the same conditions and losses as historical when they had poor planes and poor pilots ?

I'm not saing that my Airfoce is not doing good, I indeed think it is doing ok... we had a incident for 6 weeks ago
were 96 of my Jack's shot down 105 P-47's... I also lose planes to Coursairs ect... but it is doing fairly ok.

But, the CV Bonus anoy's me a little, It forces me to having to Assamble thousends of planes just for a singel strike.
Back in December 1943 I striked a CV Fleet with 550 Fighters and 500 Bombers, killing 248 Hellcats for the loss of 370 of my own, I broke the CAP and sunk sevreal Capital ships, those numbers I think is more realistic when you take into consideration the type of planes and pilots I use. But, after 1/44 the very same strike would slaughtered my entire strike wing. I don't understand why a few days in the game should create that massive change... and the only reason is because when the time line crosses 1/44... then all the Allied CAP is equiped with Extra Guns and Extra Jet Super Engines... so that they can do 2 Fire Phases for every 1 of yours... but a few days earlyer in 43 then they all play by the same rules... This is what I don't like.

In AE this have been fixed, and that is what my point here is. In AE the Bonus is gone, and the Effect of your Airforce will be more realistic as of 1/44 IMHO. If you manage to make a Modern Airforce, then it should pay off, you should not have to deal with a "Super Bonus Code" that ensures Allied Victory regardless of how your Airforce looks like.

< Message edited by Japan -- 6/3/2009 2:27:01 PM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 67

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 1:21:25 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 68

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 1:22:02 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

I Agree Fully Sir.

< Message edited by Japan -- 6/3/2009 1:35:45 PM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 69

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:10:00 PM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 70

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:22:49 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

The world is Dynamic, I have found WITP to offer a lot of Alternate Historyes, IF you capture India and Expand Aircraft Industry you can manage a lot seen from a Production Perspective. If you conserve your Pilot Pools and conserve skilled pilots you can have experienced pilots as well... So nothing is Static, It will all become what you make it.

You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better.

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 71

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:32:05 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

It seems or I am?

My two posts in this thread reflect my wishes to have the weapons of war accurately modelled, anything more than that are your assumptions and yours only.

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 72

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:46:34 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one. the USN bonus in '44 is warrented. For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus. To the quote "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. " then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in. Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 73

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:54:24 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this�one.� the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.� For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.� To the quote� "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "� then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.� Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.��

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hornblower)

Post #: 74

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:54:37 PM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

It seems or I am?

My two posts in this thread reflect my wishes to have the weapons of war accurately modelled, anything more than that are your assumptions and yours only.

Most on this board, who want "weapons of war accurately modelled" don't want anything changed even when the game didn't end up going along historical lines (such as IJ having a different leader for a start). I mean, from your perspective, weapons of war aren't accurately modeled if those weapons aren't the same, and in the same numbers, right? You don't have an issue with him having so many experienced pilots either, then?

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 75

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 3:59:10 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this�one.� the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.� For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.� To the quote� "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "� then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.� Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.��

GAME, NOT AE

I don't know how AE is handling this. I would handle these issues as skill levels. To model the Zero bonus, I'd start the IJN pilots out very skilled, and the Allied pilots mediocre at best. To model the superiority of Allied pilots and air operations in 1943-1944 (outside of the aircraft-based superiority), I would have the later Allied pilot replacements much better trained than the later Japanese pilots. Then, if the Japanese player wants to model a more effective training programme, he and his opponent can mod the scenario to improve pilot skills and numbers produced. I know it involved av gas shortages, but that part can be modelled by additional skill improvement if the Japanese player is willing to pay the supply for training flights.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hornblower)

Post #: 76

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:02:01 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this�one.� the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.� For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.� To the quote� "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "� then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.� Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.��

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast?

HISTORY

Win the war for Japan meant that the Allies offered terms.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 77

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:11:55 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this�one.� the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.� For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.� To the quote� "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "� then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.� Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.��

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast?

HISTORY

Win the war for Japan meant that the Allies offered terms.

this actually supports my point, don't you think? Japan has a very tall hill to climb, to lessen the slope to an totally even playing field isn't correct either.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 78

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:15:10 PM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this�one.� the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.� For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.� To the quote� "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "� then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.� Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.��

GAME, NOT AE

I don't know how AE is handling this. I would handle these issues as skill levels. To model the Zero bonus, I'd start the IJN pilots out very skilled, and the Allied pilots mediocre at best. To model the superiority of Allied pilots and air operations in 1943-1944 (outside of the aircraft-based superiority), I would have the later Allied pilot replacements much better trained than the later Japanese pilots. Then, if the Japanese player wants to model a more effective training programme, he and his opponent can mod the scenario to improve pilot skills and numbers produced. I know it involved av gas shortages, but that part can be modelled by additional skill improvement if the Japanese player is willing to pay the supply for training flights.

