History or Balance

History or Balance (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

History or Balance

A scenario that is as unbalanced as necessary to be as historically ac

72% (132)

A scenario that still has the flavor of the historical participants (s

27% (51)

Total Votes : 183

(last vote on : 5/25/2006 10:49:53 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

mogami -> History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:10:43 PM)
A) A scenario that is as unbalanced as necessary to be as historically accurate as possible - regarding resources, force levels, combat power, etc. OR B) A scenario that still has the flavor of the historical participants (same looking ships, planes and men - etc. But is as evenly balanced for both sides as possible - at the expense of some realism.

Big B -> RE: History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:12:14 PM)
Wow that didn't take long to turn into a poll[X(]

mogami -> RE: History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:13:20 PM)
Hi, I try

RUPD3658 -> RE: History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:18:13 PM)
Perhaps there could be both. One scenario could have the historical OOB and and abilities of all involved and a second could be the same scenario but balanced so that each side has an equal chance of winning. In Steel Panthers there are several scenarios that have Hard and Easy versions of them where this is done. Perhaps this could be in WiTP2 along with toggles for the most common complaints. As for now I think we should just be happy with the terrific game that we have been given[&o][&o][&o][&o] and use house rules to create the type of game we want. To each their own.

BLUESBOB -> RE: History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:18:35 PM)
Why not have a Scenario of each? I prefer having it as historically accurate as possible, but I do know that if I play the Allies I have an advantage of not making historical mistakes...therefore I can overcome the uneven odds in the first months rather quickly. So, I think it's best to give the Japs an edge in some places...that way the Allies are kept on their toes.

Blackie -> RE: History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:23:19 PM)
Don`t we have these scenario`s already. Just choose " NO " to PDU`s and yes to computer control for production. Use scenario 15 Historical first move. That should give an historical feel to the game. If you want to unbalance it just add some of the options such as PDU`s or production on.

juliet7bravo -> RE: History or Balance (5/12/2006 10:41:14 PM)
FOOD FOR THOUGHT; with WitP we have a real conundrum. Like a lot of popular games, WitP has a thriving modding community. With the WitP community the catch is that they're ALL, without exception (that I know of) busting their collective a$$es to make the game more historical and realistic. We don't all agree on the definition of "realistic and historical"...but that's cool. It gives us something to get catty about with each other here. Some of these mods are extremely popular, and I don't know of any mod that intentionally set out to make the game MORE unrealistic or ahistorical with the exception of a few deliberate "what if's". The desire for realism and historical accuracy even spun off into a separate game...War Plan Orange. Players use a stack of "house rules" an inch thick in order to introduce realism into gameplay. So what does all that tell you? Just my take...

Nemo121 -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 1:41:50 AM)
One can have both. Model everything historically accurately and you will get historically accurate capabilities. Since this will ensure certain things aren't possible the way to achieve "balance" is by means of the victory conditions. IMO victory can be said to be achieved when a player does better with rigorously accurate capabilities and limitations than was, historically, the case. The balance would be achieved by giving the Japanese player victory if he does better than his historical counterpart. Conversely he or she would lose if they perform more poorly than their historical counterpart. So, you can have both so long as it is understood that in many situations the acme of skill will still not suffice to achieve victory. I remember testing several Combat Mission scenarios for people which players had complained were unwinnable. Of course this was never the case and under normal "first play" conditions each of these scenarios was shown to be eminently winnable BUT it struck me at the time that even if these scenarios were so difficult that survival was impossible this did not preclude setting various victory conditions that would allow players, although annihilated to the last man, to achieve a "victory on points". E.g. I'm sure anyone here would recognise that no matter how well the Japanese player plays the Americans will, eventually, invade the Home Islands but would anyone really think poorly of a Japanese player who managed to delay such an invasion until May 1946 and was still hurting Allied naval and air forces right up to that time? No, I'm sure everyone would recognise that, though defeated, that Japanese player had done an exceptional job.

