RE: History or Balance

RE: 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

Big B -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 5:33:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad 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. quote: ORIGINAL: Brausepaul Actually that's exactly what I mean, but any discussion about this is futile. By "historical" what is meant is that the 'game pieces' function as they would have ITRW - not that history has to be acted out exactly day by day as if we were watching a documentary. What bothers most allied players (and I'm sure some Japanese players too) is that there are so many things that don't act as they did historically - or come in the numbers they actually did, etc. - the net effect of which turns a good part of the game into a semi-fantasy. For example - say 90 Zeros vs 90 F4Fs, with the Zeros shooting down 80 Wildcats and the Wildcats getting maybe 10 Zeros. A very common result in WitP in 1942 - but absolutely no historical basis in reality. This sort of thing destroys realistic game play. Another example - May 1942 - US player is operating 200 B-17s from Port Moresby and pasting Rabaul. Why can the Allied player put 200 B-17s at Rabaul in May 42? Because they were put in the game to balance it for the Allies presumedly. - Both of those examples force a style of game play that will result in unrealistic tactics and outcomes. That's what is meant by Historical vs Balanced. B

Nomad -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 6:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brausepaul Actually that's exactly what I mean, but any discussion about this is futile. I guess I'll go back to being a realistic fanboy. [8D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 7:34:48 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. No problem with this line of thought. "What if's" are always fun. Just be sure the "base line" you are building on is as realistic and accurate as possible. Then you can play with "might have beens". How about Stalin DOESN'T have a paranoid conniption fit fit in the late 30's and gut the Red Army? The Germans get crushed in 1941 and 100% of all Allied efforts go to the Pacific? More likely than a quick victory by Hitler.... Another favorite is the US Navy wakes up and uses some of the "Two-Ocean Navy" funds to test it's torpedoes realistically in 1940. So they start the war with working torpedoes in all tubes. Quite possible once the funds started becomming available. Even something as simple as the U.S. Army's "Design Team" didn't screw up and "fix" the P-39 into an un-supercharged "dog" at higher altitudes. Big problem with most of the more realistic "what if's" in the Pacific war is that they favor the Allies (who historically committed most of the pre-war "boners"). Japan wasn't reading our codes..., suppose the US had made better use of it's code preaking information? Kido Butai runs into dozens of working US subs North of Hawaii, and finds 100+ Fighters flying CAP over Pearl with all the AAA manned and ready. Have fun...

joliverlay -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 7:43:07 PM)
How can you have a game with historical capabilities on both sides (not a science fiction fantasy) an have any reasonable chance of Japanese victory? Most people who know anything about history don't think it possible. Yamato himself is well known to have belived the Japanese had no chance. Japanese wargames before Midway and after, both showing Japan would lose the war were replayed with cheats to give the desired results. My point is, its not bias when we look at the facts and come to the same conclusion as the participants. The Japanease had no chance of a miliatary victory, their top commanders knew it, and their own wargames came to the same conclusion. If we want a historical wargame, the victory conditions have to reflect how well each CNC used his forces, not by who won the war.

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 7:45:51 PM)
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!

joliverlay -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 7:49:13 PM)
I have a suggestion for those who want to see the US lose (or have that possibility) at war in the pacific. We need a modern scenario where the US Navy of the near future (only 140 combatants) is forced to fight an emerging power (India, China), remerging power (Russia) or coalition. Then you can start with historical forces (or something close) and project whatever shipbuilding capability and resource/industry etc. you want. What I'm saying is we need WITP 2010. The game could involve conquest of territory (espeically resource producing areas) or simply control of sea lanes and projection of power. Sim Canada made some wonderful games that did this on the tactical level, we need a modern WITP.

bradfordkay -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 7:54:59 PM)
You can try to resurrect Victory Games "Fleet" series. The boardgame versions were great fun.

