DEI almost completely falling on turn 1

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

DEI almost completely falling on turn 1

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] >> Warplan Pacific >> DEI almost completely falling on turn 1

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 4/30/2021 12:32:15 PM

Ekaton

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: The War Room
Status: offline

I'm playing the main 1941 scenario, every setting historical. Surabaya and Bandar Lampung fall on turn one, is that intended? It seems way too soon.

_____________________________

I need ten females for each male...

Post #: 1

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 4/30/2021 1:07:37 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

WPP isn't a historical wargame. It's a simulation based on history.

The Japanese didn't DOW on NEI. They wanted to wait. The NEI DOWed on them.

WPP gives the flexibility to do what you want. You don't have to go after the NEI if you don't want to but as the Axis played in any board game of this kind the Japanese player ALWAYS takes NEI and Singapore first.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Ekaton)

Post #: 2

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 4/30/2021 6:52:19 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

But in those games, you cannot go into Java until Borneo and Singapore are secured as Japan did not have land based air cover to support their landings. It is so ahistorical and unrealistic that this game allows Japan to do this on turn one.

You are correct that this is a game, but it is a complete fantasy game based on WWII in the Pacific.

For reference, Java was not invaded until March 1, 1942 due to the reason above and the game allows it to be invaded almost three months earlier? it is beyond absurd.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 3

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 4/30/2021 8:44:57 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

You are forgetting hindsight. What Allied player wouldn't sacrifice everything to ram and jam NEI? I would. No oil for Japan I win. That isn't historical either.

And so say I did put restrictions. Then the NEI would still get invaded in probably 3 turns. Which again isn't historical. I would immediately take all the objectives I need just so I can invade the NEI as soon as possible because it is the most important resource to Japan.

As the Allies I will send lend lease to NEI to beef up their defenses. I will park a battle fleet outside the NEI sacrificing them if need be to stop invasions.

There are so many "what ifs" that you just can't account for them all. It then makes the game kind of....boring. All you are doing is following history. In reality the Japanese couldn't even invade Hawaii. It was too far. But do I want to ruin that for players? Naw. I want them to have fun with the game.

After playing so many games of World in Flames over the last 25 years the largest satisfaction players got were sinking named ships and accomplishing things different from history. Players would literally line up all the enemy named ships they sunk during the game like a trophy case. It was social and fun.

If you want to reduce the game and make it more historical make it 5 days and reduce the movement of fleets. Then infantry on transports will wither very quickly on the way to long invasions in the early years.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 4

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 4/30/2021 11:45:55 PM

joliverlay

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree as well. The Allies made a significant effort with limited resouces to hold the NIE and Singapore. Land, air, and naval forces available, including forces en route or in the Phillipines (naval) were sacraficed in at attempt to stop the invasion of the NIE under a combined command. The intent was to stop the Japanese in Java, not withdrawl. The turn one landing are IMO a fantasy. There is no way the Japanese could have landed on Java Dec 7 (or thereabouts) or would have tried based on the forces present. The 20:20 hindsight in this case is with the Japanese not the Allies. This is a fantasy. Not saying it is not a good game, just that is not very realistic with respect to the limitations at the time for the first week of the war.

I also am watching the comments about oil. Oils seems to have been a much bigger problem in real life than it is in the game for the Axis. Even in 1942-3 sorties of Yamato and other oil-hog capitals into the south pacific were limited by fuel constraints, which as best I can tell from comments, don't happen until late game in this simulation.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 5

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 4/30/2021 11:48:08 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

I haven't gotten far yet but oil is very much a problem for Japan. I constantly think about wether to move units or not, wether to keep land units on the rail lines or not.

(in reply to joliverlay)

Post #: 6

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 12:30:00 AM

Duck Doc

Posts: 693
Joined: 6/9/2004
Status: offline

The opening Japanese moves in the game seem eminently fair to me and really set the stage. Even after a lot of reading about the War I am sitting awe-struck as I play the game at my impotence as the Allies in the opening moves. Well done!

