Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What's really wrong with the game?

 
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 >> What's really wrong with the game? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 4:09:46 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
Well, I don't have an easy answer to that, not really. There's so much wrong with the game when one begins to pick it apart that's it difficult to know where even to start! (And did you notice that rhymes? Almost like Dr. Seuss.)

But start we must somewhere, and I suggest the best place make a beginning is with the logistics model.

Everything in the game is driven by supply and fuel. Nothing functions without these two things. Let's think about that for a minute.

         ..tap..tap..tap..



Post #: 1
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 4:43:51 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
I bring this up because of recent dicussion re the use of bombers at night, or to refer to another example of a common system complaint, the use of bombardment task forces.

The big difference between this game and reality isn't so much the accuracy of B-17s and other bombers, or the fact that players use bombardment task forces to reduce bases to rubble, but rather the fact that the Allies and Japanese can both move too fast, and this condition owes itself directly to the fact that the logistics model is whacked.

It might be the case that level bombers are too accurate--sometimes they no doubt are. But that isn't really the core of the problem. Neither are bombardment task forces the main enemy to realistic play--though it's hard to argue that having these naval entities moving around the map at 60-90 mph hardly helps suspension of disbelief! But in and of themselves these issues, as nagging as they tend to be, are mere incidentals to the real game problem.

         Everything moves too fast.

So, let's repeat to ourselves . . .

    . . . everything in this game system is driven by fuel and supply, and it's much too easy to bring that necessary stuff to the front. In the real world, at least the Allies had unlimited access to supply and fuel with plenty of shipping to move it forward. Their chief problem was one of sufficient port resources at the point of the spear to handle the incredible press of that supply movement forward, and they eventually got around this by simply devising ways and means to affect supply/re-supply almost totally through the Navy. That is essentially what the Navy's campaign through the central Pacific was about.

On the other hand, the Japanese never had the requisite shipping to even bulk move all the supplies they needed at the front, and that was after stripping their merchant fleet of what was needed back home to keep people alive and well. And the problems the Japanese faced at the forward bases in terms of port facilities were greater still than what the Allies had to deal with, at least after about a year of war, and this situation never got better for the Japanese, only worse. So while the game system is off, it is, almost as always, off in favor of the Japanese to start the contest, but of course as the game continues those same flaws only come back to haunt the Japanese to death, as these critical design mistakes then allow the Allies to enjoy a much greater advantage still, probably to, or close to, an order of magnitude.

In my PBEM game with Chez this has already happened, or started to happen, and we're not halfway through 1942 yet. Can you imagine what the position will be in June of 1943? How about June of 1944? Want to go for 1945?

The only "cards" left for the Japanese to play, courtesy of Gary, who is and always has been a strong believer in Japanese bonuses, is that 1) his surface naval assets still have better night experience than the USN in most cases, and 2) IJN CV TFs will tend to fly more coordinated strikes than the Allies, this advantage decreasing year by year. But on balance what will this be worth in the long run? Not very much, especially going up against an Allied adversary who can well afford to trade naval assets 1:1 with impunity, or even absorb a worse loss ratio still should that become either convenient and/or necessary.

I'm greatly disappointed with this game. Why? Because it runs too fast. Everything runs too fast. As the Allied player I enjoy a clear winning position halfway through 1942, that's the long and short of it, and I've done this without the use of my submarine arm! (Allied sub doctrine is toggled on.)

What does that tell us?

Sure, the Allies are supposed to win, but could they have reasonably done this well in history? I don't think so.

By this time in history the Allies had checked the Japanese in the Coral Sea and won a huge strategic and tactical victory at Midway, two real events which I doubt very much Gary has allowed players to experience in the game. Which is another good thing for the Japanese cause, right? And yet look where Chez and I are. I just can't see the Allies as being capable of building up Australia and Papua New Guinea and the Noumea area as fast and as surely as I have been able to, and this happening in lieu of having those two historical naval victories in the bag.

Again, the game runs too fast, and it's all tied to the logistics model.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 2
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 4:52:48 AM   
Naskra

 

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/12/2005
Status: offline
The program does not fucntion as documented (even calling it documented is generous).
Historicity or lack thereof is secondary.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 3
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 5:09:38 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Naskra

The program does not fucntion as documented (even calling it documented is generous).
Historicity or lack thereof is secondary.


You're absolutely correct. The game was not only poorly conceived but happens to be broken on top of that.

As for the manual . . . what else need be said about it than when one turns to British Ship Withdrawals (under section 11.0 Political Points) he is referred back to "section 6.2 for more information"? It's a bad joke, that's what the manual is.



< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 4/20/2005 9:13:20 AM >

(in reply to Naskra)
Post #: 4
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 5:29:46 AM   
Naskra

 

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/12/2005
Status: offline
At least the list of ships in harbor doesn't resort itself wildly with every selection as in UV.
We should be grateful that little bit of programming wizardry.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 5
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 6:26:17 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
Because the game moves too fast, because the logistics model is out of touch with reality, the Allies in my PBEM game enjoy the following positional advantages.

First, let's look at the area around the Solomon Sea.

Port Moresby has been built up to an 8-level airfield and is working on its sixth level of port efficiency. Milne Bay is working to become a 3-level port with its airfield maxed out. Kiriwina currently has a 3-level airfield, and this will soon be a 4-level airfield, at which time Rabaul will be screwed royally and for all time, as it will then come within effective range of two-engine bombers. Everything Japanese still in there would then be simply starved out. And at that juncture, the B-17s based on Port Moresby would be free to turn their full attention to the reduction of the Japanese bases at Kavieng and the Admiralty Islands.

To the southeast, by the way, Noumea has been maxed out for a long time, Luganville soon will be, with Efate not far behind.

In the Solomons, the Japanese have moved onto Guadacanal Island in strength, though I'm not sure to what strength exactly. Whatever the Japanese player has at Lunga (and on Tulagi and in the rest of the Solomons chain, for that matter) will also be starved out eventually. To manage this the Allies would need to move laterally over to, say, the Shortlands, and establish a strong air and naval presence there, but in the due course of time that'll be a snap. Call it the spring of 1943 if not before--and it likely will be before.

In this general area, to include Queensland, Australia, the Allies have amassed to date about four million points of supply and something better than that amount of fuel. Another two million supply points and about a million more fuel points are busting a boiler (at four hexes per) to get to Australia and be duly unloaded as well. This will occur inside of the week. I might add that I've also managed to get roughly 100,000 points of oil into Australia to date--that not a big item, of course, but I thought I'd mention it since we're talking about a terribly broken logistcs model here.

I'm not sure where the Allies will move to next, but as the Japanese are already without an effective air presence in the region, and further considering that this will soon be reduced to no air presence at all, the choice will be theirs. It isn't unlikely that the Allies will decide in the end to move on Lae, then proceed along the north coast of the bird to eventually shut off the eastern route out of the SRA to the Japanese home islands, with an excellent springboard provided from that position to then subsequently leap into the Philippine Islands. And of course when that happens it's all over but the shouting.

That would represent the historical approach chosen by SWPAC, except that in this case events are moving better than a full year ahead of the historical schedule, and please keep in mind we're only . . . (ahem) . . . a bare seven months into the game.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 4/20/2005 9:15:02 AM >

(in reply to Naskra)
Post #: 6
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 6:46:46 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
Next, let's look at Burma.

The key to this theater is Akyab. The Japanese have failed to find a way to advance on it in strength, thus leaving its occupation and development open to the Allies, who have taken full advantage. As this theater does not receive the same scale of gigantic reinforcement, and also because the action is primarily on the ground and not in the air or across the sea, the advance here might very well not be any faster than the historical timeline, but that's still to tell.

For the moment the Allies have contented themselves with the defense of Bombay and Karachi, a modest buildup of Columbo, Trincomalee and Madras, plus the general development of the greater area around the ports of Diamond Harbor and Chandpur, to include Calcutta and Dacca. Dimapur, Jarhat and Ledo are all being developed, slowly but surely, and will serve eventually as a strong collective air base when the Allies move on Myitkyina. This advance will probably be complemented by a simultaneous thrust from Akyab toward Pagan. Meanwhile, the Allies are beginning to bomb the city of Mandalay to reduce its manpower, resources and oil.

At this relatively late juncture I don't believe the Japanese can do anything about it, but we'll see. Perhaps the Japanese will attempt to invade Trincomalee, or maybe pick on pee wee over at the Andaman Islands. Only one thing is for certain. The game moves more slowly in Burma than it does elsewhere. Except for China, of course, where it moves like a slug.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 7
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 6:51:22 AM   
Captain Ed


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

By this time in history the Allies had checked the Japanese in the Coral Sea and won a huge strategic and tactical victory at Midway, two real events which I doubt very much Gary has allowed players to experience in the game. Which is another good thing for the Japanese cause, right? And yet look where Chez and I are. I just can't see the Allies as being capable of building up Australia and Papua New Guinea and the Noumea area as fast and as surely as I have been able to, and this happening in lieu of having those two historical naval victories in the bag.