There is a keen difference between the Zero bonus and the late USN bonus. The Zero bonus, since it's right from the start, affords little the allies can do about that (such as re-take all of China). However, all manner of things can change up till the USN bonus, as the USN fighting different fighters, or being in political turmoil, in any number of other things that could happen should IJ be greatly successful. Naturally the game has to have it's limits, but having an automatic CAP, based on history, when the CAP won't necessarily be facing history, because so many things can change for either side by then, is pretty unfair.

With the Zero bonus, I don't think there's anything you could do gamewise that could make the allies be prepared for the Zero, other than what they later did, which was accounted for. There's just too many variables to make the USN bonus automatic and it make any sense. There's also the argument that the USN bonus should be more dramatic still, should IJ come off that much more poorly than history, but it should be variable to the results nonetheless. I guess in a perfect world, the Zero bonus would be variable too, but since it is that way from the start, and it does decline quickly, there might not be a whole lot of point into making that variable to results.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 79

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:17:34 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance. There are a litany of complaints that could be made. Some would say the Japanese are too powerful in 1942 while others would contend that the Allies are too powerful in late 1944 and 1945. For every gripe that the Corsair is too powerful they is the counter gripe that the Betty is too powerful. While the Uber USN CAP provision that Japan mentions is obviously a flaw that, as has already been pointed out, has been corrected, the are some serious flaws in the production system for the Japanese that give them far too much to work with in the last year or so of the war. I think AE will greatly improve many of the problems we saw in WITP. Will it fix all of them? Obviously not but I think it will be a huge step forward.

Personally I have a problem when any JFB gripes about the game being biased against the Japanese. In my game and many others we see the Japanese put carriers to sea in 1944 that never made it off the ways in RL. We see huge numbers of third generation fighters produced flown by expert pilots trained by bombing peasants in China. All I can say is this: how would the JFB's feel if the Allied player could accelerate his Essex CV's so they all appear in the first four months of 1944 or and throw a few Midway Class in there too. What about giving the Allies R&D capabilities so all the US CV's have F8F and F4U-4's on them by 1945. Oh and instead of P-38's and P-51's, the USAAF will be flying P-80's. Oh and all the B-24 factories will be converted to B-29's. My point is the Japanese have plenty of advantages already and really shouldn't complain about the few advantages given to the Allies

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 80

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:26:52 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this�one.� the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.� For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.� To the quote� "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "� then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.� Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.��

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast?

HISTORY

Win the war for Japan meant that the Allies offered terms.

this actually supports my point, don't you think? Japan has a very tall hill to climb, to lessen the slope to an totally even playing field isn't correct either.

HISTORY

In 1940, the Japanese cabinet estimated that they had a 40% chance of bringing the allies to the negotiating table. (This was before Yamamoto put his foot into it by deciding to hit Pearl Harbor.)

The USN had a similar estimate of the situation.

GAME

I'm discovering that the stock game engine, working as designed, goes off the rails in 1943. It appears to have a near-zero chance of producing what both sides regarded as the most likely outcome.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hornblower)

Post #: 81

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:34:04 PM

vonSchnitter

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline

Sorry Chaps,

but the "Historical Accuracy" issue still puzzeles me.

The game engine started as "UV" - clearly an operational level game - and was expanded to WitP, covering several theaters and a much longer time frame.
But WitP still was an operational level game - even in the grand campaign mode.
What is more, WitP assumed the allies or rather the US came up with the right tactical, strategical, technical or simply logistical solutions to win. Sometimes drawing heavily on state side production - or morale - assets.
And this is the story of the war in the pacific. Very simple.

As far as the "simulation" of isolated operations go, WitP is still not bad.

However in the long run, a simple sounding question arises: How much leverage should be granted to the Jap player to determine his own fate - and by the same token, how much deveation from historic events should be allowed ?

To make things simple: The USN adopted the "Finger four" formation (with the "Thatch weave" as a part ) while the IJN kept the "Vic".

There is no doubt, the finger four is way superior.
How to represent the - tactical - differend doctrines in the game ?
The Japs get a trigger for "Finger Four Training" ? Or the allies get a bonus ?
Stuff like that. And yes, the official Navy did not like it (early in the war), however the japs never got there, because of the doctrinal/training issues involved.

As far as I am concerned, WitP deals with this sort of issue pretty well in terms of bonuses or maluses, considering the constraints of an operational game.

Before you choose to take sides, please take a little time to consider.

Cheers

_____________________________

Remember that the first law of motion is to look where you're going. A man with a stiff neck has no place in an airplane.
Technical Manual No. 1-210, Elementary Flying, War Department, Washington,

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 82

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 4:54:22 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Most on this board, who want "weapons of war accurately modelled" don't want anything changed even when the game didn't end up going along historical lines (such as IJ having a different leader for a start).

