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

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 9:20:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay " 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). AUTOVICTORY is not a Japanese "win". It is simply meeting an arbitrarily established set of numbers of "VP's". A "VP" is another arbitrary valuation of some factor or location. And arbitrary goals and values create arbitrary game play. And unfortunately, "If a game does not end in a Japanese autovictory, then it most likely is going to end" with the Japanese Player quitting because he didn't "win". If the game is playing "too fast", there are two potential problems. One is that the restrictions and costs of doing things have been underrepresented. That can be corrected. The other is the advantage that "hindsight" gives players. That is probably not fixable short of "brain wiping" the players (not really a feasible prospect). A lot of the problems can be corrected with limitations on what the player's can reasonably do. I've heard of Allied players literally "stripping India" to reinforce Burma, or Malaysia or even the Dutch East Indies. This is totally idiotic given the value of India to the British Empire---but players will swear it's accurate because "the game allows it"? Wake up gang! The designers weren't infallible geniuses. They could (and did) screw up with the best of us. "The game permits it" is a crappy arguement for use by either side. Does anyone REALLY think the Soviets would have sat nailed to the ground watching the Japanese reinforce their Manchurian Army and position it to "jump" them and sieze their lines of communication? The game does just that, and has been the basis for many "house rules" and player agreements. Fix the games failings (as many are trying to do) and you eliminate much of what folks are fighting about.

bradfordkay -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 9:27:20 PM)
" AUTOVICTORY is not a Japanese "win". " Mike, an "autovictory" is a case of the player "winning the game", not the war. Is that not what was being asked about here? Is this not an approximation of what the Japanese thought that they would have to do to win the war (make the war so costly to the allies that they would sue for peace)? It is the mechanism that allows for a Japanese victory. It is my opinion that if the Japanese player cannot reach an autovictory, then he will lose the game as it presently stands (due to the speed of the allied build up in the game).

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 9:40:09 PM)
quote: Mike, an "autovictory" is a case of the player "winning the game", not the war. Win based on WHAT? Having met a bunch of arbitrarily established goals? That was my point. The "victory conditions' are arbitrary totals of arbitrary values. No matter who sets them, someone else can argue that they are too easy, or too hard, or too silly. If "winning" is that important, just make up your own victory conditions. When you meet one, reward yourself with a beer. Your opponant can do likewise---you'll both enjoy the experiance a lot more. If you are too generous in awarding yourself "victories" you'll get loaded and your opponant will take advantage of you..., it's even "self correcting".

Big B -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 9:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl ... I've heard of Allied players literally "stripping India" to reinforce Burma, or Malaysia or even the Dutch East Indies. This is totally idiotic given the value of India to the British Empire---but players will swear it's accurate because "the game allows it"? Wake up gang! The designers weren't infallible geniuses. They could (and did) screw up with the best of us. "The game permits it" is a crappy arguement for use by either side. ..... I seldom disagree with you Mike, and I may not be in disagreement now(depending on what you meant above) but as far as I have heard there were 1.5 million more Indian Army troops in India garrisoning it that are not on the OOB. So moving out just about everything that WitP gives you in India - to fight the Japanese in Burma before they can get to India seems to me a valid point of view. Not unlike MacArthur making the battle for Australia in New Guinea. Just my two cents.. B

Cap Mandrake -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 10:03:39 PM)
I vote for historical accuracy..with game winner determined by victory conditions set to be achievable by both sides. That being said, there is also the enjoyment factor. In order to be fun, the side with inferior resources has to at least retain some capacity for counterattack or surprise. For eg., an August 45 scenario for Japan might have the victory condition "lose only one city to atomic attack" or"put out the fire in Tokyo before 95% of the city is destroyed. Where is the fun in that? Similarly, allowing the Jap player to modify his production at least permits him some surprise.

