Is WITP really unrealistic? (Full Version)

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



Message

Knaust -> Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:39:19 PM)

IMHO Witp is heavily biased towards the Allies
1. LRBs erase Jap airfields
2. Jap player cannot prepare a base strike without avoiding retaliation attacks of B17s and Liberators
3. Jap player cannot fake his opponent because the Allied player plans second thus seeing the opponent massing in the Jap airfield
4. Jap subs are of no value, they cannot threat sea lanes because they are regularily sunk by Allied DDs
5. Allied subs seem too strong in the starting years of war
6. in early war Allied LCUs are too strong compared to real war: think of Imperial Guards Division that occupied all of Sumatra during period 8-28 March, or Java surrendered to 48th Div on 8 March...try this in Witp!



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:40:39 PM)

*puts fingers in ears*



Knaust -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:44:21 PM)

please translate[:)]....no fluent English mine[8|]



spence -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:47:23 PM)

Earth to KNAUST. THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC, 1941-1945 WAS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS THE ALLIES. THE JAPANESE WARLORDS WERE DELUDING THEMSELVES THINKING THEY HAD PRAYER OF A CHANCE.



skrewball -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:47:38 PM)

In other words he was pretending not to hear because this topic has be discussed MANY, MANY, MANY times before. You've made good observations, but this has already been argued.



Knaust -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:48:26 PM)

ooppss...sorry[&o]



Knaust -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 7:52:19 PM)

well...but why weren't all those flaws patched?[&:]



Terminus -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:16:49 PM)

Puts K-Pot on head...



Iridium -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:19:21 PM)

Nope, they aren't flaws depending on who you ask to begin with (see spence's response).

It is interesting to see how the game is 'balanced', I guess you could argue that perhaps Dutch and the limited British forces are modeled improperly (too strong) but then that's a whole other can of worms.[:D]



Mike Solli -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:19:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

*puts fingers in ears*


*sneaks up behind anarchyintheuk and yanks his fingers out of his ears so he can experience what the rest of us are currently trying desperately to avoid*



Mike Solli -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Puts K-Pot on head...


K-pot? You're showing your age again, T.[:D]



Terminus -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:31:41 PM)

No, I'm showing my reluctance to have a big lump of steel on my head. Glad the Army had changed to Kevlar by the time I got in. I remember once when I was a kid, trying to lift my dad's steel helmet... [X(]



Feinder -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:42:08 PM)

[sm=00000613.gif]

-F-



pad152 -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:48:34 PM)

Shame on you all for picking on a newbie![:-]

WITP works like this, after Dec 7,1941 history goes out the window, it's now up to you! Things don't work the way you think they should, welcome to WAR![;)] It's just as true today in Iraq has it was in 1941. If you want history, read a book!


Good Luck and Enjoy!



Mike Solli -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 8:53:45 PM)

I used a steel pot in Basic Training.[:(] Kevlar is half the weight. By the way, they're starting to issue a new helmet. I'm pretty sure it's kevlar, but I haven't seen one yet (I'm Guard, you know).[:D]



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 9:26:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

*puts fingers in ears*


*sneaks up behind anarchyintheuk and yanks his fingers out of his ears so he can experience what the rest of us are currently trying desperately to avoid*


*lights himself on fire* [:D]



Ursa MAior -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 9:39:54 PM)

*pours some gasoline on him from a distance and sings Burn baby, bur, disco infreno*



Nemo121 -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 11:14:47 PM)

Knaust,

I'm sorry but I've got to disagree with you on some of your detailed points. I do think that WiTP unrealistically handicaps both sides unrealistically and can also be quite strongly argued to handicap the Japanese a bit more than the Americans BUT:

1. When 400 B-17s hit a medium-sized Japanese base you better believe that base closed down. The problem lies not so much in the effect of this massive raid but in the game dynamics which allow such massive raids to occur unreasonably early and unreasonably often. It should be noted that 400 Helens will close most Allied bases fairly quickly too. They aren't as effective at it as B-17s but it can be done.


2. Completely realistic. In war many things one side or the other would have liked to do to the other were impossible without great risks being run.


3. Yes the ability to KNOW when ships dock and airplanes arrive at a base is unrealistic for BOTH sides. That the Americans go 2nd does give them greater access to exploiting this issue. The solution is to remove this info entirely unless the base is reconned so that neither side has access to this info.


4. Japanese subs are of value. In 4 months of game time I've lost about 6 subs blockading Midway with many more damaged but have sunk at least a half-dozen transports and heavily damaged over a dozen more. I think this is quite reasonable. I have concentrated a lot of effort into my own ASW campaign and have sunk more than 20 Allied subs. My total losses across the map come to 10.


5. Disagree. One can counter them with appropriate application of tactics. In 4 months of war allied subs were only a serious threat in the first month. They are beginning to reappear again but are more of a nuisance than a major threat and are, again, being sunk in significant numbers.


6. This is eminently possible in WiTP and while I WOULD quibble with some of the game mechanisms surrounding the Chinese and governing assumptions of Soviet strength etc I don't agree that Allied units are too tough. They are strong but can be defeated with an appropriate apportionment of forces.


