RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook And just to put the "they were not spotted"-discussion to rest once and for all. (Not that it is in any way relevant to the topic, but anyway) Your opponent said in two different posts that they were. If he was wrong, fine. This is the first evidence you've provided that he was wrong.

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 A different question: What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs? That is indeed a different question. One that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the question about the amphibious assault combat routine. Which of cource makes it completely irrelevant and pointless in this discussion. Get it? quote: Sorry, but I refuse to accept that your failure to play well results in a conclusoin that the code is broken. Get it? Bullwinkle, I'd like to respectfully say you're coming across as an ass.

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 A different question: What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs? That is indeed a different question. One that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the question about the amphibious assault combat routine. Which of cource makes it completely irrelevant and pointless in this discussion. Get it? quote: Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost. Funny though that everyone seems to agree that the CD results are BS. And that was the entire point of this thread and discussion. IS there a problem with the CD-routine? Most tend to agree there is. Your posts about other irrelevant stuff really does not contribute to that discussion at all. I agree; whether you played badly or not, your CD units were still there and should have taken a toll of your opponent's ships and men, but did not. Unless you put every one of them in strategic or reserve mode, they should have shot up those transports and then mowed down a lot of the men on the beach. That they did not puts up a red flag that warrants more testing; I'm assuming this is with both of you using the latest hotfix patch?

Rob322 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:34:44 PM)
Exactly. This result puts up a red flag that should be studied further before we decide whether this resulted from poor code or poor play. Has this happened in other games?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob322 Exactly. This result puts up a red flag that should be studied further before we decide whether this resulted from poor code or poor play. Has this happened in other games? OK. Fine. What does "study" mean in this, and the whole game, context? There are a lot of IT professionals here. I bet there's at least one business analyst. How about somebody complaining that the CD code is broken take a stab at defining a set of rules for the coders that would unbreak it? If the CD guns here shouldn't have focused on PBs and instead hit AKs, should they have still focused on AKs if 10 IJN BBs had been in the hex? What if there were no BBs , but instead 12 DDs? 22 Es, and 4 DDs? What if the DDs were already damaged? Should the code add up opposing tonnage in an attack decision? Gun totals? Number of hulls of any type? Supply state of the CD unit? ("I have two good phases of fire in me. Should I focus on the AKs both times, or should I take the chance that those 10 BBs will knock me out on phase 1 and I never get a another chance?") Continue this analysis for a few days . . . Be specific, because code sure as hell executes exactly as it's told to. Oh, and don't break MY results where small island CD units have mauled me, where I've seen invasions refused on the beach and withdrawn, by both AI and my own TFs. If you make rules that work on Oahu, do they also work at Singapore? Bataan? Maybe don't work at Guam. Why or why not? What are the relevant variables? How do they interact, and in what weightings? Ready, set, go . . . It's easy. Right?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:48:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Bullwinkle, I'd like to respectfully say you're coming across as an ass. Use the green button. I've never minded being in the minority when I'm correct.

Chickenboy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 3:52:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL Unfortunately No. Every turn takes around 4 hours o my time. I am a working father with the cutiest 2,5 years old lady home. PLUS: It will still be a very interesting game. No doubt about it. P.S. My troops are very well supplied. Whole island chain have best supplies in the whole pacific region. Troops were disorganized thanks to weeks spent on board of ships. This is why I have been so quiet for last two days. Coming very fast down (like 50 points down in 2 days). With no loses, No fatigue (Nearly all set in a reserve mode), No disorganisation... I would have taken this base. No doubt. If only we'd been able to learn from your assault methodologies which may have meant just playing ONE more turn. This will go into the 'unproven assertions' chapter in my book, unfortunately. Best of wishes with your family. I'm afraid that I cannot offer any additional worthwhile observations on this thread.

