RE: Concur

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: Concur

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Concur

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Concur - 3/23/2004 10:07:23 PM

redman1

Posts: 110
Joined: 2/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Thats pretty much the way I see things as well. I don't pretend to believe there exists any "Super" strategy for knocking the USA out. All that Japan can do is try to avoid surrender. The B-29 in range is the key to this. The longer Japan prevents this the longer she lasts.
The Allies on the other hand don't really have to rush about either.
Their war plan has to have these bases secured and built in time for B-29 arrival and deployment.

The B-29 begins production and arrival on map in May 1944. The Allied player should therefor endeavor to capture Saipan/Tinian and Guam before May 1944. The real success or failure of the period Dec 1941 to May 1944 will be measured by this.

Yeah, but is there any particular downside for the Americans not taking Saipan/Tinian and Guam by May 1944. Say they take it by October '44, or even May '45 - aside from the delay itself, it's not like they're going to lose, right? My question really is, is there any reason for the Allies to press to capture those forward B-29 bases by May '44, or is that simply the earliest they can be used by '29's?

_____________________________

"Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 31

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 10:11:38 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Of course you'd rather fight the main battle in the PI if you can. But you will not be able to do so (if the game is accurately modeled) if you have the aforementioned disposition in the Marianas. It'd be a poor Allied player who does not use intel to its fullest (again, assuming the game models the advantage properly) to attack where you ain't. I expect the intel feature to give the US the identities of most GCU and ACUs at a given base, the superior HQs, ship concentrations, orders of battle, operation plans, and so forth. Aerial recon and USN scout-sub and seal functions to provide accurate supplemental counts of aircraft, their readiness and dispersal, coastal defenses and so forth.

Gee, why don't you just ask for the Japanese player's password as well?

Mogami, don't wast your time responding to this guy. mdiehl is the posterchild for "Allied Fanboy". If you come up with a stratagy that works for Japan (or even MIGHT work) he will say the game isn't modeled correctly -- like his ideas of grownding pilots for a month while a quartermaster finds billets for them or whatever.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 32

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 10:15:23 PM

mdiehl

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

Damien -

You can have a game about WW2 in which Japan faces the strategic (including technical, numerical, and intelligence disparities) realities of that which really was. Or...

You can have whatever it is that you imagine. Seems to me that your game would be best entitled "WW2 The Way Goebbels and Tojo Said It Would Be." I've seen enough of your posts to understand that you want a game in which every bizarre myth of Japanese superiority is realized and in which Japanese production, R&D, intel, and all other aspects of logistical and strategic capacity equal or exceed that of the Allies. Big deal. I suggest that when you buy your copy of the game you use the editor to make every Allied pilot an Elmer Fudd, every footsoldier a Gomer Pyle, and every skipper a Captain Queeg.

quote:

like his ideas of grownding pilots for a month while a quartermaster finds billets for them or whatever.

Whatever you say. Sure, staging a mess of Japanese aircraft to Rabaul overnight in the face of an imminent threat was a piece of cake. All that was required was for some Japanese cic to say "Make it so." That's why they did it so often at Rabaull ... err.. nooo, okay at the Marianas invasion... well, I guess not, or err in the PI .. ooops eh Okina.. no wait, or while US BBs were bombarding the homelands in 1945 err. I guess the real Japanese weren't nearly as freaking brilliant as you. Come to think of it, wtf didn't 8th AF instananeously plug new B17s and crews into combat within days -- no -- hours as you insist -- of arriving in the UK? Wonder why it took so long to have air parity in North Africa given that the French North African ports fell within a day of invasion? Hmm. I guess the Allied opfor guys in the ETO and North Africa didn't have half your scintillating brilliance either.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/23/2004 8:34:52 PM >

_____________________________

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 Damien Thorn)

Post #: 33

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 10:40:35 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Mdiehl, all kidding aside (Cause I'm not "Daffy" Duck), can you dig up some historical information for both sides regarding re-basing of air groups and turnaround time.

As this will potentially cause a major change in how the game plays, I'd like to see something to back it up with.

This one actually bothered me far more in UV playing as Japan where turn 1 a million planes would suddenly be at PM raining bombs on my head, closing Lae before ships even left port. This was why so many folks tried the forward defense of PM stuff.