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 7

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 1:12:56 AM

EvilSix

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/7/2019
Status: offline

I agree with Alvaro. I�m as much of a history nut as everybody else on this forum but he has to balance fun with history and this is a real tightrope walk. When I saw the Japanese take all that territory on turn 1 I knew it was on and knew I was going to have to work for it. This game so far is striking the right balance between historical and super fun. Just my opinion.

(in reply to Duck Doc)

Post #: 8

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 6:46:27 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

You are forgetting hindsight. What Allied player wouldn't sacrifice everything to ram and jam NEI? I would. No oil for Japan I win. That isn't historical either.

Allied Players have tried that in WitP against Japanese players and you can slow Japan down. But as soon as their carrier fleet shows up everything the Allied committed is either sunk or has to run away.

The Allies did not fair that well in the real war when they tried to hold Java.

One solution that would prevent the hindsight on both sides would be to keep the DEI neutral until like turn 3-4 in the game. Or even better, if a trigger, like the fall of Singapore, could be used. Then the DEI would declare war on Japan and the Allies and Japan could enter the DEI.

Obviously this would not be historical either. But It would allow the game to be more aligned to what was historically achievable versus what we have now.

That is my major issue with the game. Ahistorical actions that were impossible in the real war. That makes this a fantasy game versus something based in historical fact.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 9

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 10:23:18 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

A possible house rule: no invasions where there's no air support - could be one way to address the early NEI invasion. Or a mod. Both of those take into account what you guys have mentioned above in the thread.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 10

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 11:43:15 AM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

Since this is a simulation based on history not a historical simulation, not sure HOW many times Alvaro has said that, house rules would be best for testing.

BUT before you do that you better be sure that the Japanese can even function waiting that long.

I suspect they will be at or near 0 oil then and if the DEI has "beefed" up they will not be able to take it very easily.

If you want the game to be just like history then you need to remove your ability to build what you want and build what they did.
No matter what happens are Pearl the US needs to disband some BBs in case Japan does not hit them all, as it is a completely mix bag if I can hit anywhere near the number of units the Japanese did.
The UK needs to disband the Prince of Wales and the Repulse because they live about 50% of the time...and the Japanese take major air losses attacking them with the Dutch fighter.
But that is not what this is about.

The Japanese player knows they need oil ASAP so they take DEI right away instead of waiting.
I take it turn 1...no question, no debate. Oil is needed BADLY...and still it is not enough to keep the fleet at sea for long.
I suspect if the Japanese had the hindsight they would have done so rather than focusing on other places early.
They thought after Pearl the US would be crippled and not want a fight...and we all know how that went.

Add to that you would need to play the game through a lot to see how this overly affects that game.
You might even up having to double the Japanese oil supply to start to keep them going. Who knows until you get to the late game.

Perhaps some of you have already...against players not the AI.

NOW I am not saying that things will not need to change. That is why we have this forum and we discuss things.
We want the game to be the best it can. But give it a few weeks before making major changes.

Heck try a few games with the Japanese not taking DEI...and see what happens and report back.

Maybe you are right and that is needed, we will see.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 11

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 12:29:51 PM

Franciscus

Posts: 809
Joined: 12/22/2010
From: Portugal
Status: offline

As a beta tester it was very clear - and intended - Japan MUST take the DEI oil ASAP, otherwise her navy is crippled

_____________________________

Former AJE team member

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 12

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 12:39:25 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

You're right about the early oil situation. That's why I do always take DEI early. Seems like an alternative Japan could have managed if it had set that as a priority.

Someone trying the house rule could divert carriers south early, beef up Indochina land air early, move land-based air into Malaya as early as possible, delay other operations that would use up oil, shutdown all air operations in China, etc. So many possibilities within the realm of plausability, with this game.

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 13

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 2:42:26 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Just wondering how many people have actually read detailed books about the Pacific war as I find some of the comments in this thread pretty amazing.

Just to be clear, there is NO WAY Japan could have invaded ANYWHERE South of Singapore on Dec 7. This game by allowing that COMPLETELY ignores that the UK would have declared war the minute they saw ANY Japanese fleet trying to sail South within Singapore's air range. Especially with transports involved. This would have completely ruined the Pearl Harbor surprise if that had occurred.

