Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

More Comments from a Newcomer

 
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 >> More Comments from a Newcomer Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/21/2005 11:26:09 PM   
DuncanLang

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Spotsylvania, VA
Status: offline
I have a bit more experience with the game (still only vs AI at present) since my first post (“Comments from a Newcomer to WITP”, 6/8/05) and continue to really enjoy it. I have also read quite a bit of, and learned a lot from, the various forums. I particularly enjoyed much of the discussion in the “Senseless and useless prep point rant” thread, because I am a particular fan of that feature. As I read the first post I thought of a number of things to respond with, but as I read down the thread I found that others had covered most of them.

However, some other points were raised, that got me thinking. One point was that the game “plays too fast.” I would have to say that the game doesn’t necessarily play too fast, but we (as players) may tend to play it too fast.

(WARNING: if you are more interested in WITP as a game, than as a simulation, which is perfectly understandable, ignore the below).

For example, while it was something I knew at a certain level, I was somewhat surprised when I recently came across a listing of major amphibious operations of the Pacific War (regiment-sized or larger opposed initial landings) and noted that there were no such operations between Guadalcanal in August 1942 and Attu in May 43 (there were 10 in 43, 19 in 44 and 12 in 45).

I am currently playing the Guadalcanal scenario (as Allies vs. AI) and made 2 such operations (in addition to Guadalcanal) before the end of 42, have 2 more in the works, and also made a couple of unopposed/less than regiment-sized landings). I think there are a couple of reasons for this faster pace.

One is that, even with having to deal with prep points, etc., it is still a lot easier for us to plan and execute a landing than it was in reality because we have fewer factors with which to deal. As just one example, while we do have to think about supplies, our supplies are generic. The real planners had to make sure that the right items (food, ammo, spare parts, etc.) got to the right places; a much more involved process. Similarly, we just tell the computer to load Division X, but they had to make sure the right subunit got on the right ship so that it unloaded in the right sequence, etc.

Another factor is our natural gamer’s tendency to loath letting an “available” unit sit idle even for a day or two. For example, I would be willing to bet that most gamers immediately employ newly arrived units. In reality, many were not “committed” for weeks or even months. Instead, they spent their time getting acclimated, conducting specialized training such as amphibious operations, absorbing new equipment, etc. In game terms they were just sitting there, but in reality it was no vacation.

Similarly, I also came across a history of a particular ship and noted that it actually was pulled out of operation a number of times during the war, sometimes for upgrades, that might also be accounted for by the game, but also for R&R, training, etc. I would be willing to bet that most of us work our ships/crews to death, sending them out on mission after mission.

We have to remember that those ships, air units and LCUs represent real guys. The game, with features such as morale, fatigue, etc. does force us to consider this to a certain extent (some of the features I most like about the game), but cannot possibly account for all of these things. For example, I have not researched this, but I assume the availability date of a US ship at Noumea in the scenario I am playing for example, represents when that ship reached the theater. I, for one, have eagerly anticipated the arrival of certain ships and have immediately dispatched them on missions. If, as I think is likely, their availability represents their arrival after a long voyage from Pearl or the West Coast, you can imagine the reaction of their crews to an order from Admiral Lang to top off the tanks and get right back out to sea with little hope of R&R for the duration of the scenario. Works well in the game; not so good in real life.

Another thing that tends to lead us to play it fast is that our decision making is easier than it would have been in real life. For one thing, the real commanders did not have the benefit we gamers have of all those nifty little objective ratings to compare. We can do a quick survey and figure out what the key objectives will be. However, in many cases, the importance of a place was the result of how circumstances played out, not because of some inherent factor(s). For example, I’ll bet that prior to the war starting and even for quite awhile thereafter, the mayor (or whatever he was called) of Port Moresby would have had no clue that his town was going to be such a key objective.

I have noted discussions of switching commanders to get one with higher ratings in a certain category. While some commanders certainly were relieved when they failed to perform, the real senior commanders had to make much more subjective assessments in choosing subordinates. They did not have the benefit of knowing exactly who was better or worse at a particular thing. There were also, even in wartime, things to consider such as seniority, friends in high places, etc. that sometimes kept less able commanders in position.

We also have to take into account the frame of reference of the folks at the time and not color it with what we know now. For example, the pilots in the various Allied air units in the early stages of the war had little knowledge of the skills of the Japanese pilots that they were about to face nor of the qualities of their aircraft. While a player might choose not to make an attack that he knows to be suicidal, because of his knowledge of the comparative ratings, the real commander would probably have been pretty confident, however wrongly, in the training and equipment of his unit.

I have also noted various discussions of the opening moves some players use in the scenarios starting in December 1941, such as shifting forces here or there or withdrawing forces so that they can be better used later. However, this is again viewing the situation as a game and ignoring non-game factors, such as politics, that were crucial to the real commanders. At least initially, the Dutch political leadership could not simply give up sections of the DEI, nor could US officials simply withdraw into Bataan without putting up some kind of fight for other parts of the Philippines.