I understand what you are saying, but we have the added complication that we don't have the ability to stage aircraft through forward bases which is really the ultimate solution. (aka - extended 2 day missions)

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 34

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 10:46:42 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
You can have whatever it is that you imagine. ... that you want a game in which every bizarre myth of Japanese superiority is realized and in which Japanese production, R&D, intel, and all other aspects of logistical and strategic capacity equal or exceed that of the Allies.

I have no delusions about Japanese VS US production. I just don't want the Japanese to get shortchanged on whatthey had or had the potential to make. You seem to think that nothing the Japanese ever made, did, thought, or designed was any good at all.

quote:

Whatever you say. Sure, staging a mess of Japanese aircraft to Rabaul overnight in the face of an imminent threat was a piece of cake. All that was required was for some Japanese cic to say "Make it so." That's why they did it so often at Rabaull ... err.. nooo, okay at the Marianas invasion... well, I guess not,

I'm glad you brought that one up. Yes, at the Marianas, the plan was for the Japanese CVs to join the battle from long-range after the Land-based air had softened up the invasion force. The Naval planes were to land at the Marianas after making their attack. It was fo this reason that the US planes couldn't even reach the Japanese CVs. Of course, this plan didn't work but the plan was there and it would have worked if the land-based air had indeed "softened up" the invasion force (instead of getting creamed).

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 35

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 10:49:12 PM

mdiehl

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

I'll see what I can dig up, Frag. I can bring you stuff from the USAAF side rather easily. Of necessity I do not have any good Japanese sources because there AREN'T any.. in English anyhow.

This may be one of the rare instances in which anecotes such as that written by Sakai have any value. Find out how often his unit moved, what was entailed in the move, etc and consider that as an elite unit his unit is going to be better at that sort of thing than most Japanese units. It would be really handy to determine how the orders cycle worked. When Tainan group went to Rabaul, for example, what was the delay from the moment someone decided to ASK to have the group assigned to Rabaul, to the time of its arrival there, and then the amount of time before they were sent on a mission?

I had the same misgivings about UV, by the way.

_____________________________

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 Mr.Frag)

Post #: 36

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 10:53:56 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

Of course, this plan didn't work but the plan was there and it would have worked if the land-based air had indeed "softened up" the invasion force (instead of getting creamed).

So, the plan would have worked brilliantly if only it hadn't failed. Is this where the IJN chiefs of staff play the part of the cartoon character in a vampire costume who gets led away in handcuffs as he mutters "...and I'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for you MEDDLING KIDS!!"?

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/23/2004 8:54:58 PM >

_____________________________

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 mdiehl)

Post #: 37

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 11:08:36 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
So, the plan would have worked brilliantly if only it hadn't failed.

As I said, the only reason it failed is because the land-based planes (and then most of the Cv planes) got slaughtered. There was no problem with flying planes from CV to attack and then land at at advanced base and then continue attacking from there. If they can do this (which sadly won't be possible in WitP) they can certainly transfer to a base and attack the next day.

If you don't like Mogami's plan, all you have to do is pound the air bases so the planes can't fly. End of problem.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 38

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/23/2004 11:20:51 PM

mdiehl

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

Damien -

All the Japanese planes got slaughtered. The IJN threw some 200 aircraft into the fray. They were beaten too. The problem was that that which Japan wanted to do was NOT DOABLE in the face of the opposition.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/23/2004 9:22:45 PM >

_____________________________

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 Damien Thorn)

Post #: 39

RE: Concur - 3/24/2004 12:39:12 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Yeah, but is there any particular downside for the Americans not taking Saipan/Tinian and Guam by May 1944. Say they take it by October '44, or even May '45 - aside from the delay itself, it's not like they're going to lose, right? My question really is, is there any reason for the Allies to press to capture those forward B-29 bases by May '44, or is that simply the earliest they can be used by '29's?

Theses bases are not in range of Japan except for the B-29, they really offer little without them. The basic key to the war is the ability to pound Japan into submission. Until the B-29's are available to do the pounding, there is very little point to bleeding off your assets as the USA except to control Japan's ability to prevent you getting control of certain key bases that are needed to administer the pounding. Denial of these very same bases and denial of supply chains is Japan's goal. It is the only real way they can win, by delaying this activity.