Rob322 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 4:03:38 PM)
Bullwinkle, well ultimately the developers would be the ones to study it and decide if there's truly a problem or not. What my point was is that it's silly to make substantive conclusions on the basis of one turn. It could be the game, it could be the players, it could be just random luck that is not indicative of a problem with the game itself but just circumstance. Logically one data point is just that. You've provided a counter data point with your landing that has more expected results. In part that's why I asked if others were seeing this as if there's a problem with the program then this should pop up more.

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 4:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob322 Exactly. This result puts up a red flag that should be studied further before we decide whether this resulted from poor code or poor play. Has this happened in other games? Not in my games, but I've not had any assault landings since the latest hotfix patch came out. In earlier assault landings in my CG the CD guns would chew up both escorts (if they weren't numerous or big enough) and the transports. That's why I'm thinking something may have gotten screwy in this latest patch.

Smeulders -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 4:35:16 PM)
Or just with the giant amount of ships/CD guns involved in this action, it's not unknown for algorithms to get into trouble when they're working on the edges of what it's designed to do. There is another AAR featuring an PH invasion (Bloody Pacific by Undercovergeek), which was also quite bloodless for the invasion forces, although this one was far better protected, BB-CA, the lot and that after quite a number of air and sea bombardements.

witpqs -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 5:36:40 PM)
Pretty interesting thread and example. A few thoughts about this issue, in no particular order. 1) If someone wants to find out how the invasion would pan out, the players might consent to send that person a save game and their passwords. 2) I wonder how effective the CD's will be as artillery on the landed troops their first day ashore, before they have dug in? (You might have gotten this far, but I didn't see any mention of it.) 3) CD's should most definitely be engaged by even small escorts with the assault TF's. Arguments might abound about how much bias a CD gun would have to shoot at an escort that is shooting at it (regardless of size), but IRL there were plenty of times when an escort took a CD gun under fire the CD gun responded to the attack. Thinking that (in a game meant to provide realistic capabilities) we can give orders to the contrary is wrong. 4) We need to be careful about breaking the CD code for 'normal' sized invasions just to fix this extreme case. The results here might simply be due to the scale of ships + CD guns being beyond what the algorithms coded into the game handle well. 5) Further to number 4, if the devs see a problem here they might want the save game to step through the turn execution and see what the algorithms are doing. 6) The notion someone (or ones) mentioned about, in my words, the big CD guns being basically sniper weapons (one shot, one kill) on small escorts (or AK's) simply isn't born out by RL. Yes, in many cases one shot might have doomed a small ship. Yes, in some cases one shot might have immediately incapacitated or sunk a small ship. However, history is full of examples where small ships kept fighting after even multiple hits from battleships. Sometimes those shells exploded and sometimes the didn't. They almost always caused meaningful damage, but the target kept on fighting. So what is a CD to do when the target is still afloat and moving? What's the doctrine they are operating under? Do they engage each target in range with one shot only? I find it most likely they shoot the target until they believe it's done. 7) Directors were mentioned - how many guns are controlled by each one? So, even if one has, say 28 guns, they might only have 7 directors. This is just further to number 6 - you aren't going to knock out 28 ships with each salvo. At most you will hit 7, often less, and knock out even fewer. 8) Given the size of the invasion fleet, I just can't see the invasion area being too small, or else landing craft/boats would be all over each other traffic jam-wise. 9) Looking at the game situation on the day of the invasion - if that happened IRL - I just do not believe that the invasion would have been wiped out with laser beam-like efficiency. The IJ player did a masterful job of setting it up. Here's the thing. Even though he was as human as anybody else, Yamamoto ordered planning for the invasion of Hawaii. He believed that Oahu's defenses could be overcome with proper preparation. IMO this game invasion would, IRL, have gotten ashore with substantial forces. How much? I don't pretend to know the 'right' answer, but I'm certain 99% ashore is wrong. Although quite bloody, I do believe it would be a lot more than 1% ashore, given the size of the invasion! Some beaches would have gone better than others. Some would have benefited more from smoke than others, and so on. 10) Adding in the land combat, would the invasion have succeeded (if this were a RL invasion)? I don't know. The land combat model might not be up to the task of modeling this one realistically. Remember too that RL gives a range of results. There is usually no one right answer - there is a percentage. 'IRL your chances are good.' 'IRL your chances are poor.' and so on. Those are some of my thoughts after reading this far.