Japan had saved up a large supply of oil that they needed to support all their fleet and air actions for what they thought would last a year lol (it actually lasted about half that time or less). If the game does not reflect this stockpile, then that is the issue with forcing the DEI to be invaded on turn 1 in the game. Here are some actual historical facts that might help.

By 13 March 1941, the Japanese had managed to stockpile about 42.7 million barrels of oil, primarily from California and Tarakan. This was stored in some 7000 oil storage tanks, also purchased from the United States. Navy petroleum product reserves on 1 December 1941 were 1,435,000 tons of crude oil; 3,634,000 tons of of bunker fuel; 473,000 tons of aviation gasoline; 27,000 tons of isooctane; 6400 tons of aircraft lubricants; 13,600 tons of ordinary lubricants; and 921,000 tons of petroleum derivatives already loaded on ships or distributed to overseas bases. This was thought to be sufficient for the first year of war, but consumption greatly exceeded prewar projections. The Army estimated it would require 5.7 million barrels of oil per year while Navy requirements were estimated at 17.6 million barrels per year and civilian requirements at 12.6 million barrels per year. This proved to be a considerable underestimate in the first two years of the war.

Apparently a lot of people love being able to invade the DEI on turn 1. But if that is something that the game forces you to do every time, that does not provide a lot of 'what if' options at all.

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 5/1/2021 2:43:08 PM >

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 14

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 2:52:59 PM

devoncop

Posts: 1304
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

It seems pretty evident Numdydar that this game is not for you. Many folks are very happy with it.

Both views are equally valid.

What I fail to understand is that given Alvaro himself and beta testers have explained the current set up is a deliberate design decision in the interests of gameplay and that the game is not intended to accurately reconstruct the War in the Pacific from beginning to end why you continue to try and convince others that your approach is correct ?

Just asking ....

_____________________________

"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 15

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 4:04:19 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: devoncop

It seems pretty evident Numdydar that this game is not for you. Many folks are very happy with it.

I had not taken Numdydar's comments to mean that. There are ways with house rules and/or mods or simple player choices to satisfy his concerns. There's so much to the game that excells.

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 5/1/2021 4:05:06 PM >

(in reply to devoncop)

Post #: 16

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 4:04:28 PM

jwarrenw13

Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Louisiana, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franciscus

As a beta tester it was very clear - and intended - Japan MUST take the DEI oil ASAP, otherwise her navy is crippled

Exactly. For gameplay purposes they have to secure in particular the Sumatra 30-point oilfield. I think the more rapid Japanese capture of the NEI is necessary for game balance.

Just brainstorming, but if you wanted to make the capture schedule more historically accurate, you would have to change several things. Give Japan more starting oil. Remove the units already at sea poised to invade NEI, and either put them back in Japan or put them as programmed reinforcements in the first couple of turns. That could be done and the Allies still could not really do anythng about it due to lack of transport. But then 4-5 months into the war when the Allies get their first transports Japan would still be in the same place it is using the current setup.

< Message edited by jwarrenw13 -- 5/1/2021 4:10:09 PM >

(in reply to Franciscus)

Post #: 17

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 5:02:40 PM

Meteor2

Posts: 429
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

First, I just bought the game and so I have no real experience.
But I would ask myself, why a �historical� starting point, where the DEI invasion is not necessary in turn one, was not chosen.
I can understand Numdydar in this and would prefer such a setting, too.
On the other hand, I think, that Alvaro and the beta testers tried it and they found no other solution atm.
Let�s see, how the game evolves...

< Message edited by Meteor2 -- 5/2/2021 7:20:05 AM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 18

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 7:04:20 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

Let me try, as I prefer historical accuracy myself:

To play well at this scale and length of turns, DEI must be captured earlier than what was possible/happened historically.

At first this doesn't sit well with me, but having played the first few months as Japan the overall effect on the game is very good.
Japan cannot run off and attack other targets, DEI must be secured, and so overall the major progression of the game feels very right.

(in reply to Meteor2)

Post #: 19

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 7:32:37 PM

Nikel

Posts: 355
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline

To relax a bit the fascinating discussion. Found this pic funny.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 20

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 9:12:31 PM

devoncop

Posts: 1304
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

Nice cartoon.