Frankly, I would expect Mogami to have subs stacked 2 deep on every hex between the USA and the Marianas by the time it comes time to move in. I expect him to fight the death fight there as loss spells the end of the game. The end of Japan's navy and air force will take place there, as will destruction of an awful lot of USA assets simply due to leakage factors, tired cap, coastal guns, submarines, etc. It will really be the epic battle of the game.

This is where I have always questioned whether fighting the battles in then Solomons is really worth even showing up to. I know Japan can not realistically hurt Oz, I know Japan can not win on points if I do not offer up enough men and equipment to give up the VP. Expansion all the way through the SRA and total control over all the resources and all the stockpiling that can be done doesn't concern me either.

When I move out it will be from the USA to PH into the Marshalls (I'll probably nail Truk just to be annoying) then into the Marianas to end the game. I will do so in extreme force with 100% commitment of all the resources the USA has. I plan on starting this little road show Jan 1, 1944 because it serves no purpose to kick off the trip any sooner.

He will be forced to engage me where I want because I am dictating the operational pace, in a short series of bloody defeats, as he literally has no choice but to offer surrender or show up and die.

This operation just like the Marianas historically happened can not occur without the support of massive numbers of CV's because there simply are no bases in range to support the offensive. This is why the USA crawled their way up through the Solomons. I am willing to risk that I can do it without the Solomons as I am not Mac, I don't have to wade ashore again.

(in reply to redman1)

Post #: 40

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 1:04:08 AM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Damien -

All the Japanese planes got slaughtered. The IJN threw some 200 aircraft into the fray. They were beaten too. The problem was that that which Japan wanted to do was NOT DOABLE in the face of the opposition.

I know the planes got slaughtered. I said that. If they had not ( like if the pilots had actually been decently trained and experienced ) there is no reason they couldn't have landed at the bases and taken off again in the afternoon or the next morning. No need for a month of downtime.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 41

Down time - 3/24/2004 1:24:17 AM

mogami

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

Hi, In examing the movements of Japanese air units during SRA operations I don't find any evidence of "Downtime" as a result of the move. The important item seems to be, when do the ground support troops arrive? The Japanese landings during Dec all seem to be aimed at securing forward airfields. Jolo captured on Christmas Day 1941 has combat aircraft flying by Jan 7 1942. (I don't know exact date air units moved to Jolo. Only that base was captured and less then 2 weeks later fighters from Jolo were flying CAP over Tarakan landings. This does not mean these were first flights from Jolo only the first I can find where they shot down enemy aircraft. There were no aviation support troops among units that landed on Jolo in on Dec 25th. Because these units belonged to 16th Army HQ at Palau I assume support units had to move from Palau to Jolo sometime between the 25th of Dec and Jan 7.

In my plan for defense of Saipan all 3 islands will already have support troops in position from 1 Jan 44 on. (limited numbers from Dec 41 on but 250 points worth by start of battle.)
The PI bases will as a result also need to have support units present as it will do little good to intend to move forward airgroups that have been stationed without support for any length of time.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/23/2004 6:26:18 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 42

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 1:33:01 AM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

If aircraft fly in as a group, land at a base that has sufficient air support, there should be no reason they can't operate rather quickly. I haven't play UV in months but will again soon to prep for WITP, but I recall that fatigue would be added to the newly based aircraft, a one-time 'hit' that they could recover from. Does WITP have any operation point 'pool' for an aircraft command? Say there are op points for each week for each air HQ and it takes so many op points to do airstrikes, take replacements, perform each particular mission such as strike, asw, training, transfer, the later taking the most op points.

I'd say if you transfer an airgroup from one air HQ to another, that group would be very ineffective as their command and support structure would be new. If there is a way to transfer air groups with an air HQ, then they disruption would be less. Each air HQ can only control a limited number of air groups effectly and each group over that limit becomes less effective. How about that solution?