In my Pbem with MarkVII, as the Japanese I experienced the reverse of Midway as Mark will attest to, in Feb 42 3 US Carriers sunk off Pago Pago. The game has its flaws but I think you can run a very credible WW2 simulation. I am not sure if I want to be burdened with shipping all the different types of supplies that would be needed at various bases
for the sake of playability there has to be compromises. And I think Matrix has done well in that department. Anyway just my 2 cents. Apologies to Mark for bringing up Pago Pago again god that was a good fight

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 8
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 7:20:38 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
Now for China.

Look at the map and see the pretty yellow icons which represent my many many Chineezies, who cannot, as it turns out, fight very well, but there are so many of these armed people that every time the Japanese player turns around he finds another Chineezie on one of his supply lines. He is then obliged to send out a police force to deal with this nuisance. I then send out another Chineezie to sit on another one of his supply lines and like that.

Where the Chinese are strong, however, they are very strong, and quite capable of giving the Japanese player a rude welcome if he doesn't come in strength with his flanks very very well protected. (Are you listening, Ron? )

My opponent has only made what I consider to be three real mistakes in this game, and only two of those were strategic of nature. The first occured on the route from Changsha to Chungking, where he completely neglected to protect his flanks. Because of my ignorance of the rules set and inexperience in general with the peculiarties of the land-combat model he was subsequently able to avoid the complete annihilation of an army inside Chungking and escape back down the road whence he came. A pity, that, but in a way a good thing, too, as it was a simple blunder and only one to be made when new to this system. He'll know better next time.

By the way, the other serious mistake he made was to allow my garrison at Rangoon to escape into the marshes of Elephant Point. These troops will soon be repatrioted with their comrades at Akyab, and will no doubt serve as the cadre with which our eventual counterattack toward Pagan will be comprised.

The third mistake he made (a minor one) was to invade Baker Island with insufficient force early in the game. It meant nothing in a strategic sense, as the island is all but worthless and merely serves me as an extra seaplane base so my PBYs can see farther into the central Pacific. This is a defensive measure, only, as I have no plans to take the Gilberts but will instead take the Marshalls directly, then move on to the Marianas. But I do have supply convoys routed behind Baker Island, traveling between the west coast and Australia, so I was willing to make a modest investment in Baker. As he did invade me, and as I just hate to lose anything in war, I then reinforced Baker Island to the point almost of being ridiculous, figuring he'd try again as a matter of pride; and so now I've got a lot of stuff sitting there that will need to be transferred in due time over to support my offensive into the Marshalls, but as this won't happen for another year give or take I'm not worried about it at present, and meanwhile Baker and my pride are safe as Fort Knox.

I'd like to say here that this exercise is not to pat myself on the back for being a grand strategist in the style of some latterday Napoleon. The truth is I consider my opponent's play to date to have been better than mine. For sure it's been more exact than mine. I can't tell you how many AKs I've sacrificed needlessly, or almost needlessly. They went for a good cause, but had I worked it better they'd still be hauling goods around.

No, the point I'm trying to make here is simple enough: the game moves to fast. And this is, with even reasonably correct play on the part of the Allies, disastrous to Imperial fortune.

Anyway, here's the map of China from our game. It could very well be that with correct play the Japanese are capable of conquering the entire place. If so, that only speaks more volumes as to how screwed up the game models are.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 4/20/2005 9:25:37 AM >

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 9
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 7:29:13 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

quote:

By this time in history the Allies had checked the Japanese in the Coral Sea and won a huge strategic and tactical victory at Midway, two real events which I doubt very much Gary has allowed players to experience in the game. Which is another good thing for the Japanese cause, right? And yet look where Chez and I are. I just can't see the Allies as being capable of building up Australia and Papua New Guinea and the Noumea area as fast and as surely as I have been able to, and this happening in lieu of having those two historical naval victories in the bag.


In my Pbem with MarkVII, as the Japanese I experienced the reverse of Midway as Mark will attest to, in Feb 42 3 US Carriers sunk off Pago Pago. The game has its flaws but I think you can run a very credible WW2 simulation. I am not sure if I want to be burdened with shipping all the different types of supplies that would be needed at various bases
for the sake of playability there has to be compromises. And I think Matrix has done well in that department. Anyway just my 2 cents. Apologies to Mark for bringing up Pago Pago again god that was a good fight


It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."

There is more that could and should be done to slow the game down, but what I've mentioned would be a step in the right direction.