What is my point in all of the above? While the game could be modified to have more features such as prep points, etc., it could never really account for all of the factors involved and would probably lower the fun factor. To me, the easier solution is to leave the game generally as is, but approach playing it a bit differently. For example, when I plan my moves, I try to put myself in the shoes of the commander on the spot and filter out all of that extra after the fact knowledge that I have. I also tend to use what I am given as it is without shifting around commanders, etc. In game terms it sometimes makes for some dumb moves, but feels more realistic, at least to me.

Obviously, this is a subjective approach and can only be done to a limited extent. However, if the real interest in the game is for understanding how the war in the Pacific was fought, I think that it gives a better feel for it. If the goal is racking up points regardless, then by all means have at it.

Anyway, just some thoughts.
Post #: 1
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/21/2005 11:33:11 PM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline
Good post. I agree 100%

(in reply to DuncanLang)
Post #: 2
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/21/2005 11:33:31 PM   
Toast

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline
I believe that you are dead on with the fore-knowledge and hindsight of the players speeding up the game. A Japanese player knows his days are numbered and how actually weak the Allied defenses are until mid-1942. So he pushes his forces and takes greater risks than any historical commander would. An Allied player knows that the Japanese player cannot replace losses so will accept combat that he knows will destroy his forces just to inflict some casualties that he knows the Japanese player cannot afford. No game can take away historical hindsight or make the players care more about their digital soldiers and sailors.

(in reply to DuncanLang)
Post #: 3
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/21/2005 11:54:17 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Some fine observations there, Duncan. Couldn't agree more...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Toast)
Post #: 4
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 12:55:16 AM   
MemoryLeak


Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline
For what it's worth from me(I'm not one of the click of posters) I too agree. I've read similar statements in the past by a few players. Unfortunately they were "shouted down" by other posters and their insightful thoughts got lost. I would continue reading the thread hoping someone would acknowledge the good points but they were strategically ignored.

I have read practically every post on this site and on UV site. I did quit reading UV forum after WiTP came out. Time and again I've seen good points rolled over by excessive "facts" about the war or weapons of the war. I particularly like the statement several posters have made about " do you want a constant and unchanging replay of World War II or do you want a fun and unpredictable game with optional paths and outcomes?

Basically we have too much knowledge of World War II history and know exactly what to do and for how long to do it.

Duncan, good, concise post.

_____________________________

If you want to make GOD laugh, tell him your future plans

USS Long Beach CGN-9
RM2 1969-1973

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 1:00:05 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toast
An Allied player knows that the Japanese player cannot replace losses so will accept combat that he knows will destroy his forces just to inflict some casualties that he knows the Japanese player cannot afford.

I always thought that was the historical Allied strategy.......

(in reply to Toast)
Post #: 6
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 1:51:47 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toast
An Allied player knows that the Japanese player cannot replace losses so will accept combat that he knows will destroy his forces just to inflict some casualties that he knows the Japanese player cannot afford.

I always thought that was the historical Allied strategy.......


I'm sure it was, but at that particular time I doubt Nimitz would have considered them "acceptable" losses to throw Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown on the "sword" so to speak just so he could kill the 4 carriers at Midway. Needless sacrifice, just to ensure 4 near irreplaceable carriers were killed on the IJN side wasn't in the game plan... Otherwise we'd have probably gone after a lot more then just the flattops. We'd have been after invasion forces among others. And we STILL managed to lose Yorktown after Midway anyway DESPITE the cautious withdrawl...

So no, I'd have to agree... Historically you know the outcome and tend to "augment" your playing style accordingly. Good observations all round methinks.

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 7
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 2:03:16 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
Nice refreshing post, Duncan. I am like you in terms of trying to get the 'feel' for the game as much as I can. Some turns take me a long time to make because I will go over all forces in all theaters to make certain what I "think" are the correct moves. I tend to play a real cautious style and I am always the Allies( the good guys). Thanks for your thoughts as a new comer and welcome to our great forums. Enjoy !

(in reply to 2Stepper)
Post #: 8
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 7:45:57 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I guess that I'm up for the "conservative allied player" award. I'm into November, '42 and still haven't landed at Lunga yet. I keep waiting for the AI to put somebody there, just to make sport of it. Sooner or later I'm going to have to go there, if only because South Pacific command get sooo many troops to play with...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 9
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 9:19:19 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Very nice post. I encourage you to keep posting here, Duncan.

In my one lengthy game against the AI, I tried to constrain myself in some of the ways you suggest, and it made for a more satisfying simulation of the war. It also had the incidental benefit of compensating for some of the AI's weaknesses. E.g., I only conducted one major landing at a time; I required ships and subs to stand down to recover from fatigue; and I followed the historical path. So I was fighting at Guadalcanal in the fall of 42, and island-hopping north of there in early 43.