< Message edited by brisd -- 3/23/2004 3:36:29 PM >

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 43

RE: Down time - 3/24/2004 3:10:34 AM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

several questions occur tome
1.What do you have to archieve to get Japan to surrender (victory point ratio, i guess)
2. the game reaches into 1946. Until when?
3. if it reaches well into 1946, do any allied forces arrive from europe (8th airforce was expected in total, including 1st Army-HQ with several divisions), since the troops in the pacific in may 1945 were not sufficient to invade Japan.

by the way, imagine the soviets blitzing around in Manchuria and China for over a year, oh dear.

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 44

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 3:50:42 AM

jnier

Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Damien -

All the Japanese planes got slaughtered. The IJN threw some 200 aircraft into the fray. They were beaten too. The problem was that that which Japan wanted to do was NOT DOABLE in the face of the opposition.

What a maddening response. Damein already said they got slaughtereed - what is your point?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 45

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 4:27:50 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How long do you think it takes to move aircraft from the rear to forward bases?
(USN transports should be spotted 2-3 days before they can land. Fast TF's might not be spotted before they are 1 day from contact.

One problem with your ideas (and they are as sound as any I've seen) is that they seem
to require Japan (which is short of everything) to maintain duplicate or triplicate service
and support capability for these several thousand aircraft. Yes, you can move A/C a-
round fairly rapidly..., but not the maintainence crews and facilities and spares and such.
Japan also had a severe shortage of mechanics compared to the US with it's massive
automotive tradition. I don't know how the game chooses to model this (if it does at
all) but maintaining complete basing and servicing facilities for dozens of air groups in
several locations so they can just "zoom in and out" as the need arises is almost beyond
US capabilities, and far beyond what the Japanese should be able to manage.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 46

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 5:54:07 AM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

While "mdiehl" brings up a lot of heart felt points, I think he misses the main point himself.

I am all for historical accuracy. The more accurate, the more fun I have. But doesn't there have to be /some/ leeway for playability? It seems that Mr. Diehl has a firm belief that the IJN will be/should be slaughtered every time they come out of the harbor, and that after a certain date, the results should be inevitable.

While having a game as accurate as possible is a laudable goal, the developers should make sure the game is at least somewhat different then history. I don't really want to play a thousand hours of a game that's more predetermined then John Calvin.

Mr. Diehl, are you actually intending to play it, when it comes out?

< Message edited by ColFrost -- 3/23/2004 9:58:14 PM >

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 47

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 7:16:24 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

I am all for historical accuracy. The more accurate, the more fun I have. But doesn't there have to be /some/ leeway for playability? It seems that Mr. Diehl has a firm belief that the IJN will be/should be slaughtered every time they come out of the harbor, and that after a certain date, the results should be inevitable.

Actually, I agree with Mdiehl here, historical accuracy is a priority, game play can be addressed through the editor if one wants to adjust odds. The results are a forgone conclusion but the time frame is completely under the control of the players skills and that makes all the difference in the world. If I ever win, I don't ever want anyone to be able to say I won because the game was tweeked in the interests of playability and Japan was unrealistically strengthened.

Frankly, if I even thought that was the case, the game really would be of no interest to play as Japan. Whats the point? Any fool can do better with better stuff ... It's all about doing better with the same stuff that makes war gaming the most unique form of entertainment there is.

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 48

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 7:25:08 AM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

That's not what I meant, actually.

Let me try to rephrase. It seems Mr. Diehl seems to be saying, if the result of the game is not in line with what happened historically, then the game is broken, and not worth playing. I was of the understanding that he was saying, to paraphrase "If the Japanese player does better then what happened historically, in any particular degree, then the game is not true to what it should be."

If this was not what Mr. Diehl was saying, then I was incorrect in my post, and apologize.

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 49

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 7:39:39 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Actually, I agree with Mdiehl here, historical accuracy is a priority...

I agree with him as well so long as it's not his version of historical accuracy that's used.

quote:

If I ever win, I don't ever want anyone to be able to say I won because the game was tweeked in the interests of playability and Japan was unrealistically strengthened.

You summed it up perfectly.

My version would've read:
Of course I bloody lost, I was playing the real Japanese for ****'s sake!!!