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl 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. greetings, . 1. but i do captured oilfields intacts!... do you, do you realise what you said? I captured oilfields 80% damaged, and this seems ok? now, can i remind you this is game? sometimes you done well,sometimes you get screwed... well that is the life - i do not want to play repeat of the history... 2. i do not agree. From someone who never played the game it is courageous claim....the fact is that Allies (what is reasonable) avoid confrontation....i was careful i admit... but my opponent was too....[:D].. so what do you want to say? If i want to be a honourable player i had to trow them in PH/Australia area and let hope that my KB wont be oblirated? But there is catch, if i win, then something is wrong is with the game because it wasnt historical? As for my grandious actions - hey, i outplayed my opponent... i'm not guilty for that. If i went for India (what he was expect) then i would be screwed even before the game really started....so, what' s wrong with that? Japan can be screwed in 1942 but Allies cant???? 3. we are not understand each other - i'm talking about historical game, but you are talking about history....now, i have a degree in history and i'm not interested in 100 % repeating history... he screwed, i took what he offer me..... but i didn't conquer the whole Australia.... 4.but i've done that... we are playing with PDU and i expect i would be bombed to stone age soon.... that's why i take all the measures to cancel this threat..... and the last, you just don't understand what i've tried to say....what is wrong with my achiveble goals? you may argue that this wasnt historical (ok, let's say it wasnt) but you cant say I shouldn't be able to defence Japan until 1945? after all, isn't that what Alllies want ???

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:33:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac 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. Greetings, you are right about IJAAF and their abilities. I admit that.... but i'm little paranoic when we talk about MY oil, MY industry so you can understand why i destroyed allied bomber offensive ability[;)] It may suprise you, but i do think that Allies can do something in China...I wouldn't sent my precious Samurais (zero pilots) and bombers in China if they have to meet with AVG... so you choose to use them in DEI - but please keep in mind that i'm player who looks for the weakest spots in the enemy defence, not the strongest ones[;)] Next, you was delighted how i'm using paras in China, but the fact is - paras win the war in the China - you just failed to secure bases which i was able to capture. If you done with that, i would be demoralised..... but anyway, I have the hunch that you will victorious in the end of the game[:D]

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:36:03 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 greeting Speedy.... the problem with China you cant affort a single mistake - doesn't matter if you are Allied or Jap.... one who made mistake in china is screwed.... so historical result will be achived if no one make mistake..... my HO

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: moses 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 I offer my answer before i saw your post.... And answer is yes - im not willing to sacrifice my samurais to reduce China's industry....

Big B -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:40:13 PM)
Pauk, Just for the record - I want the Japanese player to be able to attempt to do anything he dreams of. I don't want a rule saying the Japanese player can't try to invade California (for example) while at the same time he attempts an invasion of Karachi. I just want to be able to fight realistically with what I have on hand(as the allied player), so that regardless of what ever the Japanese player decides to do - I don't feel like my units are so underrated rated I am supposed to lose until 1944[;)][8D] B quote: ORIGINAL: pauk quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl 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. greetings, . 1. but i do captured oilfields intacts!... do you, do you realise what you said? I captured oilfields 80% damaged, and this seems ok? now, can i remind you this is game? sometimes you done well,sometimes you get screwed... well that is the life - i do not want to play repeat of the history... 2. i do not agree. From someone who never played the game it is courageous claim....the fact is that Allies (what is reasonable) avoid confrontation....i was careful i admit... but my opponent was too....[:D].. so what do you want to say? If i want to be a honourable player i had to trow them in PH/Australia area and let hope that my KB wont be oblirated? But there is catch, if i win, then something is wrong is with the game because it wasnt historical? As for my grandious actions - hey, i outplayed my opponent... i'm not guilty for that. If i went for India (what he was expect) then i would be screwed even before the game really started....so, what' s wrong with that? Japan can be screwed in 1942 but Allies cant???? 3. we are not understand each other - i'm talking about historical game, but you are talking about history....now, i have a degree in history and i'm not interested in 100 % repeating history... he screwed, i took what he offer me..... but i didn't conquer the whole Australia.... 4.but i've done that... we are playing with PDU and i expect i would be bombed to stone age soon.... that's why i take all the measures to cancel this threat..... and the last, you just don't understand what i've tried to say....what is wrong with my achiveble goals? you may argue that this wasnt historical (ok, let's say it wasnt) but you cant say I shouldn't be able to defence Japan until 1945? after all, isn't that what Alllies want ???

pauk -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:45:28 PM)
hi, Big B... if you choose to play with me, you will found you aren't suppose to lose until 1944.....[;)]