ChezDaJez -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 1:48:03 AM)
quote: Don`t we have these scenario`s already. Just choose " NO " to PDU`s and yes to computer control for production. Use scenario 15 Historical first move. That should give an historical feel to the game. If you want to unbalance it just add some of the options such as PDU`s or production on. That would be great if Japanese production was correctly modeled in the first place. And the problem you have in modeling production is that it was historically dynamic, not static... and largely dependent upon the importation of oil and resources. The problem with AI production for both sides is that it is static... the same amount of aircraft every month. It should be dynamic reflecting the ebb and flow of battlefield needs. So turning over production to the AI will also result in an ahistorical game. Chez

langley -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 2:09:14 AM)
In my eyes it has to be History every time! However this is a game and it never hurts to have a better Balance. MJT

rroberson -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 2:20:24 AM)
What I would love to be able to have the time to do. Put together a scenario using this image that both sides start off evenly. A PBEM scenario. It's hella hard as the allied player to get your teeth kicked in for a year. By that same token the same applies to the Japanese player to know that the last two years in game will involve said teeth being shoved down your throat. Strip all the units...and put together a non-historical but balanced pbem scenario for all who would desire it. If only I can come up with the time.

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 6:45:35 AM)
Again..., MAKE THE SCENARIO AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE! Screwing around with fantasy is what the EDITOR is for. If you want "Pipedreams in the Pacific", use it! Get the basic game and scenarios "right", and you can go anywhere from there. Get them "wrong" and all you can ever have in non-sense.

mogami -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 8:08:05 AM)
Hi, To make a balanced game just assign a point value to every item factory in game. Now decide how many points each player gets and let them "buy" what they want. (Factory land air naval right down the line it's their call) Give both players the same number of points and then put Japan in Home Islands and Allies in their supply bases and go from there. It will be balanced. It will not be WWII in the pacific. (and you have to find some poor slob who will do all the work editing the files)

Halsey -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 11:04:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Again..., MAKE THE SCENARIO AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE! Screwing around with fantasy is what the EDITOR is for. If you want "Pipedreams in the Pacific", use it! Get the basic game and scenarios "right", and you can go anywhere from there. Get them "wrong" and all you can ever have in non-sense. Yup!!![&o][&o][&o]

walkerd -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 2:25:40 PM)
I do not think a true historical game would work or be fun. The only way to be historical is use no hindsight and have a greater degree of FOW. For myself I would like a mix of the two game styles. I want the game to reward historical style play and punnish unhistorical game play and the only way to do that is have non historical results. For example, I know that Japanese long range torp bombers are unhistorical in their game results. If they were truly as ineffective as people would like then the Allied played would just not worry about Jap air strikes. With hindsight, an unrealistice high knowledge of the system and a total disregard for losses you would simply smash staright through the enemy air strikes. I want the game to reward clever long term strategic thinking, good long term planning and the ability to out think my opponent. It can only do this by being unhistorical. Probably not being clear enough here. I am not suggesting a fantasy land but historical results lead to unhistorical games.

Andrew Brown -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 4:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Again..., MAKE THE SCENARIO AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE! Screwing around with fantasy is what the EDITOR is for. If you want "Pipedreams in the Pacific", use it! Get the basic game and scenarios "right", and you can go anywhere from there. Get them "wrong" and all you can ever have in non-sense. I agree 100%.

Nomad -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 4:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: walkerd I do not think a true historical game would work or be fun. The only way to be historical is use no hindsight and have a greater degree of FOW. For myself I would like a mix of the two game styles. I want the game to reward historical style play and punnish unhistorical game play and the only way to do that is have non historical results. For example, I know that Japanese long range torp bombers are unhistorical in their game results. If they were truly as ineffective as people would like then the Allied played would just not worry about Jap air strikes. With hindsight, an unrealistice high knowledge of the system and a total disregard for losses you would simply smash staright through the enemy air strikes. I want the game to reward clever long term strategic thinking, good long term planning and the ability to out think my opponent. It can only do this by being unhistorical. Probably not being clear enough here. I am not suggesting a fantasy land but historical results lead to unhistorical games. I disagree with the bolded statement. Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:]

rockmedic109 -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 6:02:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Again..., MAKE THE SCENARIO AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE! Screwing around with fantasy is what the EDITOR is for. If you want "Pipedreams in the Pacific", use it! Get the basic game and scenarios "right", and you can go anywhere from there. Get them "wrong" and all you can ever have in non-sense. Well said.