< Message edited by Drongo -- 3/24/2004 5:42:15 AM >

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 50

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 8:05:17 AM

ColFrost

Posts: 145
Joined: 10/29/2003
From: South St Paul, MN
Status: offline

quote:

If I ever win, I don't ever want anyone to be able to say I won because the game was tweeked in the interests of playability and Japan was unrealistically strengthened.

Gahhh. I agree with this.

How did I come off sounding like a Japanese fan boy?

_____________________________

...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 51

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 8:25:39 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColFrost
How did I come off sounding like a Japanese fan boy?

How does one not around here?

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 52

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 9:04:32 AM

bradfordkay

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

Since I've been reading a history of VMF 214 this week, I have this information freshly in mind. Squadrons regularly flew up to Russell Island from Luganville and operated the same or next day. The same happened later in squadron relocations from Guadalcanal to Munda/Vella La Vella. From those bases units would often (later) fly up to Torokina on Bougainville to reform for strikes against Rabaul, thence returning to Munda/VLV (if enough fuel remained).

VMF 214s own ground forces (support forces) never left the Luganville area the whole time the squadron served in the Solomons. Indeed, from what I've been reading, aircraft were not even truly the property of any particular squadron when at forward bases. When squadrons were withdrawn for R&R, the pilots usually loaded into C47s and left the a/c behind for other squadrons to use. It seems that the only a/c normally flown back were ones that were in need of serious ovberhaul (and still flyable enough to get there).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 53

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 12:25:49 PM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

historical outcome; oh, well.
let's put it this way. After the Allies decided to go out for unconditional surrender, the Japanese NEVER had a Chance. period.
It all depends on when the Campaign ends.
Lets assume the Japanese would not have been victory sick. lets further assume Midway doesn't happen, leaving all Kido Butai ready for an attack or counterattack.
The allied Counterattack would not have taken place in August 1942 without Midway.It would probably happen later on, maybe even a year later. In 1942, some leading military brass of the allies expected the war in the Pacific to be won in 1947 or even 1948. Therefore, in the game, the question is not whether Japan can win (They can't), but whether you can do better then your historical counterpart up to the point where the game ends. Same is true for the allies. Actually, reproducing the allied victory and keeping up to the historical timeframe will prove to be difficult in my opinion. Never underestimate the enemy. remember that even with Midway, it took the allies 1 Year to break the Bismarck Barrier, finally isolating Rabaul. Imagine how much more difficult that will be without Midway (UV does a good job at simulating this, no matter what other people say about it. In Version 2.30, I am quite happy with the results produced so far). If the Japanese preserve their forces, there just WON'T BE a Marianas Turkey Shoot (Although it might happen a year later).

< Message edited by sven6345789 -- 3/24/2004 4:41:44 PM >

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to ColFrost)

Post #: 54

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 5:53:04 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

Let me try to rephrase. It seems Mr. Diehl seems to be saying, if the result of the game is not in line with what happened historically, then the game is broken, and not worth playing. I was of the understanding that he was saying, to paraphrase "If the Japanese player does better then what happened historically, in any particular degree, then the game is not true to what it should be."

If this was not what Mr. Diehl was saying, then I was incorrect in my post, and apologize.

It's not what I was saying. It's an old chestnut and forgive me for saying so but it is also an illogical one. If you desire that the game is "about WW2 in the PTO", then you've automatically constrained yourself to a logical premise that the strategic problems facing the combatants in the game should more or less resemble the ones of the real event. Likewise the ships, the aircraft, the soldiers, their technical capabilities, etc should all be accurately modeled. This leaves the players in the position of having to deal with the same overall strategic problems using the same general suites of equipment and, frankly, tactics. I say tactics because there are levels of detail to which players do not have access. PLayer's do not, for example, get to rearrange air combat doctrine such that the inferior Japanese 3-plane section switches to a 4-plane section. The USN seems not to have a capability to wish away their torpedo problems (and by the way it puzzles me that the Axis Fanboys seem to think it is fair to model this problem but not Japanese problems in technical maintenance of radios, radar and sonar, or the absence of a good ASW doctrine). So there are some things that we can't change by virtue of what's given in the game.