Big B -> RE: History or Balance (5/15/2006 11:55:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk hi, Big B... if you choose to play with me, you will found you aren't suppose to lose until 1944.....[;)] Good to know, one of these days I'll take you up on it[8D][;)]

mdiehl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 12:09:09 AM)
quote: 1. but i do captured oilfields intacts!... do you, do you realise what you said? I captured oilfields 80% damaged, and this seems ok? now, can i remind you this is game? sometimes you done well,sometimes you get screwed... well that is the life - i do not want to play repeat of the history... Like I said. Masters of Orion. You don't have to play a game that is a "repeat of history" if you have a game that is built around a suite of core assumptions that limits game capability to something like historical capability. As others have pointed out, that is a straw man argument. In the real world most of the refineries were captured substantially damaged. That should always be replicated in the game, because the causes for their damage were wholly beyond the "players" control. It's not the sort of thing that one could plausibly argue should be randomly determined. quote: 2. i do not agree. From someone who never played the game it is courageous claim....the fact is that Allies (what is reasonable) avoid confrontation....i was careful i admit... but my opponent was too.... .. so what do you want to say? If i want to be a honourable player i had to trow them in PH/Australia area and let hope that my KB wont be oblirated? It's neither a courageous claim nor a shirking one. It is a fact. If a player wants a game about WW2 in the Pacific then the only way to substantially preserve mobile force's pilot pool (if the game has any resemblence to history) would be to not use mobile force. There's no getting around the basic fact that Japan never had the capability to train pilots at a sufficient rate to meet operaitonal losses, much less combat losses. The instant you change that parameter you stop playing a game that bears much resemblence to WW2, because there is no compelling argument to be made that the real Japanese COULD have ramped up pilot training to meet attritional losses. quote: As for my grandious actions - hey, i outplayed my opponent... i'm not guilty for that. If i went for India (what he was expect) then i would be screwed even before the game really started....so, what' s wrong with that? Japan can be screwed in 1942 but Allies cant???? If you want a game about WW2 in the Pacific one of the management problems that the Japanese player should ALWAYS face is the absence of sufficient transports and cargo vessels. If the game is correctly modeled, then if a Japanese player decides he wants to invade Australia, he should need about 10 divisions and on doing it he should discover that (a) he's captured nothing important because, (b) he lacks sufficient strength to take the populated areas and, (c) his expeditionary force is dying for want of supplies. quote: 3. we are not understand each other - i'm talking about historical game, but you are talking about history....now, i have a degree in history and i'm not interested in 100 % repeating history... he screwed, i took what he offer me..... but i didn't conquer the whole Australia.... This thread is not about your game. It's about what players desire as a general suite of paramaters for the look and feel of a WW2 PTO game. quote: and the last, you just don't understand what i've tried to say....what is wrong with my achiveble goals? you may argue that this wasnt historical (ok, let's say it wasnt) but you cant say I shouldn't be able to defence Japan until 1945? If you are talking about a game you played using the current WitP engine these goals are what they are and perhaps achievable by you using WitP. But then, WitP is lousy fare for people who want a game that accurately models the basic power projection capabilities of the opponents. If you want a game about the Pacific Theater in World War 2 on Planet Earth then the goals you espouse should not be achievable. They were beyond Japans' capabilities, and nothing Japan could have done would have changed their capabailities sufficient to achieve any of these goals in the time frame from 1938-1946. Maybe by 1955 if they'd avoided war for long enough and been given enough economic leeway to fully industrialize. Sure Japan should be able to last into mid 1945. But that is a completely different goal from the previous four that you mentioned.

Sonny -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 12:11:47 AM)
Guess I spoke too soon. The count is up tp 141 now. Wonder how many people have to show an interest in this poll for Matrix to give the go-ahead for WitP II.

mlees -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 12:14:25 AM)
quote: Does anyone REALLY think the Soviets would have sat nailed to the ground watching the Japanese reinforce their Manchurian Army and position it to "jump" them and sieze their lines of communication? The game does just that, and has been the basis for many "house rules" and player agreements. Fix the games failings (as many are trying to do) and you eliminate much of what folks are fighting about. I agree with the sentiment of the post. I must stray off topic. Can't help it, it's genetic. Stalin had plenty of warnings about the German build up of late '40 and early '41. So in answer to your question: A solid "Maybe". He chose to ignore it. I don't know why. All I know is that Stalin, who had an iron fist on the government there, did not think like you or me.