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 7:55:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joliverlay How can you have a game with historical capabilities on both sides (not a science fiction fantasy) an have any reasonable chance of Japanese victory? Simple. If you play against an opponent without Allied CiC historical capabilities[:D]

Big B -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 8:56:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl No problem with this line of thought. "What if's" are always fun. Just be sure the "base line" you are building on is as realistic and accurate as possible. Then you can play with "might have beens". How about Stalin DOESN'T have a paranoid conniption fit fit in the late 30's and gut the Red Army? The Germans get crushed in 1941 and 100% of all Allied efforts go to the Pacific? More likely than a quick victory by Hitler.... Another favorite is the US Navy wakes up and uses some of the "Two-Ocean Navy" funds to test it's torpedoes realistically in 1940. So they start the war with working torpedoes in all tubes. Quite possible once the funds started becomming available. Even something as simple as the U.S. Army's "Design Team" didn't screw up and "fix" the P-39 into an un-supercharged "dog" at higher altitudes. Big problem with most of the more realistic "what if's" in the Pacific war is that they favor the Allies (who historically committed most of the pre-war "boners"). Japan wasn't reading our codes..., suppose the US had made better use of it's code preaking information? Kido Butai runs into dozens of working US subs North of Hawaii, and finds 100+ Fighters flying CAP over Pearl with all the AAA manned and ready. Have fun... For some reason most people never consider that "What If's" can go more than just in the Axis favor.[;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/14/2006 10:20:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B For some reason most people never consider that "What If's" can go more than just in the Axis favor.[;)] That's because what MOST of the people who want to play the "what if" game REALLY want is some way for the Japanese to "WIN" the war. I've played around with Japanese "what if's" from time to time, but more with the goal of alowing them to put up a better and more extended defense. Never deluded myself that they had any chance of "winning".

Jim D Burns -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 2:19:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joliverlay I have a suggestion for those who want to see the US lose (or have that possibility) at war in the pacific. LOL I have to laugh at this. In almost two years I've never seen an allied victory posted about on this forum. It's either been a Japanese auto-victory or the Japanese player quits when he fails to achieve auto-victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no allied player has "won" an email game yet have they? Jim

ADavidB -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 3:23:39 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 is non-sense. And if it can't be WitP, it ought to be WitP II for certain! Dave Baranyi

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 3:58:57 AM)
So what are we going to do to placate this 1 in 4 of us who say they only want to play WITP if it is really "War in Fantasyland"..... If they get there way concerning the basic structure of the game, then the rest of us are well and truely "hosed"..... You can't make gold out of crap.....If we get our way, they can still "edit" the game into whatever they want.....But as current experiance shows, once the basic engine is "broken" the best will in the world can't fix it. So how do we get them "on board"?.....They don't seem to even want to discuss or understand the need to get the basics right---a solid foundation on which to build ANY type of edifice.....What can we say or do to bring them into the fold?

mogami -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 4:24:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: joliverlay I have a suggestion for those who want to see the US lose (or have that possibility) at war in the pacific. LOL I have to laugh at this. In almost two years I've never seen an allied victory posted about on this forum. It's either been a Japanese auto-victory or the Japanese player quits when he fails to achieve auto-victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no allied player has "won" an email game yet have they? Jim Hi, Everyone picks on Brady for his pro Japanese slant but he gets most of it from the game Mogami-Brady where he was Allied player and won late 1943. But if the Japanese players are quitting thats an Allied victory just the same. I have 3 PBEM games going as Japan. The Allies have won all of them (they are all in 1943 and Japan is defending) It's just a matter of time. I don't quit as Japan before the victory conditions agreed to before game have been met. If you count non Japanese AV games I think the Allies win more games then they lose. I've yet to read any AAR where Japan won AV where I would have allowed the exploits used. (I would not agree to play that type of game in future) I've grown tired of the fantasy version of the war. even though I am on the losing end as Japan I enjoy those games more then the ones where I have to deal with Japanese who choose to ingnore reality and use the excuse "the game lets me do it" Sorry but the game must have map edges, why must they code logic before a player can understand it?

