Smarter..., or just Frustrated?

Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (Full Version)

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

Message

Mike Scholl -> Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 7:37:31 PM)
One of the interesting points made in the "Are JFB's smarter?" thread was that they seem to contribute a large portion of the "mods" being offerred. Does this signify a high IQ, or merely the desire to make the Japanese side more playable? I can't imagine an AFB deciding to make a mod where the Japanese suffer their worst historical fears on turn one (the Allies ARE alerted, CAP up, Guns manned and ready, troops and ships already reacting.). It would be historical from the Japanese point-of-view, as they were certainly worried about it..., but it would just make a tough situation tougher. So maybe it's not that JFB's are smarter, but just that they have so many more "pipe dream wishes" to try to fulfill. Much easier to "psych yourself up" for the slog of doing a mod with the goal of altering history that just to make history play out quicker. My thoughts, anyway.

Feinder -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 8:27:07 PM)
While I'm fairly sure your post isn't serious, I'll respond "seriously" anyway. You don't see many "up gunned" mods for the Allies, because they really don't need it. Creating a mod where PH/Sing isn't surprised, or the IJN has decided they already have too many pilots, isn't necessary, because all it would do is expire Japan that much earlier. Just for fun, I did create a "Final Countdown" scenario (like the movie from the 80s) with a Nimitz-class CVN. It's not just a matter of adding one ship and a few aircraft types. I also had to add a bunch of devices (the guns, bombs, missles, radars of the planes and vessel as welll). However, in one of the recent patches (v1.8 I think), it stopped working, and I haven't bothered to go in an re-fix everything. I also did a Midway Scenario, but like Final Countdown, it was broken by a patch. That one was huge tho. And punching all that in the DB again, is a major task - not high on the priority list to fix. I think the JFBs do indulge in a bit of "historical fancy" in their mods - some creating mods that pronouce a great many "what ifs" in favor of Japan. But I think the changes are more intended to keep Japan competitive for longer, simply because they prefer to play Japan. I'd also say the "best" mods are not partisan as well. Consider CHS as a mod. They've done a lot of research in order to everyone's OB better. And then there's Nik's flak and a2a mod, and I think BigB has one as well. Those are "neutral" mods that attempt to enhance game-play, but they really haven't done anyting with the OB to specifically weigh one side over the other. -F-

rockmedic109 -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 8:39:56 PM)
The war is so stacked against Japan {in the long run} that making it tougher in the first six months just makes it less challenging {from the allied side}. At least against the AI. I do not PBEM. So my thinking my be skewed, but it would seem that hindsight, more knowledge than was historical, differing strategy {Japan's strategy was to take what they wanted/needed in six months then sue for peace}, and a more daring {going after India, Australia, etc} strategy will all conspire to give the Japanese for more gains in 6 months than was likely historically.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 8:42:38 PM)
Call it "Semi-Serious". And we seem to be in general agreement that it really comes down to would this kind of mod be fun to play? And I agree, the best seem to be aimed at trying to "fix' some of the more obvious historic, geographic, and OB errors the designers put in. Thank God for Andrew and Nick and such....

Mike Scholl -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 8:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 The war is so stacked against Japan {in the long run} that making it tougher in the first six months just makes it less challenging {from the allied side}. At least against the AI. True. But they DID start it anyway. And they certainly expected to face tougher opposition in the early going than they actually did...., just check their "projected losses" against what actually occurred. But you are absolutely correct that the AI as Japan doesn't need any handicaps.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 8:51:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 I do not PBEM. So my thinking my be skewed, but it would seem that hindsight, more knowledge than was historical, differing strategy {Japan's strategy was to take what they wanted/needed in six months then sue for peace}, and a more daring {going after India, Australia, etc} strategy will all conspire to give the Japanese for more gains in 6 months than was likely historically. This is a thought that has often occupied my mind. IMHO both sides benefit greatly from being able to Monday morning quarterback. Japan, knowing how weak the allies really were can accomplish far more in the first 6 months. While the Allies, knowing how much will role in in the later years of the war in terms of reinforcements never secretly fear defeat, as did the US in the opening months. IMO this absolutely changes the game and there is no house rule or game patch that can change it.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 9:01:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 This is a thought that has often occupied my mind. IMHO both sides benefit greatly from being able to Monday morning quarterback. Japan, knowing how weak the allies really were can accomplish far more in the first 6 months. While the Allies, knowing how much will role in in the later years of the war in terms of reinforcements never secretly fear defeat, as did the US in the opening months. IMO this absolutely changes the game and there is no house rule or game patch that can change it. I'm in total agreement. About the only solution I can see is if the two players get a third to "tinker" with things on both sides, then play the mod "sight unseen". Of course, they'd both have to really trust the third party...