Essentially, players decide where to attack and with what, and where to defend and with what. To wit, long term strategic objectives and shorter term operational planning and execution. That is where the variation ... the deviation from history... lies. Insisting on historical accuracy in the production, technical, intelligence, tactical or training models does not straightjacket the players into waging the war exactly as fought.

Now, I understand that playing the Japanese does not appeal to Axis Fanboys if the Japanese can't win every surface combat, or if each Japanese pilot is not credited with 120 kills, 60 "officially confirmed," when the real world reality is more like 15-20, or where the Japanese seize Alaska and Hawaii, Australia and India. My response is that game has already been written. Several times really. There's GGPW, there's Pacific General, and boardgames like "Rising Sun" and "A World At War." None of these bear the slightest resemblence in terms of "look and feel" to WW2, either in terms of the general strategic picture, or in the routine results of battle-level events. They do, however, presume that Japanese pilots were in general superior (where they weren't), that their planes were superior (where they weren't), that the opposition was economically weaker than they were, that China is much easier to occupy than it really was, that India was an open void just waiting for the first IJN transport to show up and elevate the INC to power, etc. If you want a game that gives Japan that capability, why wait around for WitP? And if that were the goal of WitP, why would anybody purchase it? After all, said game is already available.

What do you do? Balanced victory conditions is my consistent target. But if you really want a game where each side has balanced capability, maybe you should play chess, or Go, or something else.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/24/2004 4:04:02 PM >

_____________________________

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 sven6345789)

Post #: 55

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 6:41:18 PM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

From my perspective, a wargamer of 30+ years, I look forward to playing both sides in this struggle. I tend to play the underdogs, such as the Axis in WW2, as I find it more challenging. I want this game to reflect the challenges, both strategically and tactically, that both sides faced. Does it make me an Japanese fanboy to think that they could have done even better than historically? Considering the odds they faced, they did rather well in retrospect. Convential wisdom said the French Army would put up a great fight in WW2 as they did in WW1 yet looked what happened? Same for the campaign that resulted in Singapore's surrender so quickly. When I look at the map of Pacific, I see a great void and an opportunity for conquest. Why didn't Japan take New Caladonia and isolate Australia in early 42? Or isolate India by taking Ceylon? I know that supplying either operation would be a great challenge and that is part of what the designers need to get right - the logistics and OOB. Give us the tools (ships, airforces, troops) and we can change history. Same goes for allied side - stop the tide sooner, end the war a year early? Japan is incapable of winning a long war of attrition and I expect that to be modeled in the game. I believe the Japanese player should have an chance at a negotiated peace depending on their conduct of the war. As far as editor goes, how about alternate history such as German conquest of USSR and/or Britain? Then the two ocean Navy the USA authorized in summer 1940 and built, with that horrific possibity in mind, must be spread out to Atlantic as well. Japan gambled that Germany would win war in Europe and that is why they launched such a desperate war. Putting down people because they want to play one side or another or have options to make alternate history is juvenile IMHO.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 56

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 6:53:33 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

Does it make me an Japanese fanboy to think that they could have done even better than historically?

Not at all! :) Too bad the "You might be an Axis Fanboy if..." thread got destroyed. Maybe it's not that bad, though.

You might be a Japanese fanboy if, for example, you think that "Midway was a result of luck."

You might be a Japanese fanboy if, for example, if you think that as a viable 'alternative history' (a) it is reasonable to assume that the USN CVs might have been in Pearl Harbor at 7:30 AM on 7 December 1941 and (b) it is unreasonable to assume that USN CVs might have been together in a TF 125 miles away from Kido Butai launching a surprise airstrike at 7:30 AM on 7 December 1941.

You might be a Japanese fanboy if you think that 'documented kill ratios indicating a tendency for USN pilots flying F4Fs in 1942 to shoot down more Japanese naval pilots flying A6Ms than the USN pilots lost' is an irrelevant statistic because everybody knows that Tainan Air Group were real men who must have outfought their opposition because that's what Sakai said they did.