Yank -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 5:42:56 PM)
I know there might be lots of variables that could make it an apples to oranges comparison including the fact that Undercovergeek and I are playing scenario 1, but in our match my CD units are shooting up transports every day at Oahu. He has lost a LOT of transports if the combat reports/fog or war can be believed, and the CD units are definitely prioritzing on transports with the occasional shot at one of the heavier units. In addition as 'Geek noted in his post, his last ground assault cost him dearly...don't want to give away any other details in a 'public' forum about my deployments...

Smeulders -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 5:47:35 PM)
Would you care to post combat reports from the PH actions were CD guns were involved, if you still have them ? All will probably be a bit much, but a bit of a selection so we can get an idea of the TF sizes and effects ?

Yank -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 5:52:02 PM)
You bet. I'll post as many as I have in my save folder tonight when I get home and every day going forward in our game. Will put them in my Commentary thread: 'Bloody Pacific: Yank's Perspective' which is off limits to 'Geek in case any of you have questions that I can't answer here.

castor troy -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 5:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well. What has that got to do with the combat routine for amphibious assaults? I have been trying to avoid getting into these discussions because I really dont see what relevance they have to the question if the results of the amphibious assault is reasonable or not. Is it reasonable to be able to invade Pearl Harbor, without any prior bombardment from air or sea, with 350+ ships, land 75 000 men in one impulse, and only lose 1000 causualties and a handful of PBs? What relevance has Wake, Midway or Johnston Island to that question? And the Jap ships were spotted before they invaded. A different question: What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs? Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost. unfortunetely, you completely miss the point. Completely! It�s about coast defense and nothing else. It�s not the point about how to defend something with whatevery you think should be used. We see a screwed routine of the game and it�s not about anything else. It�s not even about if the CD should have stopped the invasion, the problem is the CD did NOTHING to the invasion. Isn�t the fact that PBs take dozens of heavy shell hits and aren�t obliberated enough to say it�s broken? They can�t sink during the CD duell [8\|] and end up with 99/99 damage and sink the next phase. That�s the reason they keep soaking up 10 times more shells than what they could take, which probably would not be more than 1 or 2 medium or heavy shell hits. 500 shots fired just by the CD unit on the invasion, sounds good. Would the PBs sink at the same time they would taking the same damage in a naval engagement, at least half of the 500 shots of all calibres would have been fired against the transports. That�s the only thing that is wrong possible, that ships can�t sink during CD fire and are a shell sponge for the invasion TF. Completely wrong.

morganbj -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 5:58:29 PM)
Maybe the problem is not the Cd routine, but the amphib bonus. I can't imagine how 75k could have been landed IRL by the Japanese in a single day, if I understand the OP correctly. From my experience, once the amphib bonus is gone, the Japanese sometimes have to unload over five or six days' time. Once the escorts are gone, they take horrendous losses in AKs and such. Perhaps, as someone else stated, the bonus could be reduced for certain areas. Or, perhaps it could be modified downward depending on the number of shore guns in the hex. That might solve the issue around Singapore and Bataan that I remember someone else posted once. (At least I have a vague recollection of that.) Where there are few or no guns, the bonus could be unmodified. That's easy enough to program, Moose.

sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 6:05:24 PM)
Sounds like your invasion force is not screened by large numbers of PB's?

sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 6:23:55 PM)
No its not... However, I do know this. You're a risk manager, you've mentioned you have a "big investment scheme". I work around risk managers and worked in the brokerage/investment banking industry. You're obviously quite intelligent and have a background in analying things and finding flaws and risks. From the tone and nature of your posts you do come across as someone who doen't lack any self confidence, in fact you seem to have an abundance of that. My gut instincts tells me you have no problem pushing the envelope. That can be a good and bad thing. Like I said I admire the audacity and you do seen to have the ingeridients to be a good playtester who could find flaws and break things. quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL OH LORD, Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit. quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got. He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws. quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL I think that this might be important: I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan. WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out. Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 6:29:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob322 Bullwinkle, well ultimately the developers would be the ones to study it and decide if there's truly a problem or not. What my point was is that it's silly to make substantive conclusions on the basis of one turn. It could be the game, it could be the players, it could be just random luck that is not indicative of a problem with the game itself but just circumstance. Logically one data point is just that. You've provided a counter data point with your landing that has more expected results. In part that's why I asked if others were seeing this as if there's a problem with the program then this should pop up more. I'm sure the developers will look at this as they have every other thing for months. And I agree with you that this is one data point; I've been making that same point. It's one, incredibly odd data point. My feeling is, the way it works now is by definition the way the devs thought it should be, and as they tested it. Whatever internal polling or arguing they did, they considered trade-offs, and set the code as we see it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks it needs to be changed to propose how and why. I'm not a programmer, but I've studied it. I'm not a business analyst, but I've worked with developers in a business setting. And one thing I've had pounded into me by people who do this stuff for real is that you can't take one unexpected result and work backwards, merrily changing variables. CD actions are among the most complex in the game simply because they involve so many potential combinations of units and other factors. A STF encounter is simple by comparison. With CD, the developer has to decide which variables to weight, and how. For example, I don't know, but from the combat results here it appears (and again, a supposition) that target range might be a key variable. The PBs were at 2000 yds, and the AKs at 12,000. Does the code shoot at the closest target first and work out? Should it? No? Because the PBs are "worthless" and the AKs the meat? OK, how about it's changed to target merchants first? So tomorrow, some smart player loads up three damaged, worthless xAKLs with five squads of the 130th Laundry Battalion, adds ten BBs, and sends that into attack. For next to no cost I eliminate the CD units. What? No good? OK, how about we then change it back to target by range, but, as was "historical" we tell the code to shift fire onto landed units, and ignore ships? So, I do the same thing, but I subsitute the 120th Hairyass Armor Battalion for the laundrymen, and they cheerfully absorb medium lumps all by themselvs on the beach while my 10BBs again cheerfully eliminate a significant CD threat without taking a scratch. OK, that didn't work, so how about I now make the code NOT shift to troops if there are 10 BBs along? The player then sends 9. This is what I'm trying to get the "it's broken!" crowd here to confront. I think--probably--the devs already went through these exercises, in a far more professional way than I can do. I think, from what I've observed, that there are LOTS of randoms in the CD sequences, because I cetainly haven't been able to see strong, certain outcomes when I try an invasion. Which is the way I myself like it. I don't want a mathmatical cookbook approach to major pieces of the game, because too many players here will instantly figure them out and do work-arounds. Make no mistake. What's being asked for here is not a "tweak." (I'm starting to hate that word.) It's a major renovation that affects total game balance, in a game that, so far, to me, is pretty well balanced.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 6:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Pretty interesting thread and example. A few thoughts about this issue, in no particular order. 1) If someone wants to find out how the invasion would pan out, the players might consent to send that person a save game and their passwords. 2) I wonder how effective the CD's will be as artillery on the landed troops their first day ashore, before they have dug in? (You might have gotten this far, but I didn't see any mention of it.) 3) CD's should most definitely be engaged by even small escorts with the assault TF's. Arguments might abound about how much bias a CD gun would have to shoot at an escort that is shooting at it (regardless of size), but IRL there were plenty of times when an escort took a CD gun under fire the CD gun responded to the attack. Thinking that (in a game meant to provide realistic capabilities) we can give orders to the contrary is wrong. 4) We need to be careful about breaking the CD code for 'normal' sized invasions just to fix this extreme case. The results here might simply be due to the scale of ships + CD guns being beyond what the algorithms coded into the game handle well. 5) Further to number 4, if the devs see a problem here they might want the save game to step through the turn execution and see what the algorithms are doing. 6) The notion someone (or ones) mentioned about, in my words, the big CD guns being basically sniper weapons (one shot, one kill) on small escorts (or AK's) simply isn't born out by RL. Yes, in many cases one shot might have doomed a small ship. Yes, in some cases one shot might have immediately incapacitated or sunk a small ship. However, history is full of examples where small ships kept fighting after even multiple hits from battleships. Sometimes those shells exploded and sometimes the didn't. They almost always caused meaningful damage, but the target kept on fighting. So what is a CD to do when the target is still afloat and moving? What's the doctrine they are operating under? Do they engage each target in range with one shot only? I find it most likely they shoot the target until they believe it's done. 7) Directors were mentioned - how many guns are controlled by each one? So, even if one has, say 28 guns, they might only have 7 directors. This is just further to number 6 - you aren't going to knock out 28 ships with each salvo. At most you will hit 7, often less, and knock out even fewer. 8) Given the size of the invasion fleet, I just can't see the invasion area being too small, or else landing craft/boats would be all over each other traffic jam-wise. 9) Looking at the game situation on the day of the invasion - if that happened IRL - I just do not believe that the invasion would have been wiped out with laser beam-like efficiency. The IJ player did a masterful job of setting it up. Here's the thing. Even though he was as human as anybody else, Yamamoto ordered planning for the invasion of Hawaii. He believed that Oahu's defenses could be overcome with proper preparation. IMO this game invasion would, IRL, have gotten ashore with substantial forces. How much? I don't pretend to know the 'right' answer, but I'm certain 99% ashore is wrong. Although quite bloody, I do believe it would be a lot more than 1% ashore, given the size of the invasion! Some beaches would have gone better than others. Some would have benefited more from smoke than others, and so on. 10) Adding in the land combat, would the invasion have succeeded (if this were a RL invasion)? I don't know. The land combat model might not be up to the task of modeling this one realistically. Remember too that RL gives a range of results. There is usually no one right answer - there is a percentage. 'IRL your chances are good.' 'IRL your chances are poor.' and so on. Those are some of my thoughts after reading this far. Well, if I'd read this first I could have saved my last post.[:)]