Did you survey most on this board or is this another assumption?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I mean, from your perspective, weapons of war aren't accurately modeled if those weapons aren't the same, and in the same numbers, right?

I'm sure the developers/the help will nail it and make the already great game even more super.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
You don't have an issue with him having so many experienced pilots either, then?

Absolutely not. I do have issue with training of pilots on land and expecting those same pilots to navigate 400-500 miles of open ocean , find the fleet , hurl themselves into a wall of radar assisted USN Cap and flak and expecting results. This isn't Coral Sea my friend, this is 1944.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 6/3/2009 4:55:36 PM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 83

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 5:37:55 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

There is absolutely no way that a "historical accurate" game can be made of the Pacific War....at least not with the WITP engine. To make a complete "historical accurate" game, you would have to include:

politics
non-coorperation of military branches
disgruntled work forces
leaders ego
mysteries of life
murphy's law
sabotage
world opinion
the horrors of war
etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, WITP is a game....not a simulation, but just a game. And for a game to be interesting, it has to have some sort of balance. Sure, the weapons involved can be modeled to reflect their real life uses, but these values will only reflect how the developers see things...and as you can see throughout the forum, there are many diverse opinions of what those values should be.

So, enjoy the game for what it is worth.

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 84

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 6:29:22 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

What planes did the Japanese use ? What Doctrines did they use ? and What Pilot Quality did they use ?

Of the 260-ish Japanese air crews lost, some 50 were pilots with more than 2000 hours of flying time. There's no evidence that the experienced minority of the Japanese pilot pool did any better against the Big Blue Blanket than the inexperienced majority. Evidence suggests that the quality of USN training, superior command and control, and a better plane (the F6F) made Japanese pilot quality a moot point. Much of that does I think have to do with the USNs ability to concentrate interceptions on Japanese raids at distances 60+ miles from US fleets, and Japanese inability to coordinate raids in excess of a few score planes.

My point being that if you had taken the Japanese big 6 CVs and their aircrews from Dec 7/8 1941, time warped them to the Battle of the Phillippine Sea, the Japanese results would not have been substantially better than their historical results. The only innovation that the Japanese introduced that had a prayer of working were the kamikazes.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 85

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 10:06:11 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance.

No, that is were the difference in opinion is.

If the AE Team want to claim that AE is based on Historical Possibilities ONLY, and not based on Fictive factors like Game Balance, Bonuses or similar, then it is also a recognition of the fact that the game is based on Historical Possibilities and NOT based on Historical Actually Results. Historicle results requires same situation as historicle, but if a Jap player only manage historicle results... then he is a poor player.

After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

I have asked the AE team in many posts if Game and Player Balance plays ANY factor, and the answer have been NO, it does not.
Historical Possibilities and realistic Moddeling of units is the ONLY factor, not Player Balance, Not Commercial Interests or other Fictive Factors.
If this is true (and if it is not, then they can correct their anwser now) .. so if this is true, then we will see a Week Japan in 1941, with the possibiletys of becomming strong by 1944, because, and of course... ANY country can manage huge improvmants if enugth resourses is put into it over a period of 2 years. This also applays for stonage nations like Japan. 2 Years of Improvments will enable you to get improvments.

< Message edited by Japan -- 6/3/2009 10:13:53 PM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 86

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/3/2009 11:08:54 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance. There are a litany of complaints that could be made. Some would say the Japanese are too powerful in 1942 while others would contend that the Allies are too powerful in late 1944 and 1945. For every gripe that the Corsair is too powerful they is the counter gripe that the Betty is too powerful. While the Uber USN CAP provision that Japan mentions is obviously a flaw that, as has already been pointed out, has been corrected, the are some serious flaws in the production system for the Japanese that give them far too much to work with in the last year or so of the war. I think AE will greatly improve many of the problems we saw in WITP. Will it fix all of them? Obviously not but I think it will be a huge step forward.

Personally I have a problem when any JFB gripes about the game being biased against the Japanese. In my game and many others we see the Japanese put carriers to sea in 1944 that never made it off the ways in RL. We see huge numbers of third generation fighters produced flown by expert pilots trained by bombing peasants in China. All I can say is this: how would the JFB's feel if the Allied player could accelerate his Essex CV's so they all appear in the first four months of 1944 or and throw a few Midway Class in there too. What about giving the Allies R&D capabilities so all the US CV's have F8F and F4U-4's on them by 1945. Oh and instead of P-38's and P-51's, the USAAF will be flying P-80's. Oh and all the B-24 factories will be converted to B-29's. My point is the Japanese have plenty of advantages already and really shouldn't complain about the few advantages given to the Allies

No question!!! In between bombing runs on crops to prepare for the USN airmen look for the post from a jfb asking for sophisticated radar and ASW assets on Japanese vessels.