niceguy2005 -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 9:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 This is a thought that has often occupied my mind. IMHO both sides benefit greatly from being able to Monday morning quarterback. Japan, knowing how weak the allies really were can accomplish far more in the first 6 months. While the Allies, knowing how much will role in in the later years of the war in terms of reinforcements never secretly fear defeat, as did the US in the opening months. IMO this absolutely changes the game and there is no house rule or game patch that can change it. I'm in total agreement. About the only solution I can see is if the two players get a third to "tinker" with things on both sides, then play the mod "sight unseen". Of course, they'd both have to really trust the third party... I heard this idea a few months ago and loved it...but "pity the fool" who volunteers to do all that work to create the mod.[:D]

MineSweeper -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 9:35:34 PM)
Easy to do, just replace the Type 91 Torpedoes and 250kg AP Bombs with Atom Bombs....[:D][:D]

Rafael Warsaw -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 9:46:32 PM)
We are playing this type of games in a club. a Judge as we call a poor fellow creates a scenario for both sides ie: eastern front engagment and all you know when You arrive at the club are your forces at hand (even reinforcements are hidden from You some times), Your orders and a terrain. This is fun, no wild riskless rides. In every single historical game where You can check out a dispositions and oob of E forces before a game things moves much faster than in real life. IMHO Witp temper this thanks to Political points system. Lower amount of PPs received at the begining of a scenario if you like and You will slow down a pace of a game. In addition to above My observation is that 2 day turns not only make a game runs faster but also LOWER the tempo of a game making it more realistic. Im a big fan of 2 day turns.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 9:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I heard this idea a few months ago and loved it...but "pity the fool" who volunteers to do all that work to create the mod.[:D] Maybe..., but for the right kind of slightly twisted personality it might be fun. Especially if there were good AAR's to follow it in. He'd have to "juggle" the start just enough to make both sides a bit unsure of themselves, but could have a lot of fun with suprises. Like... Pulling out some of the Allied starting units to make the initial Japanese task easier and build up his confidence and maybe instill some "Victory Desease" Putting all the missing Allied Units back (with friends), but in India, Australia, and other more extreme targets the Japanese might be incouraged to try for if the early going went well. Upgrading all the Soviets so if he got "cocky" and tried to invade he'd get his head handed to him (but not letting them counter-invade). Changing American Production so no B-29's ever arrived, and making the "special A-Bomb group" something with shorter range. People can probably think of dozens of "sneaky little landmines" to drop in for both sides --- the fun being in waiting to see how many each player "steps on". I've thought about it some..., but simply don't have the patience, perseverance, and maybe the computer savy to mod it. But for an experianced moder with a devious mind I could see a rich reward for his efforts.

Rafael Warsaw -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 9:52:04 PM)
From my exp a guy who will run it will pretty fast end hanging outside a 20th floor window for all his unhistorical, unbalanced un fair changes he has made [:D][:D][:D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 10:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw From my exp a guy who will run it will pretty fast end hanging outside a 20th floor window for all his unhistorical, unbalanced unfair changes he has made [:D][:D][:D] Doesn't necessarily have to be ahistorical. Maybe the Allies were weaker on the ground than the Japanese thought. Or had re-deployed some front-line strength to reserves. Maybe the B-29 design team just couldn't get all the bugs worked out in time to deploy it. The Russians "kicked the ****" out of the Japanese twice before the War started, so historically the Japs weren't eager to "tangle with them" again --- so strengthening them just means the Japanese Player would get what his historical counter-parts expected and feared they would get if they tried again. A really good and twisted modder could provide plenty of "suprises" without getting that far away from what actually happened, could have happened, or what either side FEARED would happen....

jwilkerson -> Play Balance (7/5/2007 10:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl One of the interesting points made in the "Are JFB's smarter?" thread was that they seem to contribute a large portion of the "mods" being offerred. Does this signify a high IQ, or merely the desire to make the Japanese side more playable? I can't imagine an AFB deciding to make a mod where the Japanese suffer their worst historical fears on turn one (the Allies ARE alerted, CAP up, Guns manned and ready, troops and ships already reacting.). It would be historical from the Japanese point-of-view, as they were certainly worried about it..., but it would just make a tough situation tougher. So maybe it's not that JFB's are smarter, but just that they have so many more "pipe dream wishes" to try to fulfill. Much easier to "psych yourself up" for the slog of doing a mod with the goal of altering history that just to make history play out quicker. My thoughts, anyway. To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock). So this leaves NikMod and RHS as the major MODs that might be pro Japanese vis-a-vis stock, yet I don't think I recall them being referred to as such - at least not yet. So I guess I'm not clear on which MODs Mike is thinking of that are pro Japanese?? However, as I've tried to say - I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. So I still want this discussion to be about PLAY BALANCE - hence the reset on the subject. The thread is well behaved, but references to JFB and AFB are still inciteful and should cease.