(in reply to Captain Ed)
Post #: 10
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 7:31:02 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

quote:

By this time in history the Allies had checked the Japanese in the Coral Sea and won a huge strategic and tactical victory at Midway, two real events which I doubt very much Gary has allowed players to experience in the game. Which is another good thing for the Japanese cause, right? And yet look where Chez and I are. I just can't see the Allies as being capable of building up Australia and Papua New Guinea and the Noumea area as fast and as surely as I have been able to, and this happening in lieu of having those two historical naval victories in the bag.


In my Pbem with MarkVII, as the Japanese I experienced the reverse of Midway as Mark will attest to, in Feb 42 3 US Carriers sunk off Pago Pago. The game has its flaws but I think you can run a very credible WW2 simulation. I am not sure if I want to be burdened with shipping all the different types of supplies that would be needed at various bases
for the sake of playability there has to be compromises. And I think Matrix has done well in that department. Anyway just my 2 cents. Apologies to Mark for bringing up Pago Pago again god that was a good fight


Regarding your "reversed Midway" as the Japanese player: this is neither surprising nor significant, is, in fact, a kind of Grigsby specialty.

(in reply to Captain Ed)
Post #: 11
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 8:28:18 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
JOHN. While there are a number of other problems, I think you are onto a key one.
The game itself admits it. Just look at a comparison between a game PLAYED to
May of 1942, and the situation in the scenario that starts in 5/42. If BOTH sides
don't have heaps and piles more supply EVERYWHERE in the played game, I'll eat someone's hat.

It's the same as China. If you PLAY, the Japanese are all over the Chinese from
the get-go. If you start the 1944 scenario, you will find a situation almost unchanged
from the 1941 start. Playing allows exploitation of the system's flaws by both sides.


_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 12
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 8:42:18 AM   
afspret


Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline
Its flawed 'cause the release date kept changing and they rushed it into production when people starting getting p'od.

Besides, its a GAME! The player(s) has control of things. If he wants to pull all his forces out of the PI or avoid battles in the Coral Sea, or Midway or only offer token resistance for Guadalcanal (and then waylay his opponent at Bouganville), then thats his choosing. ITS A GAME! How many of ya'll played the boardgames that were so popular before the advent of PC games, and how historically accurate were they?

If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary, but remember, documentaries are not always accurate or show both sides of the story. Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers. Computer games can also subject to the same whims of those involved in its developement.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 13
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 8:43:59 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers.


Oh my, you mean John Wayne didn't win the war all by himself ???

(in reply to afspret)
Post #: 14
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 8:52:12 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

JOHN. While there are a number of other problems, I think you are onto a key one.
The game itself admits it. Just look at a comparison between a game PLAYED to
May of 1942, and the situation in the scenario that starts in 5/42. If BOTH sides
don't have heaps and piles more supply EVERYWHERE in the played game, I'll eat someone's hat.

It's the same as China. If you PLAY, the Japanese are all over the Chinese from
the get-go. If you start the 1944 scenario, you will find a situation almost unchanged
from the 1941 start. Playing allows exploitation of the system's flaws by both sides.


That's it. Except it's critically important to recognize always that as bad as the game gets it wrong with regard to the early potential for totally ahistorical Japanese expansion, it's ten times worse on the other side of that counterfeit coin once the Allies get rolling. Then watch out!




(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 15
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 8:55:36 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret

Its flawed 'cause the release date kept changing and they rushed it into production when people starting getting p'od.

Besides, its a GAME! The player(s) has control of things. If he wants to pull all his forces out of the PI or avoid battles in the Coral Sea, or Midway or only offer token resistance for Guadalcanal (and then waylay his opponent at Bouganville), then thats his choosing. ITS A GAME! How many of ya'll played the boardgames that were so popular before the advent of PC games, and how historically accurate were they?

If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary, but remember, documentaries are not always accurate or show both sides of the story. Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers. Computer games can also subject to the same whims of those involved in its developement.


Now that you mention it, most of the board wargames I played along the way were a lot more accurate than WitP.

Re whims: the game is chock full of Gary's little whims. That's the trouble.


(in reply to afspret)
Post #: 16
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 9:07:12 AM   
afspret


Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline
Let me ask this of those who complain about historical accuracy; are ya'll complaining about the outcome of battles or the logistical aspects of the game? I do have some problems with the logistical side of things, but all I care about is the fightin' part.

As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 17
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 9:36:02 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret

Let me ask this of those who complain about historical accuracy; are ya'll complaining about the outcome of battles or the logistical aspects of the game? I do have some problems with the logistical side of things, but all I care about is the fightin' part.

As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?