sfbaytf -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 6:41:10 PM)
Perhaps the answer is to alllow the player to set targeting priorities. It would be work on the programmers end and and may or may not be practical. Tell the CD batteries to target the transports first, BB's, CA, CL's second and so on and so forth... I would sure love to be able to tell the fighters I set to sweep to go in before the bombers. Think this has been discussed before. Its more micromanaging on the players part, but mabye other "housekeeping chores" could be automated. Do I really need to be micromanaging the aircraft and ship withdrawls? Perhaps a simple "Yes" "No" dialog box to withdrawl and a warning about PP penalty box if you chose to not make the withdrawl would be easier. In any case let's wait for the replays and see what happens. If PB do soak up the damage then it may just come down to house rules.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 7:56:38 PM)
Probably a total anihilation of a Pacific fleet.... Plz do read what heve been sent there and what power was aviable. quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Bluebook quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well. What has that got to do with the combat routine for amphibious assaults? I have been trying to avoid getting into these discussions because I really dont see what relevance they have to the question if the results of the amphibious assault is reasonable or not. Is it reasonable to be able to invade Pearl Harbor, without any prior bombardment from air or sea, with 350+ ships, land 75 000 men in one impulse, and only lose 1000 causualties and a handful of PBs? What relevance has Wake, Midway or Johnston Island to that question? And the Jap ships were spotted before they invaded. A different question: What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs? Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost.

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 8:01:45 PM)
[:D] LARGE? If 9 vs 70 means large then my 15 vs 20 trains in DEI mean HUUUUUUUGEEEEELY LAAAAARGE quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf Sounds like your invasion force is not screened by large numbers of PB's?

