Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Not an easy task to devise a better model, in fact it is so complicated that I feel pity for the game designers and understand their decision to use a simple 0 to 10 approach.
Point taken. But then they might have used a 1-100 scale and brought the relationship between, say, San Francisco and Noumea into the realm of something which at least approached sensibility.
quote:
But then a different system to somehow limit the fast-moving supply pipelines. Of course we will never achieve 100% or even 80% accuracy, but some limits are better than none in order to end this mega-convoy-madness. To limit the number of ships (un)loading at the same time depending on port size is an option, so when a player sends a huge convoy, only a certain number of ships in the TF would (un)load at the same time, the rest would remain idle or use over-the-beach values.
I'm not sure over-the-beach is right, either. Maybe so. Probably is a little fast judged just by individual ship. But even it is correct in that respect, there's still the problem of every ship in a beach/port hex being allowed to unload simultaneously, which certainly shoots over-the-beach off-load capability through the roof.
As I see it there are two problems at work here. First, there's a reluctance of most people involved with this game to "bite the bullet." The CHS project is good example. I respect these people for the work they've put in. Take Andrew and his map, for example. That's a large step in the right direction, and he's pored a lot of time into that. Kudos!
But.
If you go that thread and read what's there you'll see I got argument back when I suggested that Noumea was rated too highly as a port. The response was on the order of, "Well, we've talked about that but there's no clear consensus yet." Consensus? Is that what we're talking about? Is that what drove the development of WitP? And it was pretty much the same deal when I mentioned how they're handling Lunga, except on that point I think no specific response was forthcoming at all. If I recall I told anyone with interest that Lunga could not be built into another Milwaukee no matter how many engineers worked on it. Which seems like a truism to me. Guess it isn't to everyone.
And these guys obviously want a good change! Yet don't you see, even they can't seem to bear the thought of creeping too close to "actuality." That, or they don't get it to begin with either. It must be one or the other.
(There. Now I'm going to be real popular with those people, too.)
(poundanotherstakeforschuler)
Most of these places we see on the map were backwaters. If you were lucky they could accommodate LSTs nosing up onto the beach, and many of these "beaches" could not accommodate LSTs because they didn't shoal properly. Lunga was an especially unattractive beach, with terrible mosquitos. It could accommodate LSTs, but there weren't any at the time. Back at Noumea, at least, there was a "cove" to duck into and hang around in for a few months filing your nails while the port lighters nonchalantly crawled back and forth.
That's reality.
But players are used to Gary's more polished system and so are reluctant to tone it down a whole lot when it comes to matters of logistics, and proceed at an historical pace. It seems to be the case these people don't want to spend months of game time laboriously bringing a "port" level up to a measly 1, and then only to find out that that doesn't mean much anyway. They want to get on with their little war and "upgrade" to newer and better planes as fast as possible and bombard the bejesus out of the next enemy base across the map, quickly and over and over, too, then post that on an AAR and feel good about themselves. That's what they want. And that's what Gary gave them. That is, in fact, the new definition of grognard. Gary gives us the "details" all right. He doesn't bother to mention that these "details" make small sense for the reason they've been streamlined and processed along the way.
quote:
There could also be operational points for each turn to be spent on loading operations, the number of points per port depending on port size, number of Eng units present (with a cap value, so 50 Eng units stacked at a base won't result in 'instant loading') and some modifiers representing local factors at different ports - e.g. Ulithi would have a sizeable port (i.e. capable of holding a lot of ships) but a modifier that severly restrict its cargo handling capacity, since facilities and storage spaces were very limited.
Ulithi is an interesting example. This is where the universal approach breaks down. It was an excellent anchorage, but as for a "base," only the American Navy was capable to make it the functional resupply/service hub it actually became. You can't suppose for a moment that the Japanese had that kind of capability, and neither did the British.
quote:
I also like the idea brought up in an earlier post of a logistical capacity which can be built up like a port, so supply handling capacity would be totally independent of port size, which would then only indicate how many ships can anchor within protected waters (i.e. TFs in port ['docked' in WitP terms] + ships disbanded into port). A combination of these ideas might work as well.
Not "docked." That takes us backward. At anchor. As in, parked out of the weather at Ulithi again.
I, too, think, it might be a good approach to separate (better define) port functions. But now we're talking about a rewrite of the entire game. And that's okay for the purpose of an interesting discussion, but it won't help us in any immediate sense.