Feinder -> RE: Play Balance (7/5/2007 11:05:48 PM)
quote: I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. There is no spoon! -F-

Feinder -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/5/2007 11:17:36 PM)
[crap, I had two windows open, and replied to the wrong post] -F-

Mike Scholl -> RE: Play Balance (7/5/2007 11:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson However, as I've tried to say - I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. So I still want this discussion to be about PLAY BALANCE - hence the reset on the subject. The thread is well behaved, but references to JFB and AFB are still inciteful and should cease. Is there some preferred terminology for players who prefer to play one side or the other? I never thought of JFB or AFB as being particularly incindiary in themselves..., though the "trash talk" that sometimes surrounds them can be off-putting.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 12:06:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson However, as I've tried to say - I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. So I still want this discussion to be about PLAY BALANCE - hence the reset on the subject. The thread is well behaved, but references to JFB and AFB are still inciteful and should cease. Is there some preferred terminology for players who prefer to play one side or the other? I never thought of JFB or AFB as being particularly incindiary in themselves..., though the "trash talk" that sometimes surrounds them can be off-putting. [:D] I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time. I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)]

ny59giants -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 12:07:05 AM)
I have only played the game as the Allies, but don't consider myself a Fan Boy of either side. I probably would have gone for the Japanese side, but didn't have the courage to tackle the porduction system. [X(][X(] This game is a larger scale of my favorite battle (Battle of the Bulge). [:D] The Germans start out with numerical advantages and some better eqipment, but the overwhelming Allied numbers eventually win out. I just try to do better than what was done historically, regardless of what side I play. I just started a PBEM as the Allies using CHS mod and love some of those "warp speed" Allied APs (speeds over 20 and capacity up to 11k). [&o][&o] I play to have fun and learn.

RUPD3658 -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 12:25:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)] How about FJFB and FAFB with the F standing for "Fanatical". Of course FMJFBs and FMAFBs would still cause problems. [:D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 12:35:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time. I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)] I'd have to say I was an AFB..., mostly because I lack the patience and perseverance to tackle Japanese Production and the "First Turn Boogieman". But in discussions about the game I think of myself more as a "History Fan-Boy". If it's "not right", then I'm for fixing it no matter who it helps or hurts. I like your MILITANT notion..., though considering some of the "trash" that's been "talked" maybe RABID would be more descriptive of the area Joe referred too....

jwilkerson -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 1:19:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder quote: I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. There is no spoon! -F- Darn, I thought this was a very relevant contribution!!! [:D][&:]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 1:28:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder There is no spoon! -F- Drat! No chance of one of those underhanded sneaky "Spoon-in-the-Back" events

ctangus -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 2:02:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time. I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)] I'd have to say I was an AFB..., mostly because I lack the patience and perseverance to tackle Japanese Production and the "First Turn Boogieman". But in discussions about the game I think of myself more as a "History Fan-Boy". If it's "not right", then I'm for fixing it no matter who it helps or hurts. I like your MILITANT notion..., though considering some of the "trash" that's been "talked" maybe RABID would be more descriptive of the area Joe referred too.... Well, there certainly has been "trash" that's been talked at times in the past, but I frankly think 98% or more of current posters want a realistic/believable game while still retaining some play balance. Regardless of whether they play Japan only, Allies only or both. I'm currently playing both sides & enjoying both. And like you if it's "not right", I'd like to fix it whichever side it helps. There might be a couple but I frankly don't think there's many, if any, rabid FB's around anymore. Now we're all grogs and we'll all have different opinions on what's realistic/believable. But it leads to some interesting discussion at least.

dtravel -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 2:22:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock). Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same. For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

scout1 -> RE: Smarter..., or just Frustrated? (7/6/2007 2:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 The war is so stacked against Japan {in the long run} that making it tougher in the first six months just makes it less challenging {from the allied side}. At least against the AI. True. But they DID start it anyway. And they certainly expected to face tougher opposition in the early going than they actually did...., just check their "projected losses" against what actually occurred. But you are absolutely correct that the AI as Japan doesn't need any handicaps. Interestingly enough, the thinktank in the IJN pretty much hit the nail on the head relative to predicting an ass whooping if it last too long. Pity the IJA had control of the leadership at that time. And to the point of balance, really goes against the other pillar of realism. Though it is an interesting question whether anyone has made a run at a "true" balanced game where EITHER side could win outright ..... Boy, you'd really hear the cries of JFB over that one ......

jwilkerson -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 2:37:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock). Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same. For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides. Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. [:D] with vehemence [:D] And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours. JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to. Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

tsimmonds -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 2:46:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson ... I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. Oh, so it's your fault we're having so damn much trouble in Burma and China[;)] quote: Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others. Personally, I have always played IJ. Not because I am a JFB, but because I enjoy the puzzle of the production side of the game. Well, that and the fact that the Allied player ends up with more materiel than I can keep track of! If I am a fanboy, I am a WitP fanboy: a Pacific theater fanboy, plus a wargame fanboy. I thought a Grognard was just someone who was particularly smelly ("Old Sweats").[;)]

jwilkerson -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 2:48:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Oh, so it's your fault we're having so damn much trouble in Burma and China[;)] Yup - I'm your FUBAR man !!! [:D][:D][:D[;)]

RUPD3658 -> RE: Play Balance (7/6/2007 3:11:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder There is no spoon! -F- Drat! No chance of one of those underhanded sneaky "Spoon-in-the-Back" events Maybe a Spork[:D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625