You might be a Japanese fanboy if you lament the absence of hard-coded clear cut Japanese surface engagement victories a la Savo Island and Tassafaronga but you think the drubbing inflicted on the IJN at Balikpapan was a fluke.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/24/2004 4:56:38 PM >

_____________________________

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 brisd)

Post #: 57

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 7:07:50 PM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

Fact is that the Axis side did have pilots with kills up to 352 (Hartmann), and several of them. The Japanese aces did score that many kills. This numbers have to be seen in relation, though. While japanese aces started their scoring during the battles in China and against the Russians, US aces like Bong or Gabreski started later on, against an at that time stronger enemy. Therefore, there numbers weren't that high.
The ASW-Problem has been adressed several times. The situation for the japanese can be improved, but then only at the cost of diverting several different assets like planes, AV's and DD's to ASW-role, taking these assets out of the frontline. Even if the allied subs are not in the area, the japanese needs to divert assets, because if they are and he hasn't, good night to all those nice TK's.
I have played UV the last three weeks, and I don't find the Japanese to be overly strong.
They have more experienced pilots, but not for long if they don't watch out.
Once the allied steamroller gets into motion, you get in trouble. Of course, experienced japanese players go after Noumea, taking the allies out before they build up. But, 1.that tactic can backfire, 2.Such a go for broke tactic doesn't work in WITP, since there is no end of the map (at least not one you can reach that easy, unless i missinterpret the overview-map on the WITP Homepage).
As much as I have seen about this game in this forum, it does seem to be well balanced.
If Mogami would play the japanese against an allied player his strength, and would win 5 out of 6 games, that would be proof that the game is unbalanced (Mogami, maybe you can post the results once you have these games completed, hopefully the internet will still exist in 20 years

).seriously, the game looks like a lot of fun to me. And that is the most important thing for me, if combined with historical detail. Therefore, perfect

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 58

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 7:09:28 PM

Mike Scholl

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

After 40+ years of wargaming, I can truthfully state that the reason I generally
gravitate to the "favored" or "big battalion" side is the the same one that keeps
me from going to Vegas anymore. "If it wasn't for bad luck.., I'd have no luck
at all." I've always admired the players who could get a lot of milage out of the
"underdog" position, even when it was me thay were getting it against. But I
find that the risks necessary to play those positions always fail when I'm the one
playing them. With "mass" I can at least eliminate the low odds disasters that
would otherwise plague me by making sure I keep the odds above the bad luck
line. I thought computers would be the answer, but I will swear to one and all on
a stack of Bibles that my own computer will "cheat" on me at the drop of a hat.
If the rule book says that "such and such" is a 75% chance of victory, I can be
absolutely sure that I will end up on the 25% side at least 75% of the time. I'm
not an Allied "Fan-Boy" (or a fan-boy of anything except historical accuracy); but
I will admit to guarding the Allied Chances against any efforts to hamstring them
because I realize that that is the side I will probably play most of the time on. It's
not that I'm unwilling to play the Japanese, but what fun is it for the Allied player
when my PH strike misses everything and Midway is a daily occurance? No it's
not quite that bad..., but even the Allies want the Japanese to be bold and sneaky and challanging---and I have trouble playing that way because I expect to get slammed
if I try it. Which makes me a dull opponant.

(in reply to brisd)

Post #: 59

RE: The "Great" Battle - 3/24/2004 7:13:43 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

The Japanese aces did score that many kills.

Nope. The problem is that the number is based on "claims" then subsequently revised downward by Japanese review as "confirmed kills." When you look at the unit records for the units against which Japanese "confirmed kills" occurred, you still find Japanese kills overestimated by anything from a factor of two to an order of magnitude. There is no clear cut pattern. Japanese accounts of one engagement might give very close to real numbers, and the next engagement might be wildly out of reality.. in some instances claiming more Allied planes destroyed than actually participated in the engagement, when in fact the actual number of Allied planes destroyed was one or two. The only trend that I have discerned is that Japanese claims and confirmed kills became increasingly exaggerated as the war progressed.

Hartmann's "confirmed kills" are a matter of someone else's concern. I do not know the extent to which his claims have been verified in the unit records of his opposition, or the extent to which any a/c killed by his unit has been atributed to Hartmann. I do recall that many of his kills were transports, but hey, a kill is a kill.

_____________________________

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 sven6345789)

Post #: 60