Mynok -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 12:23:13 AM)
quote: Just for the record - I want the Japanese player to be able to attempt to do anything he dreams of. I don't want a rule saying the Japanese player can't try to invade California (for example) while at the same time he attempts an invasion of Karachi. I just want to be able to fight realistically with what I have on hand(as the allied player), so that regardless of what ever the Japanese player decides to do - I don't feel like my units are so underrated rated I am supposed to lose until 1944 I don't know if Japan should be allowed to do anything, but I agree 100% with you on the principle: get the model, OOB and scenario as accurate as possible, then lets play the game how we want. Unfortunately, I'm 100% certain that no game designer could come up with a model that satisfied everyone here.

witpqs -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 12:28:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees I agree with the sentiment of the post. I must stray off topic. Can't help it, it's genetic. Stalin had plenty of warnings about the German build up of late '40 and early '41. So in answer to your question: A solid "Maybe". He chose to ignore it. I don't know why. All I know is that Stalin, who had an iron fist on the government there, did not think like you or me. True - always the only true answer to this will be 'maybe', but it is far less likely that he would have made that particular mistake a second time.

el cid again -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 12:36:59 AM)
quote: 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. You might wish to consider a career in comedy: Japan takes on the USA (10 times its size), the Asian elements of the British Empire, the Dutch East Indies (which has an armed forces larger than many nations), China, and, eventually, the USSR - and you want an "equal" chance of winning? I don't think my imagination stretches that far. Once a mechanical game was done that gave Japan an outside chance: Japanese players wrote "thanks for giving us any chance." That is about as good as it gets.

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 2:42:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees quote: Does anyone REALLY think the Soviets would have sat nailed to the ground watching the Japanese reinforce their Manchurian Army and position it to "jump" them and sieze their lines of communication? The game does just that, and has been the basis for many "house rules" and player agreements. Fix the games failings (as many are trying to do) and you eliminate much of what folks are fighting about. I agree with the sentiment of the post. I must stray off topic. Can't help it, it's genetic. Stalin had plenty of warnings about the German build up of late '40 and early '41. So in answer to your question: A solid "Maybe". He chose to ignore it. I don't know why. All I know is that Stalin, who had an iron fist on the government there, did not think like you or me. But in December of 1941, Russia had already been at war for 6 months, and quite a number of Generals had already been shot for Stalin's incompetance. Excellent incentive for the Far East Commanders NOT to "sit on their hands". Plus Sorge had already told the Russians that the Japanese had decided AGAINST attacking Russia. Had the decision been to attack, they would have known it as well. But most of all, given the number of other things the designers got wrong in the set up, do you REALLY believe that the incompetant mess shown on the map actually reflects the Soviet deployment at the time? The point of my message was that there are a lot of things players are allowed to do (and to know they can do) in the game that their real life counterparts could not (on BOTH sides), and that those things need correction. Just as it is idiotic to allow the Allies to be able to abandon India and move the garrison elsewhere for "free", it's equally idiotic for them to have to pay PP's to move Dutch units from Borneo to Java. There is too much idiocy allowed BOTH sides in the original game..., which leads to some idiotic games and AAR's.

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 2:53:31 AM)
quote: Just for the record - I want the Japanese player to be able to attempt to do anything he dreams of. I don't want a rule saying the Japanese player can't try to invade California (for example) while at the same time he attempts an invasion of Karachi. Don't think anyone is saying this. But I do want him to have to face the same original constraints that kept the Japanese from trying anything of the sort. Lack of shipping, lack of troops, lack of supply, lack of cooperation and coordination between the IJA and the IJN, etc. Sure the Japanese MIGHT have landed a batallion on the West Coast or in India. But remember this is the same military that was having worries how they were going to supply a garrison at Midway if they took it. I don't want to tell the players what to do with their forces..., but I do want them to face the same limitations and physical constraints as their historical counterparts. If you are going to play Yamamoto, you need to be faced with Yamamoto's real choices and limits. Otherwise it's just a big Saturday Morning Cartoon.

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 3:01:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl ... I've heard of Allied players literally "stripping India" to reinforce Burma, or Malaysia or even the Dutch East Indies. This is totally idiotic given the value of India to the British Empire---but players will swear it's accurate because "the game allows it"? Wake up gang! The designers weren't infallible geniuses. They could (and did) screw up with the best of us. "The game permits it" is a crappy arguement for use by either side. ..... I seldom disagree with you Mike, and I may not be in disagreement now(depending on what you meant above) but as far as I have heard there were 1.5 million more Indian Army troops in India garrisoning it that are not on the OOB. So moving out just about everything that WitP gives you in India - to fight the Japanese in Burma before they can get to India seems to me a valid point of view. Not unlike MacArthur making the battle for Australia in New Guinea. Just my two cents.. B If you include the mialtary constabulary and such, that's about right for the theatre command. Which only PROVES the point I was making. India was far too valuable to the Brits for it to be "stripped" to send troops anyplace else---especially with no PP cost. Remember, it was Australian Forces coming Home from the Middle East that Churchill tried to divert to Burma and Malaysia. Why "piss off" the Australians if there were plenty of redily available Indian troops to send? Because India was "The Jewel in the Crown".