kafka -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 10:21:54 AM)
Yes, that's absolutely the reason why I stopped playing WitP at all. In my last game, which I started with 1.8, I saw what the continuous pro-allied tweaks towards so called historical accuracy have lead to: The japanese ASW has not sunk a single sub until late April 42, whereas the japanese subs regularly get heavily hit by the allied ASW. (I just ask myself why it took 4 long years for the allies to defeat such a ridiculously weak opponent.) This may be historical but what's the point of playing the Japanese at all? Especially considering how much of your life's time this game requires you to invest. So, I think that as it stands now, it actually is neither an historical simulaztion - which as a game it never will be - nor a balanced game.

herwin -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:18:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Big B For some reason most people never consider that "What If's" can go more than just in the Axis favor.[;)] That's because what MOST of the people who want to play the "what if" game REALLY want is some way for the Japanese to "WIN" the war. I've played around with Japanese "what if's" from time to time, but more with the goal of alowing them to put up a better and more extended defense. Never deluded myself that they had any chance of "winning". The USN planners felt that they had to defeat Japan in two years to avoid war-weariness in America. The hard problem was bringing Japan to the table once the blockade was established based on Phillipine bases. This was what the Japanese planners were assuming, too. Of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor eliminated the problem of keeping the Americans motivated. In WITP II, the Japanese should be able to choose whether they want it all or just the inner resource area. If they attack Hawaii and/or the continental USA, they have to shoot the moon. If they go for limited objectives, it starts a clock that the Allied player has to beat. Look at the card play in Totaler Krieg for a model of how to handle the political decision-making. In fact, a model based on TK card play might work very well as a scenario generator and to provide a political context.

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kafka Yes, that's absolutely the reason why I stopped playing WitP at all. In my last game, which I started with 1.8, I saw what the continuous pro-allied tweaks towards so called historical accuracy have lead to: The japanese ASW has not sunk a single sub until late April 42, whereas the japanese subs regularly get heavily hit by the allied ASW. (I just ask myself why it took 4 long years for the allies to defeat such a ridiculously weak opponent.) This may be historical but what's the point of playing the Japanese at all? Especially considering how much of your life's time this game requires you to invest. So, I think that as it stands now, it actually is neither an historical simulaztion - which as a game it never will be - nor a balanced game. I agree more than 100%. What i'm keep saying here on the boards is that we have bigger issues that must be solved, but no one listen. Instead this, they push "historical" arguments (only when they served their purposes). One of the last examples was rant against ground training - when i make analysis what's wrong with air combat (and thus with pace of the game) all but one (Andy) just pretends that didn't see what i wrote. Look folks, no one expect that Japan should win the war - but i do want reach summer 45 after i achived following goals (i'm quite certain i won't be able to do it): 1. captured almost intact oil and resoures 2. preserved KB and their pilots 3. securing SRA capturing northern Australia 4. destroy Chinese ability to fight and host allied heavies. Is it something wrong with that? I'm trying not to exploit the game, but i admit that someone could consider my moves as exploit. Take a China for example - i'm destroying chinese resources but my main goal is to prevent Allied bombers in China (i'm talking to 200+ heavies early in the 1942). But i do not have intention to conquere whole China and i'm open to house rules if China went so bad... On the other side, i can consider my opponent moves as an exploit but hey we are adults and we can discuss and agree on certain house rules... game isn't perfect historical simulation (is there any perfect historical simulaton) but it is best ever game. We are all different, and have different thoughts about what is exploit or gamey, but we shouldn't consider ourselfs as people who are always right, while others arent (damn Allied or Jap fanboys). I wouldn't like that this post open new pointless discussion, cause i don't think that China is easy to conquer (Oleg showed that in Lunacy game, String kicked me in the China badly). Most players dislike China and don't pay attention to this particular theatre until is too late.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 1:54:59 PM)
I'm surprised there are so many votes for What The F--k In The Pacific. Unbelievable, as a basis for a game based on WW2 in the Pacific anyway.[8\|]