The logistics of the Pacific War in one image

_____________________________

"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"

(in reply to Nikel)

Post #: 21

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 10:58:55 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

My issue is that taking the DEI on Dec 7th is just so impossible. It is not a 'what if', it just could not be done.

The game forces you to do this on turn 1 because Japan would be crippled without it. When in fact Japan had enough fuel stored to cover the 4+ months they needed to take the DEI.

This is really bad game design to me. The game forces you to do something that was impossible in RL because Japan was not given the oil resources they should have had when the game starts. Plus, as I said before, if you HAVE to do something the same way every time you play the game otherwise you lose or are really crippled, does not provide the player with really exploring 'what ifs'.

To the point about trying to convince 'others my approach is correct'. If a game that is supposed to be a even rough approximation of what the war in the Pacific was supposed to be like, then it should have at least some resemblance to what was actually possible. If the game was on a random map with Red and Blue sides none of this would have been an issue. Since the game forces you to do something that was impossible in the real war, that make this game just as much a fantasy game as if it had Orcs and Elves.

I love the cartoon btw :)

(in reply to devoncop)

Post #: 22

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/1/2021 11:08:35 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

Design choice Alvaro is correct here - the Allies will do their very best otherwise to reinforce DEI, somehow. (At the moment I am even thinking to disband all DEI units that are not the Batavia Corp to gain some more staying power!).

Then again there is also the deliberate choice that Japan has operational fuel for 1-2 months at the start of the campaign. That's fantasy too. (But that's another tale - as I think oil consumption in general is excessive).

I suspect anyhow soon enough the PBEM scenario will be '42. The '41 will turn repetitive pretty quickly - the Allies can do little to nothing and the Japanese will repeat roughly the same movements (they've more decisional power of where to toss their weight).

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 23

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/2/2021 3:23:54 AM

jwarrenw13

Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Louisiana, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

My issue is that taking the DEI on Dec 7th is just so impossible. It is not a 'what if', it just could not be done.

The game forces you to do this on turn 1 because Japan would be crippled without it. When in fact Japan had enough fuel stored to cover the 4+ months they needed to take the DEI.

This is really bad game design to me. The game forces you to do something that was impossible in RL because Japan was not given the oil resources they should have had when the game starts. Plus, as I said before, if you HAVE to do something the same way every time you play the game otherwise you lose or are really crippled, does not provide the player with really exploring 'what ifs'.

To the point about trying to convince 'others my approach is correct'. If a game that is supposed to be a even rough approximation of what the war in the Pacific was supposed to be like, then it should have at least some resemblance to what was actually possible. If the game was on a random map with Red and Blue sides none of this would have been an issue. Since the game forces you to do something that was impossible in the real war, that make this game just as much a fantasy game as if it had Orcs and Elves.

I love the cartoon btw :)

I would say if the AI taking NEI early is a fall on your sword issue, then the game, or at least the 1941 scenario, won't work for you. Period. And I don't think Alvaro will change it, though I suggested above how that could be done, more oil supply for Japan and setting up the scenario where it isn't possible to take the hexes that cause DEI's surrender quite as fast. Or he could change the DEI surrender rule to put a delay on it or require maybe that the main oil fields be captured, and the Japanese did go after the oil fields directly in Feb 42. Yet we would still end up in the same place in the spring of 42, and the Allies still wouldn't be able to do anything to prevent its capture, just as they weren't able to in real life.

On the other hand, if you want "at least some resemblance to what was actually possible," I think the game does much better than you portray it because we still end up in mid-1942 when the Allies start getting transports roughly where we would be historically. Considered that way, I think the early surrender of DEI works as intended and works just fine.

I also think Cohen_slith's excellent suggestion of just starting with the 1942 scenario might solve the problem for those unsatisfied with the 1941 Japanese opening moves. I've played the game enough as a beta tester to know that the first few months are usually very repetitive.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 24

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/2/2021 7:33:46 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Those are good ideas.

Even in the WitP AE community many people would have loved a May '42 start to the game. There have been a few tries, but I am not sure how successful. Because even in WitP, Japan does a lot of the same actions game after game simply because doing anything too radical will lose you the game. Or I should say lose sooner as against any Allied player that is half way decent you will lose regardless lol.