It's coming count on it.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 6/4/2009 1:31:15 AM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 87

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 12:17:42 AM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan
After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

Three to four times? Really? The Japanese were pretty lucky to go as long as they did without a major setback. Just imagine what would have happened if one of 11 Squadron's Blenheims had put a couple of bombs through Akagi's flight deck on 9 April 1942, or if rain squalls hadn't covered the Zuikaku on 7 May 1942, or any number of other freak occurrences that helped them out.

Ultimately, Japan was punching way above its weight class against the two greatest industrial powers in the Western World. Consider that despite heavy bombing raids, a serious submarine offensive and corresponding counteroffensive that sapped many resources, a huge strategic bombing program, and fighting in three oceans, the British managed to build 131,549 aeroplanes to Japan's 76,320; five battleships to Japan's two; thirty-two cruisers to Japan's nine; 240 destroyers to Japan's 63, and that Britain was orders of magnitude weaker than the USA!

If the Japanese player can act in an ahistorical fashion because he has the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't the advantage of the Allied player be even greater in doing so? By comparison, the latter's resources were far greater, their mistakes were numerous, and yet by later war they had ground the Japanese into a powder.

_____________________________

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 88

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 12:27:23 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance.

No, that is were the difference in opinion is.

If the AE Team want to claim that AE is based on Historical Possibilities ONLY, and not based on Fictive factors like Game Balance, Bonuses or similar, then it is also a recognition of the fact that the game is based on Historical Possibilities and NOT based on Historical Actually Results. Historicle results requires same situation as historicle, but if a Jap player only manage historicle results... then he is a poor player.

After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

I have asked the AE team in many posts if Game and Player Balance plays ANY factor, and the answer have been NO, it does not.
Historical Possibilities and realistic Moddeling of units is the ONLY factor, not Player Balance, Not Commercial Interests or other Fictive Factors.
If this is true (and if it is not, then they can correct their anwser now) .. so if this is true, then we will see a Week Japan in 1941, with the possibiletys of becomming strong by 1944, because, and of course... ANY country can manage huge improvmants if enugth resourses is put into it over a period of 2 years. This also applays for stonage nations like Japan. 2 Years of Improvments will enable you to get improvments.

My god Japan. If you don't like the AE is starting to look like (aka a WitP++) just don't buy it and go get a life. You won't make anyone change his mind, especially not the developers, so why would you waste any more time complaining and trying to convince people about how wrong they are as you just CAN'T do anything about it?!

My, there are small scenarios so you can enjoy a fair fight from time to time. But, hey: great news, the War in the Pacific wasn't fair, nor balanced. Few wars in history ever were. Don't expect me to feel sorry about that, my family paid the IJA its fair share. If you are waiting for some supersize-me game for the average JFB, well AE isn't, and you won't have any impact on that. So just wait for a nice fantasy/alternative history mod, or create one yourself, but damn it, Vanilla WitP is about re-enacting a given conflict as best as we can, not about giving life to your wet dreams! Man, war isn't about moving little pawns on a map, it's about getting the Navy and the Army cooperate on silly operations while they just can't figure who's going to control the whole thing, while closely watching the fuel reserves getting to a scary level, and praying for a truce before everyone starts to realize how much of a joke your industry really is. Right now the Japanese player has naturally so many advantages I can't even think of thanks to game mechanics, I wonder what the debate is all about.

And I forgot: I usually play Japanese, btw, so yes I am complaining about my own "side".

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 6/4/2009 12:30:43 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 89

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 3:47:01 AM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan
After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

Three to four times? Really? The Japanese were pretty lucky to go as long as they did without a major setback. Just imagine what would have happened if one of 11 Squadron's Blenheims had put a couple of bombs through Akagi's flight deck on 9 April 1942, or if rain squalls hadn't covered the Zuikaku on 7 May 1942, or any number of other freak occurrences that helped them out.

Ultimately, Japan was punching way above its weight class against the two greatest industrial powers in the Western World. Consider that despite heavy bombing raids, a serious submarine offensive and corresponding counteroffensive that sapped many resources, a huge strategic bombing program, and fighting in three oceans, the British managed to build 131,549 aeroplanes to Japan's 76,320; five battleships to Japan's two; thirty-two cruisers to Japan's nine; 240 destroyers to Japan's 63, and that Britain was orders of magnitude weaker than the USA!

If the Japanese player can act in an ahistorical fashion because he has the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't the advantage of the Allied player be even greater in doing so? By comparison, the latter's resources were far greater, their mistakes were numerous, and yet by later war they had ground the Japanese into a powder.

What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)

Post #: 90