The battle of Midway, if modeled "correctly," would 1) usually result in an American win or 2) sometimes result in a Japanese catastrophe. As for Bulge games, I played a lot those over the years, and the worst (least realistic in terms of detail) was the first, Avalon Hill's. And even with that broad-brush effort it was impossible for the Germans to achieve anything close to a victory against careful play. So, I don't know which titles you're referring to, but the ones I played around with had it about right.

You do realize, do you not, that the German attack in the Ardennes in 1944 was a(nother) bad dream Hilter once had?


< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 4/20/2005 10:22:24 AM >

(in reply to afspret)
Post #: 18
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 10:16:10 AM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret

Let me ask this of those who complain about historical accuracy; are ya'll complaining about the outcome of battles or the logistical aspects of the game? I do have some problems with the logistical side of things, but all I care about is the fightin' part.

As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?


The battle of Midway, if modeled "correctly," would 1) usually result in an American win or 2) sometimes result in a Japanese catastrophe. As for Bulge games, I played a lot those over the years, and the worst (least realistic in terms of detail) was the first, Avalon Hill's. And even with that broad-brush effort it was impossible for the Germans to achieve anything close to a victory against careful play. So, I don't know which titles you're referring to, but the ones I played around with had it about right.

You do realize, do you not, that the German attack in the Ardennes in 1994 was a(nother) bad dream Hilter once had?



Maybe afspret was referring to playing the US forces in Bulge?

Anyway, what is the basis of your thought that US would usually win Midway? I had always had the opinion that Midway was a case of getting the luck of timing that rarely occurs.

Bearing in mind the following quotes from Wade McClusky;

'With the clear visibility it was certain that we hadn't passed them unsighted. Allowing for their maximum advance of 25 knots, I was positive they couldn't be in my left semi-circle, that is, between my position and the island of Midway. Then they must be in the right semi-circle, had changed course easterly or westerly, or, most likely reversed course. To allow for a possible westerly change of course, I decided to fly west for 35 miles, then to turn north-west in the precise reverse of the original Japanese course. After making this decision, my next concern was just how far could we go. We had climbed, heavily loaded, to a high altitude. I knew the planes following were probably using more gas than I was. So, with another quick calculation, I decided to stay on course 315 degrees until 1200, then turn north-eastwardly before making a final decision to terminate the hunt and return to the Enterprise.

Call it fate, luck or what you may, because at 1155 I spied a lone Jap cruiser[2] scurrying under full power to the north-east. Concluding that she possibly was a liaison ship between the occupation forces and the striking force, I altered my Group's course to that of the cruiser. At 1205 that decision paid dividends.'

It seems to me that Midway was a result better than America could have dreamed of prior to the battle. Sure, the Japanese had the disadvantage of intel, and of having to contend with dealing with the airstrip at Midway, but overall I'd have thought a game that historically modelled the battle would often have completely ahistoric results.

< Message edited by Banquet -- 4/20/2005 10:19:07 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 19
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 11:01:32 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret

Let me ask this of those who complain about historical accuracy; are ya'll complaining about the outcome of battles or the logistical aspects of the game? I do have some problems with the logistical side of things, but all I care about is the fightin' part.

As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?


The battle of Midway, if modeled "correctly," would 1) usually result in an American win or 2) sometimes result in a Japanese catastrophe. As for Bulge games, I played a lot those over the years, and the worst (least realistic in terms of detail) was the first, Avalon Hill's. And even with that broad-brush effort it was impossible for the Germans to achieve anything close to a victory against careful play. So, I don't know which titles you're referring to, but the ones I played around with had it about right.

You do realize, do you not, that the German attack in the Ardennes in 1994 was a(nother) bad dream Hilter once had?



Maybe afspret was referring to playing the US forces in Bulge?


Of course. What he wrote was:

         As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?

The obvious (the only) implication there could be that in both cases he didn't always win as the Allies. All I said is that 1) we'd expect an American victory or a Japanese catastrophe at Midway if it were modeled correctly, and 2) as an old player of Bulge games I never saw a legitimate (read: against good play) victory for the Germans. I went on to imply that should the Germans ever win such a scenario it would be an aberation of sorts, because they had absolutely nothing going for them except the element of surprise, and that didn't last more than a few hours.

quote:

Anyway, what is the basis of your thought that US would usually win Midway? I had always had the opinion that Midway was a case of getting the luck of timing that rarely occurs.


Well, there was an element of luck at Midway, just as there is always an element of luck in all human endeavor, but that luck ran both ways, as so often is the case. Just for instance, the wind was blowing toward the Japanese (as usual) that day, and so the American carriers had to put into that wind and steam away from the enemy in order to launch. This effectively spelled death for more than a few brave USN torpedo bomber pilots.