A campaign starting there would solve a whole range of issues. I would be much more inclined to purchase the game if that existed. The big issue for the WitP community is that hard data of where all the Japanese forces were in May of '42 is hard to come by for oblivious reasons. One suggestion is to run a large series of AI versus AI games and see if there is any consistent baseline of where thigs are in May '42. If there is then that would be where the scenario would start.

You also bring up a valid observation that, if by mid '42 Japan is close to the same position that she was historically, then you could just close your eyes and hold your nose to get past the 'fantasy' stage of the game. I'll watch some more videos and aars to see how things shape up later in the game and to see what that would look like.

jwarrenw13 best comment in the thread as far as I am concerned. Even better than mine lol. So thank you for it.

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 5/2/2021 7:34:32 AM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 25

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/2/2021 2:16:45 PM

jwarrenw13

Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Louisiana, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Those are good ideas.

Even in the WitP AE community many people would have loved a May '42 start to the game. There have been a few tries, but I am not sure how successful. Because even in WitP, Japan does a lot of the same actions game after game simply because doing anything too radical will lose you the game. Or I should say lose sooner as against any Allied player that is half way decent you will lose regardless lol.

A campaign starting there would solve a whole range of issues. I would be much more inclined to purchase the game if that existed. The big issue for the WitP community is that hard data of where all the Japanese forces were in May of '42 is hard to come by for oblivious reasons. One suggestion is to run a large series of AI versus AI games and see if there is any consistent baseline of where thigs are in May '42. If there is then that would be where the scenario would start.

You also bring up a valid observation that, if by mid '42 Japan is close to the same position that she was historically, then you could just close your eyes and hold your nose to get past the 'fantasy' stage of the game. I'll watch some more videos and aars to see how things shape up later in the game and to see what that would look like.

jwarrenw13 best comment in the thread as far as I am concerned. Even better than mine lol. So thank you for it.

There is a full map scenario starting 26 April 1942. I haven't played it. During beta testing I played only the full game 1941 scenario. However, looking at the scenario map, I think it would have what you are looking for.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 26

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/2/2021 2:42:18 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

I quite favor the '42 scenario already.

Testing out an Allied '41 PBEM and started a fresh Japan '42 PBEM.

One of the main peeve with '41 is that Japan logistics are just filled up already. So I feel expansion is redundant. Armed forces are kind of maxed out. '42 one has more leeway and ability to toy around with production.
In the '41 one as Allies I litterally have just to choose 'what to produce', and shuffle around some pieces in China and India / Burma.

Allies too lack oil for naval operations. UK is without fuel after 3 months of war and USA has so little that the fleet is persistently parked in ports.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 27

RE: DEI almost completely falling on turn 1 - 5/3/2021 7:29:19 PM

bwheatley

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

You are forgetting hindsight. What Allied player wouldn't sacrifice everything to ram and jam NEI? I would. No oil for Japan I win. That isn't historical either.

And so say I did put restrictions. Then the NEI would still get invaded in probably 3 turns. Which again isn't historical. I would immediately take all the objectives I need just so I can invade the NEI as soon as possible because it is the most important resource to Japan.

As the Allies I will send lend lease to NEI to beef up their defenses. I will park a battle fleet outside the NEI sacrificing them if need be to stop invasions.

There are so many "what ifs" that you just can't account for them all. It then makes the game kind of....boring. All you are doing is following history. In reality the Japanese couldn't even invade Hawaii. It was too far. But do I want to ruin that for players? Naw. I want them to have fun with the game.

After playing so many games of World in Flames over the last 25 years the largest satisfaction players got were sinking named ships and accomplishing things different from history. Players would literally line up all the enemy named ships they sunk during the game like a trophy case. It was social and fun.

If you want to reduce the game and make it more historical make it 5 days and reduce the movement of fleets. Then infantry on transports will wither very quickly on the way to long invasions in the early years.

Thanks for that explanation. I've found myself in the same "historical" mindset, but if i step back and think of this like a board game it really clicks in my head.

Hopefully it sticks, but i appreciate the constructive vision.

_____________________________

-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's WAW mod
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's GPW mod
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester WITE2
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 28