You might wish to email Joe Wilkerson, though. He has some ideas of this subject which you might well find of more than passing interest.
quote:
But alas, they won't change it so it's a futile excercise here as well as the sub-ASW discussion. What I find curious is the silence of the Matrix lambs in this regard - they hotly contest the sub-ASW issue, but have little to say to defend the game design regarding the supply issue... 
"Matrix" has responded. Didn't you read Frag's casual brush-off of this issue? It's always the same deal. He stated quite matter-of-factly, as have any number of posters, that while nobody denies the game moves too fast, this owes itself merely to play styles. Basically, it's the tired old argument about how players don't care how they mismanage their assets. That they'll gladly sacrifice a fleet or two or an army or two in some madcap scheme to conquer the world!
Well, there's no little truth in this. From what I've seen of the AARs there are plenty of madcap-types who play this game. But of course this completely ignores the obvious: that the game system allows this sort of play, indeed, to a great extent encourages this sort of play, and the reason for this is not difficult to find. Assuming one wants to find it. But of course Matrix doesn't want to find it. Matrix wants "us" to shut up. To wit, there is nothing inaccurate with regard to the ASW model, there is nothing amiss with the air model, there is nothing peculiar about the surface-combat model, there is nothing gone astray with the naval movement system and how that interacts with the air system, and certainly there is nothing untoward regarding supply--hell, we gave you a bazillion ships to haul it with, what are you bitching about? The land-combat system makes no sense? What are you talking about? Here, I give you Joe Blow. Let's just hear what he has to say.
I don't se a poblem.I just thinkyou dudes need to CHILL! forgethis stuf about histry and aceracie read a book get a liFe! cya!!!
quote:
There must be a special rule for invasions, because in that case we have many ships unoading at a size 0 port (over the beaches) simultanously. Evacuations would also be handled differently than normal loading ops. Maybe there would also be the need to distinguish between commercial and combat loading of ships.
Again, invasions would need to be handled not universally but by nationality. Even by the time of Bougainville the Navy was getting its invasion act together fast. The amount of supply unloaded there in a few days made Guadacanal look like some long-forgotten exercise in futility. (That's just about the case. Off Lunga Point we hardly had a clue, and the Marines there were left hanging by a thread for some time.)
At the bottom there's a lot that goes into this mess. It didn't happen by accident, and to repair the damage won't be easy. It'll take either a re-write of the code, which would mean Matrix has to release that, and don't hold your, breath, or a new game entirely. As it stands now, the company is pleased to humor Joe. There are more Joes on this board than "us." It's a simple problem in math, I'm afraid.
I'm sorry to be so negative today. I really do want to see improvements. I just don't see any interest or cooperation on the part of the company. All of these complaints were broached and debated and pooh-poohed and shouted down by the very same people years ago after UV was released, and a blind man might see the result. The only thing we didn't know then was just how off the logistics model might be. And now we know that, too.
The solution? A million and one house rules? And end up playing half of Gary's game? Somehow that doesn't get it here.
|
Printable Version
RE: What's really wrong with the game? - 
) It's true, there were unknowns and what-ifs and luck and all that involved. But going into the battle of Midway one would expect the Allies to do well, not poorly, and given the bad Japanese handling of affairs on the day that becomes more assured still. 
. Just a matter of opinion - for me this issue we discuss here is not just an "inaccuracy", it's a basic design flaw. Ahistorical results are not the problem per se - of course we expect to get them when we do not follow historical strategy. Problem is that we get ahistorical results mainly because we have ahistorical capabilities, esp. the fast-moving supplies, which distort the player's strategic choices. Of course nobody wants to be forced to replay the Pacific War exactly as it happened. It's fine that you can try to rewrite history in WitP using ahistorical strategies - but I would expect from a 'historic' game that it models historic capabilities and limitations and compels me to make my strategic decisions within that historic framework. The same issues which limited strategic choices IRL should be present in the game - but as long as the game allows to sail mega-convoys into tiny ports and have all ships unloaded at the same time (even if it takes a couple of days), that's not the case. For example, conquering India as Japanese is possible in WitP only because the game does a relatively poor job modeling the historical supply bottleneck. I'd like to conquer India with the means the Japanese had at their disposal IRL, not with the help that I get because I can move the troops and supplies faster than it was possible then. I try to constrain myself from profiting by the shortcomings of the game design too much, but that's a poor substitute for a good basic design. WitP is great and I love it, but it has some major flaws which makes it 'just' a better PacWar. I know that there have to be compromises, simplifications and so on, but the game could be a grognard's wet dream come true if some issues are solved. I too got back my moneys worth, but heck, I'd pay another $50 if I'd get some dream features. 
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