Oh and so far I've played only as the Japanese so I'm hardly inclined to be an "Allied fanboy" as many of the other respondents here are. I think the "Allies are too strong and Japs are too weak" vs "Japs are too strong and allies are too weak" barfights here are pathetic. Instead of examining things objectively they have dug trenches and retreated to them. Barrages of invective with little basis in fact are then occasionally hurled. If everyone would just get together and create a list of OBJECTIVE, observable, reproducible issues which are produced without bias to either side these things could be solved. As it is only flamewars result.


So, there are real issues but I think that most of what you've outlined is either a result of some tactical/operational choices you've made which might be improved upon OR are balanced out by similar issues inflicted on the Allied players. fixing one side without fixing the other will just F things up more.



Mike Solli -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 11:16:40 PM)

Where's that dancing banana when you really need it?[:D]



Kereguelen -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 11:19:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knaust

IMHO Witp is heavily biased towards the Allies
1. LRBs erase Jap airfields
2. Jap player cannot prepare a base strike without avoiding retaliation attacks of B17s and Liberators
3. Jap player cannot fake his opponent because the Allied player plans second thus seeing the opponent massing in the Jap airfield
4. Jap subs are of no value, they cannot threat sea lanes because they are regularily sunk by Allied DDs
5. Allied subs seem too strong in the starting years of war
6. in early war Allied LCUs are too strong compared to real war: think of Imperial Guards Division that occupied all of Sumatra during period 8-28 March, or Java surrendered to 48th Div on 8 March...try this in Witp!


1. Well, they did just this during the war (one could argue about the Allies getting too many 4-E bombers too early, but at least the production rate of B-17's was reduced in stock) - But hey, just try to close an Allied AF with Ms. Sally or Ms. Betty, it's possible, just amass some hundered of them and watch the results...

2.+3. Correct. But the Japanese ability to move his ground forces first evens this out.

4.+5. The success of subs depends largely on the actions of the players' . Completely different results in different games...

6. Actually Japanese divisions are much stronger in the game (TOE-wise) than historically... (and where is the problem with conquering Sumatra with the Imperial Guards alone?????)



Knaust -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 11:21:08 PM)

thx Nemo...
well point 3 could be patched...it is most disappointing for the Jap player[X(]



Big B -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 11:23:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No, I'm showing my reluctance to have a big lump of steel on my head. Glad the Army had changed to Kevlar by the time I got in. I remember once when I was a kid, trying to lift my dad's steel helmet... [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I used a steel pot in Basic Training.[:(] Kevlar is half the weight. By the way, they're starting to issue a new helmet. I'm pretty sure it's kevlar, but I haven't seen one yet (I'm Guard, you know).[:D]


Come on guys - the old steel pot M1 helmet was great. Kevlar - bah.

You can't cook in it, can you?

Besides, I heard that - that ..."Kevlar thing" is only a 4%improvement in ballistic protection. Can that Kevlar helmet stop .45 ACP at 10 feet like the old M1917 tin hat could?

Real men wear steel helmets[;)][:D]

(and they don't use plastic rifles - they use wood and steel .30 cals)



Demosthenes -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/18/2006 11:41:37 PM)

quote:

Is WITP really unrealistic?

You have asked the simple four word question - that hasn't been answered to everyone's satisfaction for over two years...[8|]

But the answer is - Yes and No[;)]



Terminus -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/19/2006 12:31:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Come on guys - the old steel pot M1 helmet was great. Kevlar - bah.

You can't cook in it, can you?

Besides, I heard that - that ..."Kevlar thing" is only a 4%improvement in ballistic protection. Can that Kevlar helmet stop .45 ACP at 10 feet like the old M1917 tin hat could?

Real men wear steel helmets[;)][:D]

(and they don't use plastic rifles - they use wood and steel .30 cals)


And I bet they go to war wearing nothing but that steel pot, their combat boots, web gear and shorts?[:'(]



Big B -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/19/2006 12:47:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Come on guys - the old steel pot M1 helmet was great. Kevlar - bah.

You can't cook in it, can you?

Besides, I heard that - that ..."Kevlar thing" is only a 4%improvement in ballistic protection. Can that Kevlar helmet stop .45 ACP at 10 feet like the old M1917 tin hat could?

Real men wear steel helmets[;)][:D]

(and they don't use plastic rifles - they use wood and steel .30 cals)


And I bet they go to war wearing nothing but that steel pot, their combat boots, web gear and shorts?[:'(]

And nothing under the kilt![:D]



Terminus -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/19/2006 12:57:01 AM)

Hey, I'll take a 4% improvement over a 0% improvement any day of the week, especially if it means that a piece of shrapnel from some roadside bomb doesn't lodge itself in my frontal lobe.



Nemo121 -> RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? (5/19/2006 1:44:03 AM)

For some a piece of shrapnel in the brain could be considered an improvement on their natural state. [:D] ( not referring to you Terminus)



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.983887