If I have to go on I will, but you get the drift, right?

In general, the Americans ought to win the battle of Midway for many reasons. First of the all the Japanese plan was idiotic on its face. Second, the Americans knew (well, they had very good reason to believe) what the Japanese were up to in general and correctly guessed for all intents and purposes most of the details as events eventually unfolded. Third, the Japanese tactical handling of the battle was atrocious. That isn't bad luck by the way but bad management. Fourth, even though the wind was (as usual) blowing in favor of the Japanese, the Navy had those brave pilots who were willing to sacrifice their lives (they knew in advance that they were launching at a range which would negate any possibility of their getting back to the fleet, so their only hope was to ditch and then be rescued afterward), and so, as (finally) . . . luck would have it . . . yes, the Devastators arrived just early enough to draw the enemy CAP down to the deck, at which point our Dauntless pilots had a field day, and immediately put three big carriers out of commission. And that was not luck, too, but good plane driving, and ice-cold nerves on the way down to the release point.

That Nagumo's carriers themselves were ill-prepared to receive an attack is, again, just plain bad management. From what I can tell of this guy, based solely on his WWII performances, he seems to have been the Japanese variant of Frank Jack Fletcher, both in terms of character and ability. But what do I know? I do know he eventually committed suicide on Saipan (actually I think he was shot by General Saito's adjutant), and good riddance.

quote:

Bearing in mind the following quotes from Wade McClusky;

'With the clear visibility it was certain that we hadn't passed them unsighted. Allowing for their maximum advance of 25 knots, I was positive they couldn't be in my left semi-circle, that is, between my position and the island of Midway. Then they must be in the right semi-circle, had changed course easterly or westerly, or, most likely reversed course. To allow for a possible westerly change of course, I decided to fly west for 35 miles, then to turn north-west in the precise reverse of the original Japanese course. After making this decision, my next concern was just how far could we go. We had climbed, heavily loaded, to a high altitude. I knew the planes following were probably using more gas than I was. So, with another quick calculation, I decided to stay on course 315 degrees until 1200, then turn north-eastwardly before making a final decision to terminate the hunt and return to the Enterprise.

Call it fate, luck or what you may, because at 1155 I spied a lone Jap cruiser[2] scurrying under full power to the north-east. Concluding that she possibly was a liaison ship between the occupation forces and the striking force, I altered my Group's course to that of the cruiser. At 1205 that decision paid dividends.'

It seems to me that Midway was a result better than America could have dreamed of prior to the battle. Sure, the Japanese had the disadvantage of intel, and of having to contend with dealing with the airstrip at Midway, but overall I'd have thought a game that historically modelled the battle would often have completely ahistoric results.


You can think whatever you want. It's a free world out there.

Re McCluskey's remarks: I'd put these down to modesty more than anything else. What would expect him to say? He might as well have said, "Well, we were basically lost, and then we saw this Japanese warship steaming off to somewhere and decided to follow it because you never know . . . and sure enough, it was headed toward the fleet . . . big surprise! . . . and awaaaaaaaaaaaay we flew!"

So what? The salient point is that the Americans knew where and when and what the Japanese were up to, whereas the Japanese didn't know squat, and then mismanaged their own peculiar battle plan on top of that! What kind of result would you expect from that kind of show? Do you suppose it was just owing to "bad luck" that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo? Well, there was luck at play there, but there were a helluva lot more mistakes made by the French than instances of bad luck which plagued their fortune over that last campaign. If you don't believe me, go read up on it yourself.

(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 20
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 11:20:43 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."


Amen, brother!

Lack of proper cargo handling facilities, labor force and storage space as well as the limited number of ships that can be (un)loaded at the same time at available docks and wharfs are not modeled.

The Marines preparing for the Guadalcanal landing had to combat-load their ships mostly on their own due to labor shortage, and they had to do this in relays of a few ships at a time because the dock would only accomodate so many - and this was in Auckland, one of the larger port in the SoPac. Many merchantmen were used as floating warehouses or had to wait for days and even weeks before they could be unloaded. If you read Morison on the Guadalcanal campaign you stumble accross many other examples for the supply bottleneck - Watchtower was nicknamed Shoestring for a reason...

Should be in WitP somehow to slow down ops.


_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 21
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 11:35:25 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."


Amen, brother!

Lack of proper cargo handling facilities, labor force and storage space as well as the limited number of ships that can be (un)loaded at the same time at available docks and wharfs are not modeled.