WITPPL -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 8:03:13 PM)
not have, have structured... Thank You. quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf No its not... However, I do know this. You're a risk manager, you've mentioned you have a "big investment scheme". I work around risk managers and worked in the brokerage/investment banking industry. You're obviously quite intelligent and have a background in analying things and finding flaws and risks. From the tone and nature of your posts you do come across as someone who doen't lack any self confidence, in fact you seem to have an abundance of that. My gut instincts tells me you have no problem pushing the envelope. That can be a good and bad thing. Like I said I admire the audacity and you do seen to have the ingeridients to be a good playtester who could find flaws and break things. quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL OH LORD, Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit. quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got. He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws. quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: WITPPL I think that this might be important: I have loaded forces very, very carefully. It took weeks. They were loaded to a TFs equal to their troop capacity about +20%. Thats a lot of ships but they unload in one go. That was a plan. WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out. Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

John Lansford -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 8:16:14 PM)
There were many directors on Oahu for the big guns (8" and larger); IIRC directors were all around the island on ridges and high points, and capable of spotting ships at 125,000 yds distance (but no guns could reach that far of course). Each battery also had its local director so there shouldn't have been any forced firing on a particular ship due to a lack of directors.

Smeulders -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 8:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I'm sure the developers will look at this as they have every other thing for months. And I agree with you that this is one data point; I've been making that same point. It's one, incredibly odd data point. So far, I've heard of only 2 PH invasions, both of which exhibited some weird behaviour in regards to damage to invasion transports. Again I'm referring to the bloody pacific game between Undercovergeek and Yank, he's said he'll post his combat reports tomorrow, I think they'll be quite relevant to this discussion. Maybe as interesting is that WITPPL said he had learned enough about the invasion routines that he thought he could pull of an invasion of PH with this landing fleet, which we can agree would not have worked IRL. quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 My feeling is, the way it works now is by definition the way the devs thought it should be, and as they tested it. Whatever internal polling or arguing they did, they considered trade-offs, and set the code as we see it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks it needs to be changed to propose how and why. I'm not a programmer, but I've studied it. I'm not a business analyst, but I've worked with developers in a business setting. And one thing I've had pounded into me by people who do this stuff for real is that you can't take one unexpected result and work backwards, merrily changing variables. I don't think this part of your post is particularly fair, first you say that people who have a problem with this result should come up with a better way to handle things, while you clearly know about the problems modelling something as complex as this. Why aren't we allowed to simply bring a problem to the attention of the developers and then let these people who know a lot more about the algorithms already in place try to fix it ? If I can make two suggestions (both of which I think already have been made in this thread) - Ships able to sink in the invasion sequence, so the 10 times dead PB can't continue to soak up damage - Lower early war amphibious bonus against heavily defended targets. quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 This is what I'm trying to get the "it's broken!" crowd here to confront. I think--probably--the devs already went through these exercises, in a far more professional way than I can do. I think, from what I've observed, that there are LOTS of randoms in the CD sequences, because I cetainly haven't been able to see strong, certain outcomes when I try an invasion. Which is the way I myself like it. I don't want a mathmatical cookbook approach to major pieces of the game, because too many players here will instantly figure them out and do work-arounds. Make no mistake. What's being asked for here is not a "tweak." (I'm starting to hate that word.) It's a major renovation that affects total game balance, in a game that, so far, to me, is pretty well balanced. I'm sorry but this is a load of fearmongering. A change for the CD routing will not lead to 'a mathematical cookbook approach to invasions' and if done right (and I have no reason to think the developers will not do their best to get it right) it will not affect total game balance. A change in this should only lead to better handling of this kind of monster invasions and a better game overall. I don't think you oppose that and I don't see why you so vehemently seem to oppose any changes to this routine. Have a little faith in the devs, if they can make it better, they will, if they can't, we'll learn to live with that.