m10bob -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 2:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm surprised there are so many votes for What The F--k In The Pacific. Unbelievable, as a basis for a game based on WW2 in the Pacific anyway.[8\|] Several years ago, there was a gaming magazine called "Strategy Plus", which (then) had been dedicated to military wargames and flight sims,exclusively. Lotsa SST,Microprose, things of that nature. I subscribed because it fit the bill for when I had subscribed to S&T (when pushing counters). Eventually however, "sci-fi" games and Tolkienesque games started crowding in, until wargames were no longer in their monthly coverage, and folks my age were no longer the target audience. My subscription was allowed to expire and I believe the mag is defunct? Shame, because one of the good things I acquired from it was the FREE SPWAW CD from Matrixgames.... Ron, just because a game is designed with a particular historical event in mind, we cannot expect the sci-fi group to avoid trying to rewrite historical event, with totally fictitious means, but then, you already know that........[;)]

Mynok -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 3:28:20 PM)
You can have the most historically accurate scenario and model in the world, and as soon as you make a move it is What the F*K in the Pacific. Simply propaganda by those who want War in the Pacific: The Interactive Movie. There is a reasonable middle ground between making every Jap fighter an F16 and those who scream bloody murder because Japanese players actually want to use their ASW assets against subs. [8\|]

Sonny -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 3:36:08 PM)
The saddest thing about this thread - only 128 votes as of now.[:(]

Grotius -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 5:44:55 PM)
129 votes doesn't strike me as sad, especially given that there are now 1,141 hits to this thread alone. This forum is easily the busiest in the entire Matrix Games forum list, and it's a forum for a two-year-old traditional hex-based turn-based wargame. Most people who play WiTP probably don't post here at all. I'd say WITP has done pretty well for itself all things considered, and I hope they make a WITP-2. I'd pay a premium for it myself. I actually learn stuff virtually every time I come to this forum. I can't say that about many other gaming forums.

mdiehl -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 6:32:24 PM)
quote: Look folks, no one expect that Japan should win the war - but i do want reach summer 45 after i achived following goals (i'm quite certain i won't be able to do it): 1. captured almost intact oil and resoures 2. preserved KB and their pilots 3. securing SRA capturing northern Australia 4. destroy Chinese ability to fight and host allied heavies. Is it something wrong with that? Indeed there is something quite wrong with that. In general these objectives weren't achievable by the real Japanese bacause nothing that they could have done or considered doing could bring that about. 1. The oil reserves weren't captured intact. Most of them were very heavily damaged. And not by "engineer" units but rather by the civilian contractors who ran them. 2. If you want to preserve Mobile Force's pilots the only way to do that is to not use them. That's pretty much going to remove most of the historical actions and conquests (much less the grandiose land grabs to which you aspire) from the buffet of Japanese options. 3. Capturing Northern Australia was not doable at any time during the war. Ditto Hawaii or any place in India or Sri Lanka. The Japanese lacked sufficient merchant and transport capacity. IJA's own estimations said that 11 Army divisions would be required to invade northern Australia, and even then you'd have supply ships tied up keeping said expeditionary force supplied (and returning from Australia to Japan in ballast). The net effect would be a rapidly deteriorating expeditionary force stranded in the middle of nowhere grasping an Australian tar baby, and Japan's economy driven straight into the toilet that much faster. 4. Japan had effectively destroyed China's ability to fight. The problem was that Japan did not have the manpower or resources to occupy China securely. There was no way Japan was going to extend its control over China without doubling the size of the IJA in China. Something that Japan would not have been able to do absent the sort of resources available to the United States. So, in a nutshell, yes there is definitely something wrong with the list of "achievable goals" that you desire. None of them, if doable at all, put the Japanese player in the driver's seat of a machine at all like the real historical Japan. The game you want is Masters of Orion.