Since then, I've become a PBEM guy, and I'm enjoying the game in new and different ways. My opponents and I have tried to avoid absurdly ahistorical plays, and the results have been enjoyable games. I do think mods like CHS can help "slow down" the rather fast pace of the game, but I also agree with you that play style can also achieve this.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 10
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 8:47:36 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Good points Duncan.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 11
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/22/2005 10:46:04 PM   
509th Bob


Posts: 40
Joined: 12/1/2004
Status: offline
I agree with everything you said. As a former airborne infantryman, I like (and agree) your comments on working our little digital troops to death. Been there, done that. I, too, give me troops a break when circumstances permit. Ships with 1 or 2 damage go to port until they're perfect - unless I REALLY need them. Airgroups are stood down. The ground units, however, tend to get stuck where their at. Since the game doesn't give ground units (like engineers) a chance for a day off, they don't get one. (Sure, I know I could turn off the build port/airbase/forts buttons.)

The one thing that you may not have touched upon is how heavily influenced post-WWII society has become by carrier doctrine. Carrier doctrine did not exist in 1941. It was all made up as we went along, with political opposition from the traditionalists on both sides of the Pacific. Yet, for us, it is inconceivable to try to play Battleship Admiral with the Allied fleet. You may have seen the various threads about the KB (Kudo Butai, I think) "Death Star" (the 6 carrier IJN task force that never disbands). Even the Japanese players can't forego the lure of modern carrier doctrine. Certainly not historical.

But, in the end, this is a game. If the only options available in WITP were to exactly recreate the day-to-day activities that occurred on that date in history, I wouldn't have bought this game, and I wouldn't play it. I'd read a good book about it (and spend FAR LESS TIME doing so)!

Good Post. Good insights. Welcome to WITP.

_____________________________

"Casualties many. Percentage of dead not known. Combat efficiency - we are winning."
-- Col. David M. Shoup, Tarawa, Nov. 21, 1943

(in reply to DuncanLang)
Post #: 12
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/25/2005 8:16:16 PM   
DuncanLang

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Spotsylvania, VA
Status: offline
Thanks for the feedback. Glad there are others out there who feel the same way. I have played quite a few games over 30 plus years and I would have to say that WITP is probably about the best I have seen as far as modeling the factors that a commander has to take into account when planning and conducting operations.

509th Bob, good point on the carrier doctrine. While there certainly were advocates of the carrier, there were also people who were not so sure. As you know, change like that comes slowly to a military organization, especially when there has been a significant investment in time, resources and money into an earlier way of doing things, in this case battleships.

As to the game, I guess there is also a tendency in some people to focus on the game aspect above anything else. When I was in the Army, I participated in a number of computer-driven CPXs (Command Post Exercises). Usually, I was in the CP being exercised, but on at least two occasions I was in the control cell. After the exercise had been running for a while, I began to notice some odd things: units absorbing heavy punishment with little effect, units that had been rendered combat ineffective suddenly reappearing, the same unit seemingly being in two places at once, etc. I did not know much about how the simulation worked, but after doing some snooping, I was able to figure out that people were taking advantage of bugs, particularly in the logistics module, to do things like keep supplying weapons to a unit until it was considered at well over 100% strength or dividing a unit and then resupplying the main unit and the subordinate elements until both were at full strength, yielding a double unit. This was in exercises where the Army was spending big $ and tying up hundreds of people for a week or more to test warplans and yet these guys were playing games and thought they were being smart. I shut down the things I was able to discover, but no doubt there were a lot I missed.

(in reply to 509th Bob)
Post #: 13
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/25/2005 9:22:52 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Wow - that's scary stuff. One could wind up believing one's own propaganda without realizing it. I suppose history is full of examples where people fooled themselves into believing they were ready to defend themselves and then sadly found out otherwise...

(in reply to DuncanLang)
Post #: 14
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/25/2005 9:43:57 PM   
DuncanLang

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Spotsylvania, VA
Status: offline
I should have noted, folks doing this were the more junior ones "playing" the units in the simulation, not the commanders directly part of the exercise. Still, the effect was skewed results.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 15
RE: More Comments from a Newcomer - 7/26/2005 4:50:08 AM   
skrewball


Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline
The military has a habit of skewing results in order to make the higher ups feel better about themselves IMHO.

Example was when I was in the Marines. My company was sent to Panama as part of the Canal security (before we gave it back). During this time we did some training with the US Army infantry units down there. My company was labeled the OPFOR and the Army began practicing manuvers against us. It was our company vs an Army Battalion (Rein). After about a week we had caused so many casualties that the 'game' referees had allowed army 'KIA' to return after 24 hours as 'reinforcements' where as my company had perminent losses.

How this improves Army readiness is beyond me. It seems to me that some Army colonel couldn't bear the thought of losing to a company of Marines, so with the new 'reinforcement' rule they soon overran us. Just a way to stroke the ego of those who needed more training!

(in reply to DuncanLang)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> More Comments from a Newcomer Page: [1]
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

0.781