The Marines preparing for the Guadalcanal landing had to combat-load their ships mostly on their own due to labor shortage, and they had to do this in relays of a few ships at a time because the dock would only accomodate so many - and this was in Auckland, one of the larger port in the SoPac. Many merchantmen were used as floating warehouses or had to wait for days and even weeks before they could be unloaded. If you read Morison on the Guadalcanal campaign you stumble accross many other examples for the supply bottleneck - Watchtower was nicknamed Shoestring for a reason...

Should be in WitP somehow to slow down ops.


That wasn't just a labor shortage--the longshoremen (or whatever they call them over there) gave the Navy a hard time!

The worst port in the region was Noumea, curiously modeled by everyone (including our friends at the CHS project) as a kind of south-seas Boston Harbor for some reason. It wasn't until much later, when of all things an Army officer went in there and finally got the situation sorted out, that Noumea functioned even reasonably well.

The big bugaboo is supply. Too much of it at the front too early. Curtail that, plus the problem in general with ports and air bases, and we'd immediately be on our way to a much better simulation.

Now someone please go tell Frag. (andwhileyoureatitdrillitintohisheadtoo)


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 22
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 12:33:33 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I know, dockers on strike, not working on weekends and such - didn't want to go into too much detail since I'm supposed to work.
Noumea port was labeled as being unsatisfactory in every regard in the Hepburn report on SoPac bases.

Midway - we had this discussion before. USN had knowledge of enemy intentions and planed accordingly, while the Japanese plans were botched - but no battle plan survives contact with the enemy and elements of luck or SNAFUs then come into the play. The TBDs didn't pull the Zeros down to the deck according to a preconceived plan for the purpose of clearing the way for the SBDs - that timing happened by chance of the piecemeal arrival of the individual strike sub-groups. The Jap DD that pointed the way to the CVs might not have been sighted or might not have been there at all if the US sub (Nautilus?) hadn't been involved the way it was. Tone's floatplane might not have been delayed or the pilot could have made his contact reports more precisely, weather might have been different etc. - many variables that cannot be foreseen or pre-planned regardless how good the intel on enemy intention is. Miles Browning did a good job calculating the best time to attack, but that doesn't guarantee that the strike will proceed as planned, enemy will be sighted at the spot where you expect him to be and so on. I don't say the USN was lucky to win at Midway, but I think it could have turned out quite differently.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 23
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 2:01:28 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
Though there are many problems with the game its very difficult to tell what they really are because the most significant factor in the game is not logistics, Japanese bonuses or night bombing, its the variation between players. Further there can be a lot of variation in play BY an individual player. After all trying out new strategies is one of the reasons we play the game.

When a really good commander runs into a really bad one extreme results can occur. Just look at the campaign in Malaya in 41-42 for an example. But even when two good commanders run into eachother extreme results can occur. Look at the Russian front in WWII, or Montgomery Vs. Rommel at El Alamien, or many other campaigns throughout history. War is full of bad generals who lost to good ones, but its also got a large number of good generals who lost to good ones.

Now lets look at some extreme examples in WitP. I think I am correct when I say that Wobbly, PzB, Blackwatch and myself are all respected players. We all have AARs up so our performance is there for all to see, in some cases over multiple games. Both Wobbly and Blackwatch have won many games of UV and are winning a number of games of WitP. Further Blackwatch has actually won the vast majority of the battles he has fought with me. So I don't think its the case that we are looking at less experienced or less capable players on one side or the other.

Until recently PzBs trashjing of Wobbly was causeing a lot of discussion about the weakness of India. PzB achieved strategic suprise over Wobbly when he invaded India, and after a hard fought campaign he took Karachi on September 23rd 1942 removing India and the British from the game. After watching this a number of people were posting that India needed more troops, a reaction force if invaded, and other kinds of help for this or that reason.

In the Tom & Blackwatch AAR the situation is reversed. The British counter attacked into Malaya in September, the game has reached September 20th and there are several divisions supported by artillery, massive air support and the Royal Navy knocking on the door to Singapore. In a wonderful peice of simatry the British may retake Singapore on September 23 1942, the exact date Karachi fell to Wobbly.

These are extreme results. But they did not happen because of a messy logistics system, screwed up land combat or any of the other problems that usually get listed on the forum. They happened because of decisions by the players.

One campaign seems to support the argument that India is too weak. The other seems to support the arguement that its too strong. But I don't think this is the case for either campaign. I think they both support the argument that player action is much more important than the OOB or the logistical system.


It may be true that in a real war we would operate differently, be more catious with our forces or even just try to get away from the real war all together by finding a nice safe desk job in Cleveland or Sasebo. But this is not a real war, its a game and we play to have fun. Your claiming that the game moves too fast because of underlying problems with the game.