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 3:13:12 AM)
Everybody keeps saying they voted for historical accuracy..., but "Fantasyland" keeps gaining ground in the poll. Are the "History Fan-Boys" explaining themselves that poorly? What is keeping us from getting through to these folks that "historically accurate constraints" are simply a necessary "base line" for everybody to have what they want? Nothing in a realistically constructed basic game prevents the "fantasy fans" from building their own "imaginary edifices" on that base. Are they that SELFISH? Do they only want a game which is a farce that caters to their pipedreams? The view seems to be that not only do they want a game that ignores reality in favor of "balance", but that no-one else should be allowed reality either.

witpqs -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 3:23:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Everybody keeps saying they voted for historical accuracy..., but "Fantasyland" keeps gaining ground in the poll. Ballot Box Stuffing? [&:] [:'(]

m10bob -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 7:25:51 AM)
Not exact numbers, mind you, but who would you put your money on,a nation that built 10 aircraft carriers during the war, or the nation that built 40? Which nation was stretching its' resources, and which was basically stretching its' muscles? Well, of course somebody does not have a chance to win, (if historical considerations ARE a consideration.) Methinks some folks would better be served with a good ol' fashioned game of RISK.........[;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 8:21:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Not exact numbers, mind you, but who would you put your money on,a nation that built 10 aircraft carriers during the war, or the nation that built 40? Which nation was stretching its' resources, and which was basically stretching its' muscles? Well, of course somebody does not have a chance to win, (if historical considerations ARE a consideration.) Methinks some folks would better be served with a good ol' fashioned game of RISK.........[;)] This is where the problem arises. MOST of us seem to want a basic game scenario that reflects the realities you mention (actually the US built more like 100 Aircraft Carriers). Make a basic game that reflects this basic truth..., the Allies were going to kick the living hell out of Japan and there wasn't a damned thing the Japanese could do about it. That's reality. The Japanese player can do whatever he can to stave off the inevitable. That's the basis for judging his performance. Now once that game is built, those who want fantasy of whatever kind can whip out the editor and build whatever kind of scenario they want. Give Japan unlimited trained pilots; double the range of all her aircraft; give the IJN extra ships, and the IJA extra troops; toss in some "midgets"; whatever you want to do. Have a ball! I for one will cheer you on, and enjoy reading the AAR's..., just don't ask me to play it. Just first agree to let the rest of us have reality..., then you can screw with it any way you like.

kafka -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 9:44:44 AM)
quote: Everybody keeps saying they voted for historical accuracy..., but "Fantasyland" keeps gaining ground in the poll. Are the "History Fan-Boys" explaining themselves that poorly? What is keeping us from getting through to these folks that "historically accurate constraints" are simply a necessary "base line" for everybody to have what they want? Nothing in a realistically constructed basic game prevents the "fantasy fans" from building their own "imaginary edifices" on that base. Are they that SELFISH? Do they only want a game which is a farce that caters to their pipedreams? The view seems to be that not only do they want a game that ignores reality in favor of "balance", but that no-one else should be allowed reality either. I want historical accuracy, too. So, I agree with you. In reality, there should be no way for Japan to win the war. This is a basic as a simple rule. But thats not the point. Historical accuracy so far applies to the data base of the game. Here the first question arises, how do you want to map reality to the data base? You may define as many attributes you like to map so many reality factors as possible - but even at this level of software development you'll have to restrict yourself and thus decide which attributes to implement and which values to assign to them. First of all, the game is a piece of software, and this is its reality. So though you may define a database so historically accurate as possible, the game may still fail being a so called historical simulation as a whole. It depends on the game design and its implementation, on the game mechanics. The other extreme is having a perfect historically accurate game which totally fails as a game, which after all this piece of software is. As I stated above: This game, due to its scope and complexity, requires you so much of your life's time that a functional gameplay is absolutely essential. So, what I want to say is that not every one which calls for historical accuracy in a game does mean the same kind of mapping of reality to the game data base and mechanics. By the way, I hope the my English is understandable enough.