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 6:17:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: walkerd I do not think a true historical game would work or be fun. The only way to be historical is use no hindsight and have a greater degree of FOW. For myself I would like a mix of the two game styles. I want the game to reward historical style play and punnish unhistorical game play and the only way to do that is have non historical results. For example, I know that Japanese long range torp bombers are unhistorical in their game results. If they were truly as ineffective as people would like then the Allied played would just not worry about Jap air strikes. With hindsight, an unrealistice high knowledge of the system and a total disregard for losses you would simply smash staright through the enemy air strikes. I want the game to reward clever long term strategic thinking, good long term planning and the ability to out think my opponent. It can only do this by being unhistorical. Probably not being clear enough here. I am not suggesting a fantasy land but historical results lead to unhistorical games. WALKERD I THINK I understand what you are trying to say, and I have some sympathy for your position. But no one is suggesting that either side be "straitjacketed" into following the exact course of history. What's being argued is that there were actual realistic historical factors that limited just how far afield you can stray from history. Ships can physically only sail so far on a load of fuel. The same for A/C. There are only so many tankers available to service the fleet. As the players have and can't help making use of "hindsight" in their planning, it's important that all these physical factors be adequately and accurately portrayed. What fun is it to claim "I did better than Yamamoto" when it wasn't a matter of you having a better plan (or a dumber opponant)---but that the "simulation" you were using allowed you to do things that he couldn't when constrained by reality? Most of the arguements you are reading come from people who want to compete with reality. Meaning within the same physical constraints as their historical counterparts. Meaning when they have a series of combats involving Zero's and F4F's they want the average result to be something close to the average historical result. If the Allies didn't have hundreds of 4-engined bombers in 1942, then the good Allied player doesn't want them either. He want's what Kinney had, so he can compare himself and his performance to something meaningfull. Yea, it would be much easier to have B-52's and just shatter Japan from San Francisco---but it wouldn't be WW II in the Pacific. It's only possible to have "historical style play" to reward if your assets perform in the manner of their historical counterparts. Otherwise you are just jerking off.

AirGriff -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 7:43:50 PM)
Like you guys say, get as close to the real deal as possible. Then, make a gob of scenarios that stray from historical accuracy (in terms of forces strengths and bases, not game mechanics) by a little to a lot.

dtravel -> RE: History or Balance (5/13/2006 8:20:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:] Wanting historical capabilities is NOT the same as wanting a game that follows history exactly.

Nomad -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 12:33:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:] Wanting historical capabilities is NOT the same as wanting a game that follows history exactly. That is why I put this [&:] smilie, I wasn't sure I was reading his post correctly.

dtravel -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 12:49:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:] Wanting historical capabilities is NOT the same as wanting a game that follows history exactly. That is why I put this [&:] smilie, I wasn't sure I was reading his post correctly. Not meaning to jump on you. I've just seen some people argue that restricting the game to historical capabilities is the same as changing it from a game to a documentary. Which is ahem highly inaccurate and I'm tired of hearing it. My apologies if I came across as over-reacting to what you said.