Andy Mac -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 6:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk 1. captured almost intact oil and resoures 2. preserved KB and their pilots 3. securing SRA capturing northern Australia 4. destroy Chinese ability to fight and host allied heavies. I wouldn't like that this post open new pointless discussion, cause i don't think that China is easy to conquer (Oleg showed that in Lunacy game, String kicked me in the China badly). Most players dislike China and don't pay attention to this particular theatre until is too late. Pauk I am not going to comment on all your points operational security and all that [:D][:D] I would argue that China is pretty much a basket case for one reason only. The ability of the IJAAF to destroy supply production and the high supply requirement of Chinese units (I owuld also argue that Japanese supply requirements are to high). Masses of Sallies etc escorted by Zeroes in the early war are unstoppable by the allies there is NO way China can survive against a competent Japanese player who actually pays attention to China and destroys the industry IMO. The Chinese ORBAT is to small and supply generation is either to small or units require to much. It is also to vulnerable. Unfortuantely if you give China a historical ORBAT the allies could abuse it by ahistorically combining RED and Nationalalist forces with the warlords to eject the Japanese so it is a catch 22 IMO.

Speedysteve -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 6:58:18 PM)
I do agree that China is too easy to conquer. IRL there was NO way Japan could overrun China. In game it is possible. There is no doubt in my mind that in local encounters and in a defined area the IJA was superior but the scale of China and the implications of control are too great for Japan to manage IRL

TulliusDetritus -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 7:26:29 PM)
"History or balance"? History, always history [:)]

moses -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 7:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy I do agree that China is too easy to conquer. IRL there was NO way Japan could overrun China. In game it is possible. There is no doubt in my mind that in local encounters and in a defined area the IJA was superior but the scale of China and the implications of control are too great for Japan to manage IRL I believe that China is now fully defensable in the game. I consider it almost impossible for me to lose China to any aliied player. Further I think that a normal player who simply masses his forces will be able to hold off Japan with relative ease. It is now completly sufficiient to mass forces at Changsa to prevent the routs that were normal when the game first came out. True a dedicated Japanese air offensive can be executed. In this case the allies should send the AVG and british fighters to China ASAP. Japan cannot reduce China's industry without significant commitment of zero squadrens and heavy losses of these aircraft. So perhaps if Japan is willing to sacrifice several hundred zero's to reduce China's industry he may eventually prevail. But it will be deep into 43 at the earliest against a decent allied opponent.

bradfordkay -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 8:31:33 PM)
" If you count non Japanese AV games I think the Allies win more games then they lose. " Russ, isn't autovictory just about the only way the Japanese CAN win the game? YOu can't throw out the autovictory results because they are victories by Japanese players. If a game does not end in a Japanese autovictory, then it most likely is going to end in an allied victory. The problem here is not favoritism for either side; it's the pace of operations. The fast pace allows for ahistorical Japanese expansion (Northern Australia, Hawaii, India, etc) and for an ahistorical allied return to dominance (cleaning up the Marianas in 1943, etc).

m10bob -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 8:41:02 PM)
The original Japanese intent was to temporarily disable the Allied ability to retaliate, while capturing very important natural resources and consolidating the peoples of what they called the "Asiatic co-prosperity sphere".. The Japanese intended these things to occur by nlt 1943.. Why not have a mod which replicates this, and allow the Japanese a chance to win by the accomplishment of these points by a certain date? Is this considered already in the "auto victory" rules? I tried to play the Japanese side once, and was absolutely overwhelmed by the amount of inherent micro-management REQUIRED for the Japanese player.....

bradfordkay -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 8:46:30 PM)
" Is this considered already in the "auto victory" rules? " In a word... Yes.

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

3.789063