Ursa MAior -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 1:57:55 PM)
Even being an IJN fanboy I have to admit that after the attack on PH, there was no chance for Japan to win the war, neither with conditional surrender nor with breaking the US's will to fight. BUT what if a proper DOW has been made? What if there was no sneak attack? (see surprise off). After losing say 4-5 out of the available US 8 CVs, many BBs plus almost everything in the Pacific + SRA, why it would have not been enough for the public to call it off? I dont say that after dealing with Germany things would have stayed the same but for 1941-1945 the war would have been over in the Pacific. Sorry one more thing I am for historical what ifs. If an IJN player wants to invade West Coast why not? Is he able to bring enough troops and secure the supply? Probably not but let him blood out himsself trying it. Same with US landings in early 42. IMHO no invasion force should start without at least one week of supply. No one would send his troops into starvation willingly. My 0.02 $.

Sonny -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 5:31:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl ................................... Just first agree to let the rest of us have reality..., then you can screw with it any way you like. The problem is everyones reality is different. People want the situation as it was Dec. 7 1941 - but they only want some of it. Rather than being restricted by the situations the real commanders faced they want to do anything they can think of and justify it by "If I wanted to repeat history I'd read a book instead." Or "They could have done this or that." Or "One time it happened during the war so why can't I do that?" From what I've seen on the forum people want a tactical game/sim they can play "what-if" the way they want instead of a strategic game/sim they can play "what-if".

Mike Scholl -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 5:48:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sonny The problem is everyones reality is different. People want the situation as it was Dec. 7 1941 - but they only want some of it. Rather than being restricted by the situations the real commanders faced they want to do anything they can think of and justify it by "If I wanted to repeat history I'd read a book instead." Or "They could have done this or that." Or "One time it happened during the war so why can't I do that?" From what I've seen on the forum people want a tactical game/sim they can play "what-if" the way they want instead of a strategic game/sim they can play "what-if". It's not about the "situation", it's about the physical mechanics. It took every fleet oiler the Japanese had to get Kido Butai to PH and back---but the game allows the Japanese player to hang around for weeks hunting cripples and raiding merchant pipelines. REALITY wouldn't allow that..., but the game does. I took Buna from Pt. Moresby via the Kokada Trail over the Owen Stanley's. Took my troops over a month to walk that trail. Yet the turn after I took it I had 1,000's of supply and fuel points magically projected from Pt Moresby to Buna. Reality no..., Horseshit...absolutely! But it's in the game. There are dozens of things like this making a joke of the idea of "historical simulation". How you use the forces SHOULD be pretty much up to the player. But the forces themselves, and the mechanics of the game which govern their use need to be as accurate as is possible to the actual capabilities of those forces. That's what the folks pushing for REALITY are asking for. Use your forces as you wish...., as long as the rules and capabilities of those forces are held to the same basic physical realities as those of your real life counterparts.

m10bob -> RE: History or Balance (5/16/2006 5:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Not exact numbers, mind you, but who would you put your money on,a nation that built 10 aircraft carriers during the war, or the nation that built 40? Which nation was stretching its' resources, and which was basically stretching its' muscles? Well, of course somebody does not have a chance to win, (if historical considerations ARE a consideration.) Methinks some folks would better be served with a good ol' fashioned game of RISK.........[;)] This is where the problem arises. MOST of us seem to want a basic game scenario that reflects the realities you mention (actually the US built more like 100 Aircraft Carriers). Make a basic game that reflects this basic truth..., the Allies were going to kick the living hell out of Japan and there wasn't a damned thing the Japanese could do about it. That's reality. The Japanese player can do whatever he can to stave off the inevitable. That's the basis for judging his performance. Now once that game is built, those who want fantasy of whatever kind can whip out the editor and build whatever kind of scenario they want. Give Japan unlimited trained pilots; double the range of all her aircraft; give the IJN extra ships, and the IJA extra troops; toss in some "midgets"; whatever you want to do. Have a ball! I for one will cheer you on, and enjoy reading the AAR's..., just don't ask me to play it. Just first agree to let the rest of us have reality..., then you can screw with it any way you like. [sm=00000436.gif]

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

4.570313