Grotius -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 9:00:49 AM)
I voted for historical accuracy. One can "balance" a wargame with victory conditions. That said, one must be mindful of what historians call "presentism." We tend to project our knowledge of the past backwards in time, and we may tend to resist too strongly against what-if scenarios. It is ahistorical, in other words, to insist that history must repeat itself. What if the war in Russia had gone significantly worse? I for one have always enjoyed playing wargames that imagine significant shifts in OOBs to reflect these what-ifs. "Uncommon Valor" itself sometimes assumed Midway hadn't been fought. That made for interesting scenarios.

witpqs -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 9:48:57 AM)
Agreed. Those types of variations are both interesting and appropriate.

m10bob -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 12:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius I voted for historical accuracy. One can "balance" a wargame with victory conditions. That said, one must be mindful of what historians call "presentism." We tend to project our knowledge of the past backwards in time, and we may tend to resist too strongly against what-if scenarios. It is ahistorical, in other words, to insist that history must repeat itself. What if the war in Russia had gone significantly worse? I for one have always enjoyed playing wargames that imagine significant shifts in OOBs to reflect these what-ifs. "Uncommon Valor" itself sometimes assumed Midway hadn't been fought. That made for interesting scenarios. I agree...Just like in SPWAW, a defender may have 1200 points and the attacker 15,000, but if the defender met most of his objectives, he wins,(by the computer).[8D]

walkerd -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 3:19:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: walkerd I do not think a true historical game would work or be fun. The only way to be historical is use no hindsight and have a greater degree of FOW. For myself I would like a mix of the two game styles. I want the game to reward historical style play and punnish unhistorical game play and the only way to do that is have non historical results. For example, I know that Japanese long range torp bombers are unhistorical in their game results. If they were truly as ineffective as people would like then the Allied played would just not worry about Jap air strikes. With hindsight, an unrealistice high knowledge of the system and a total disregard for losses you would simply smash staright through the enemy air strikes. I want the game to reward clever long term strategic thinking, good long term planning and the ability to out think my opponent. It can only do this by being unhistorical. Probably not being clear enough here. I am not suggesting a fantasy land but historical results lead to unhistorical games. WALKERD I THINK I understand what you are trying to say, and I have some sympathy for your position. But no one is suggesting that either side be "straitjacketed" into following the exact course of history. What's being argued is that there were actual realistic historical factors that limited just how far afield you can stray from history. Ships can physically only sail so far on a load of fuel. The same for A/C. There are only so many tankers available to service the fleet. As the players have and can't help making use of "hindsight" in their planning, it's important that all these physical factors be adequately and accurately portrayed. What fun is it to claim "I did better than Yamamoto" when it wasn't a matter of you having a better plan (or a dumber opponant)---but that the "simulation" you were using allowed you to do things that he couldn't when constrained by reality? Most of the arguements you are reading come from people who want to compete with reality. Meaning within the same physical constraints as their historical counterparts. Meaning when they have a series of combats involving Zero's and F4F's they want the average result to be something close to the average historical result. If the Allies didn't have hundreds of 4-engined bombers in 1942, then the good Allied player doesn't want them either. He want's what Kinney had, so he can compare himself and his performance to something meaningfull. Yea, it would be much easier to have B-52's and just shatter Japan from San Francisco---but it wouldn't be WW II in the Pacific. It's only possible to have "historical style play" to reward if your assets perform in the manner of their historical counterparts. Otherwise you are just jerking off. What I am saying is those people who want a true historical play will never find it defined by the game parameters. People play far more bloody, with far more insight and hind sight then they did historicaly. If people true want to play historicaly then can just choose to do so. Nothing stopping them. Stop overstacking, stop massive convoys of free supply and fuel, stop massing aircraft to unrealistic levels, when attacking attempt to minimise your own losses, fully prep all invasions etc etc. Find an opponent with the same mind set and away you go. The little things will remian minor irritations but the major game problems can be self limited.

Brausepaul -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 5:10:10 PM)
I think this poll is futile...the majority of US players cries foul if the design doesn't ensure a US victory from the beginning.

Nomad -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 5:12:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brausepaul I think this poll is futile...the majority of US players cries foul if the design doesn't ensure a US victory from the beginning. Kind of depends on how you mean that. If you are saying the Japan has any chance of winning the war, then I would say you are wrong. Both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game. But, the Allies will always win the war.

Brausepaul -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 5:16:57 PM)
Actually that's exactly what I mean, but any discussion about this is futile.

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

2.46875