I think you are missing the most important reason the game moves fast: the fact that the players each want thier side to move fast and will do just about anything they can to speed thier forces up in pursuit of victory.


< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 4/20/2005 2:08:35 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 24
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 3:12:44 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

quote:

By this time in history the Allies had checked the Japanese in the Coral Sea and won a huge strategic and tactical victory at Midway, two real events which I doubt very much Gary has allowed players to experience in the game. Which is another good thing for the Japanese cause, right? And yet look where Chez and I are. I just can't see the Allies as being capable of building up Australia and Papua New Guinea and the Noumea area as fast and as surely as I have been able to, and this happening in lieu of having those two historical naval victories in the bag.


In my PBEM with MarkVII, as the Japanese I experienced the reverse of Midway as Mark will attest to, in Feb 42 3 US Carriers sunk off Pago Pago. The game has its flaws but I think you can run a very credible WW2 simulation. I am not sure if I want to be burdened with shipping all the different types of supplies that would be needed at various bases
for the sake of playability there has to be compromises. And I think Matrix has done well in that department. Anyway just my 2 cents. Apologies to Mark for bringing up Pago Pago again god that was a good fight


It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."

There is more that could and should be done to slow the game down, but what I've mentioned would be a step in the right direction.




I agree your observations, although I am totally unable to support an intelligent argument to the contrary. I have always felt that GG had his agenda biased and casted in concrete when it came to sounding the bell to slug it out at the combat phase (in all of his games). I'm not sure, it could be any other way and still give Japan any chance at a victory in a PBEM or giving the Allied player, playing against the AI, anything but a rapid cakewalk as opposed to the drawn out eventual victory (my preference of game play).

I would be in favor of slowing down the logistics and rapid base build ups in the game, but, I don't think that is going to happen by the developers or even the mod squad. There may be a solution of sorts for the Allied fanboys against the AI with self imposed "house rules". I'm not very good in this area and would like some ideas as to what should be included in any such rules for my personal play.


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 25
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 3:28:50 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
I think you are missing the most important reason the game moves fast: the fact that the players each want thier side to move fast and will do just about anything they can to speed thier forces up in pursuit of victory.


Mmh - of course player strategic decisions have a big impact on the course of action. But I still maintain that the game allows players who want to move fast to do so because it doesn't impose realistic limits on the speed of ops, i.e. not modeling the supply bottlenecks that did exist IRL.
Your India example - conquering India is possible in WitP if strategic surprise is attained, but IRL it would have been impossible for Japan because it lacked the troops and the shipping resources to supply them. Japan had its own supply bottleneck in both production and distribution - but in WitP, apparently the Japanese side has more ships than needed for distribution because several real-life aspect are not modeled (inefficient use of shipping due to inter-service rivalries, ships needed to supply civilian economy + the unlimited (un)loading capacities of the ports). The Allies IRL initially couldn't move as fast as they wanted either because of their own bottlenecks - worldwide demand for shipping, lack of decent harbor facilities in the active areas and all the stuff I've already mentioned. Most if it is not modelled in WitP, so players can do things that were not possible IRL.
You want Guadalcanal? In WitP you can send 100 freighters to Noumea and have them all unload simultaneously within a few days - wasn't possible in real life. Players who want to (ab)use this lack of game-imposed limitations of course can move faster than history and will be on the 'canal earlier than the Japanese. If you restrain yourself to use 8-ship convoys and only one at a time, you'll be lucky to launch Watchtower in August 42 at all. Again, players who want to move fast can do so because the game doesn't model the historical logistical nightmare.




< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 4/20/2005 3:44:41 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 26
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 3:50:28 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers.


Oh my, you mean John Wayne didn't win the war all by himself ???


Of course he did! I just saw it on TV the other night!!


_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 27
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 4:14:54 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers.


Oh my, you mean John Wayne didn't win the war all by himself ???


Of course he did! I just saw it on TV the other night!!



Thank god, thought I was wrong after all these years.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 28
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 7:42:11 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
I agree that the pace of the game is generally too fast, and in particular that supply and fuel move too quickly. I still think the game is an awesome achievement, though, even with its flaws.

Anyway, I thought Pry was doing a mod that would slow down the movement of supply and fuel -- diminishing the amount of cargo that transports could carry and whatnot. Or am I thinking of the CHS?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 29
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 4/20/2005 8:24:50 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Really the easiest fix .. to quick supplies is cut the size of the capacity down by a factor..

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> What's really wrong with the game? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.531