spence -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 8:41:24 PM)
I would be somewhat reticent to completely re-write all the code concerning CD defenses since (IMHO)that might well result in the annihilation of the entire 7th and 3rd fleets by a handful of 5.5's later in the game. There was a real life attempt by a Japanese TF to land in the teeth of US coast defenses without much in the way of preliminary bombardments and so forth: Dec 11th at Wake. The defenses can be briefly summed up as 6 x 5" guns with imperfect protection and imperfect fire control, 13 x 3" guns with the same defects and 2-4 improvised F4F bombers. The invasion force aborted the landing attempt after having had 1 DD sunk by the CDs and 3 cruisers, 4 destroyers, a transport and a patrol boat damaged (one of the aforementioned damaged destroyers was subsequently sunk by the "bombers" during the withdrawal). The Japanese were engaged by the CDs at something under 6000 yds range. The loses to the defense at that time were inconsequential. The Japanese bombardment completely failed to suppress the defenses. When the Japanese subsequently tried to land on Dec 22 they brought along a great deal more firepower both on the surface and in the air and they had pretty much knocked out all the 5" guns prior to landing. Even so their landing on Wilkes Islet was wiped out and one of the two patrol boats beached on the main island of Wake was reduced to scrap and which is still visible on the beach in a photo taken by raiding US aircraft later in the war. On the other hand the US invaded numerous atolls guarded by Japanese CDs during the war. The US employed considerable firepower beforehand to damage those CDs and during the fighting to suppress those CDs. Japanese CDs thus managed to do almost no damage to American ships offshore. Japanese machine guns, mortars and other light artillery did manage to inflict what we in the West think of as heavy casualties on the landing force a few times but never enough to put the eventual outcome of the battle in serious doubt. In most cases the Japanese garrison was wiped out to nearly the last man and ratio of Japanese casualties to total (KIA,WIA,MIA) American casualties was 3-5 to 1. So it would seem a properly supported invasion should be able to duplicate those results. The Japanese landing bonus seems necessary to allow the IJ Player to advance at something like the historical pace. But it ought to be remembered that the Japanese hardly ever tried to land into the teeth of the defenses (an Wake illustrates how well their doctrine worked when they did). The amount of specialized training and landing equipment possessed by the IJN/IJA troops was minimal. Unloading adequate supplies and heavy equipment over the beach was a development of the Allies which consumed much of the time between Pearl Harbor and D-Day. Simple assertions that the Japanese could have improvised an equivalent supply organization in a month or so are baseless. The losses suffered by the invasion fleet in this instance seem implausibly light. But the accumulation of a mass of artillery, AFVs and supply by the invasion force seems even less plausible given the state of amphibious doctrine displayed by the Japanese in the early war. The Japanese were great at "hitting them where they ain't". Frankly going toe to toe with the defense (any Western defense position that could not be turned) historically resulted in enormous Japanese losses for next to no gain. Granted that the hexes are 40 odd miles across but amphibious assault invariably ends up as a straight forward frontal attack where firepower matters much more than manuever. The Japanese could not develop enough firepower for this kind of assault to succeed with so little cost.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 8:58:08 PM)
[ quote: quote]ORIGINAL: Smeulders quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I'm sure the developers will look at this as they have every other thing for months. And I agree with you that this is one data point; I've been making that same point. It's one, incredibly odd data point. So far, I've heard of only 2 PH invasions, both of which exhibited some weird behaviour in regards to damage to invasion transports. Again I'm referring to the bloody pacific game between Undercovergeek and Yank, he's said he'll post his combat reports tomorrow, I think they'll be quite relevant to this discussion. Maybe as interesting is that WITPPL said he had learned enough about the invasion routines that he thought he could pull of an invasion of PH with this landing fleet, which we can agree would not have worked IRL. I don't agree that the results are "weird". I think they're what's programmed. There is a presumption that the CD routines should hit transports first, every time. As I tried to show in my scenarios, that can easily result in gaming THAT system too. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 My feeling is, the way it works now is by definition the way the devs thought it should be, and as they tested it. Whatever internal polling or arguing they did, they considered trade-offs, and set the code as we see it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks it needs to be changed to propose how and why. I'm not a programmer, but I've studied it. I'm not a business analyst, but I've worked with developers in a business setting. And one thing I've had pounded into me by people who do this stuff for real is that you can't take one unexpected result and work backwards, merrily changing variables. I don't think this part of your post is particularly fair, first you say that people who have a problem with this result should come up with a better way to handle things, while you clearly know about the problems modelling something as complex as this. Why aren't we allowed to simply bring a problem to the attention of the developers and then let these people who know a lot more about the algorithms already in place try to fix it ? Yep to the first part. If anyone has a problem with the CD system, stop "me too"ing and suggest fixes that don't break something else. Otherwise it's just whining. As for your second point, I think the way it works now is the way the devs thought it should work, because that's what they shipped. Q.E.D. quote: If I can make two suggestions (both of which I think already have been made in this thread) - Ships able to sink in the invasion sequence, so the 10 times dead PB can't continue to soak up damage - Lower early war amphibious bonus against heavily defended targets. I don't know if the ships aren't sinking in the invasion sequence, as I said yesterday. It's a 12-hour phase. I don't know how time and sequence is handled. Just because the player isn't informed in real-time that the target is sunk doens't mean the algorithm doesn't know that. Regardless, a 99/99/99/99 PB isn't shooting back. If you want the CD routine to stop shooting at IT, then again you're back into variable definition land--how/when/why does the routine shift away from a target, does it matter what the target is, what target variables are key in determining if it will be left alone, is range a factor, is day/night phase a factor, ad infinitum. It's not so easy as saying "Just FIX it!!!!" As to lowering amphib bonuses, well, OK, maybe, since they're a game artifact/work-around anyway. They're a made up rule. So, what do you change it to so everyone is happy? Remember, it can't just apply to Pearl Harbor. It has to apply to all "heavily defended" targets. Singapore, Soerbaja, Bataan--you know, targets the Japanese player needs a whole lot more than Pearl Harbor if he plans on winning. Could you define arrays of heavily-defended-targets-ignore-amphib bonus-YES and heavily-defended-targets-ignore-amphib bonus-NO? Good luck getting agreement on that around here. What's "heavily defended" anyway? LCUs? What disruption and fatigue? Forts? CD? Base size? Supply level at the moment? How do you mix and match those variables so the code has a clue which array to check? More importantly, how do you inform the player in any meaningful way that his planned attack is going to meet which array's CD response without, by inference, giving him all sorts of unearned intel? My head hurts.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 9:08:43 PM)
Thanks for the post. I'd note that at Wake: 1. They were dealing with the USMC. 2. Wake fell. As for the balance of your post, all true. However, you're engaging in what many here like to scorn as "talking about the Real World instead of the game." As an Allied player I propose these rule changes: 1) The Japanese player may never attempt to invade any base which the Real Japanese (tm) did not attempt to invade in WWII. (aka "Goodbye to Oz") 2) In no in-game invasion may the Japanese player employ armor, or medium or heavy artillery. They were simply too stupid to ever get it ashore. 3. Special bombardment routines be crafted so that IJN bombardments result in 20% of the damage as any Allied naval bombardment. Since they were very, very bad at them. OK, I'm happy. How are all you Japanese players doing.[:)]

Smeulders -> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results (1/8/2010 9:28:03 PM)
Bullwinkle, two questions for you. a) Do you think these results (PB getting killed 10 times over, transports and landing troops virtually unharmed) are unrealistic ? As in, the chance of this happening in real life is virtually null. b) If the devs can make these results more realistic, should they do that ? If you answer yes to these two questions, then we aren't in disagreement, except of course, that you seem to think that people without access to the algorithms for the CD guns should magically be able to produce a system that is better than the guys who have worked on this for years. And that you seem to take the inability of us to come up with any solutions, because we know nothing about the code as proof that it cannot be improved.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875