POLL: How many losses have you taken? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Michael Peck -> POLL: How many losses have you taken? (7/18/2002 4:55:23 AM)

I ask this question because in every PBEM game I've been in (Scenarios 17 and 19), the losses are far, far higher than historically. In May '42, the Americans and Japanese can easily lose a half-dozen cruisers and numerous transports, leaving the gaping question of how many ships everyone will have left by December '43.

This isn't just academic interest. Campaign scenarios in many games break down because players always behave more aggressively than their historical counterparts. If you've lost more ships by August '42 than were lost in real life by August '43, do you discover you've blown your PBEM game 300 turns later? Does hyper-aggressiveness by the US or Japanese at the beginning of the game tend to unbalance it in the long run?

I know many believe that you should be left alone to reap the penalties for your play style. But I'm still curious what happens when you have the same number of ships lost at twice the historical rate. Perhaps someone mathematically inclined can compute some averages.

Michael



XPav -> (7/18/2002 5:22:05 AM)

Well, the root cause of the problem is that Admiral Nimitz ain't about to show up and relieve a PBEM player of his duty. ("You! You're relieved! Hands off the mouse and keyboard! Report to KP!)

Couple this with the complete lack of empathy on player's parts towards their electronic sailors, soldiers, and airmen, and you end up with a uncaring, aggressive, unaccountable commander!

Same thing with first person shooters. Machine guns don't really work as well in multiplayer games for the main reason that players really don't mind if they get killed, and as a result, don't keep their heads down.

Its a psychological thing... and I don't see a way to fix this in gameplay.



Michael Peck -> (7/18/2002 5:39:11 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Well, the root cause of the problem is that Admiral Nimitz ain't about to show up and relieve a PBEM player of his duty. ("You! You're relieved! Hands off the mouse and keyboard! Report to KP!)

Couple this with the complete lack of empathy on player's parts towards their electronic sailors, soldiers, and airmen, and you end up with a uncaring, aggressive, unaccountable commander!

Same thing with first person shooters. Machine guns don't really work as well in multiplayer games for the main reason that players really don't mind if they get killed, and as a result, don't keep their heads down.

Its a psychological thing... and I don't see a way to fix this in gameplay. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, there are many ways to make gameplay more historical. For example, victory points for sunk ships can be weighted so that losing three carriers in June '42 is more costly than losing them in June '43, when there are more carriers around. There are various kinds of command and control limits that curb kamikaze surface ship tactics.

I've found the PBEM games I've been playing to be so intensive that they're barely historical (I'm as guilty of this as my opponents).

Michael



Didz -> (7/18/2002 5:52:29 AM)

Heavy losses over short timescales could also have a negative effect on the morale of the remaining forces.

e.g.

All the surviving ships in a TF that suffers heavy losses in a single day could have major morale problems for weeks afterwards.

All the planes in a squadron or at an airbase likewise.

And on a wider scale a fleet that is regularly suffering heavy losses could find its overall morale dropping rapidly.

Also perhaps in line with the 'never reinforce failure' principle commanders who are regularly suffering high losses could find their expected reinforcements being rerouted to more successful fronts.

That ought to calm the pace down a bit. One could have a little meter on the screen

Green means that your losses are within acceptable parameters.

Orange means that your superiors are becoming concerned.

Red means your under investigation and had better start thinking up good reasons for your actions so that the government can explain the steady flow of coffins your sending home.



Michael Peck -> (7/18/2002 6:01:52 AM)

That's an elegant idea, Didz.



Michael Peck -> (7/18/2002 6:31:02 AM)

That's an elegant idea, Didz.



ADavidB -> (7/18/2002 6:51:05 AM)

Extending some of the comments above, this is similar to what happened in computer r.p.g.s in the late 80's and onwards - the creators of the games started to add factors that "punished" the kill-crazy and rewarded the more thoughtful. This holds true in many successful games today - disregarding the "Doom"-style games that are only "shoot 'em up" based.

For example, too many losses in too short a period could result in a US commander being yanked and the game lost on the US side. On the other hand, excessive timidity on the part of a Japanese commander could equally result in a "re-assignment" to the Kuriles and again a game loss.

But one would need to be careful not to unbalance the game the wrong way - 1942 was a very different time and place from "here and now". One only has to read the various accounts from the folks who were there at places like Guadalcanal to realize that they were often much more willing to sacrifice themselves ( on both sides ) then we can even imagine today.

Dave Baranyi



Rob Roberson -> :) (7/18/2002 7:22:54 AM)

Way to many ships and planes..but Im hyperagressive. I think where you see me paying for it the most is in my AAR for this forum. I have thousands of troops sitting in Noumea, and I cant move them because my profane losses in transports when I forced my way into Gili very early in the game.



XPav -> (7/18/2002 8:02:05 AM)

Rob, you've brought up another point -- the reinforcement schedule is mostly fixed. When it comes to smaller ships, this doesn't seem to make much sense.

Some option to request more transports (and other types of smaller ships?) in exchange for a loss of points would seem to make sense in this case.

However, what would you name the ships? Look! Here comes American Legion II!



Look! Here comes American Legion III!



dpstafford -> Conservative Play, Will often Pay (7/18/2002 10:46:21 AM)

I attribute the massively high casualty rates in PBEM games to overly aggressive action by human players. Part of that is due to the lack of empathy for the losses, but another factor is the time scale. (It is difficult to submit a turn and DO NOTHING for most of us.) And the game accurately punishishes the overly aggressive admirals with heavy losses.



Didz -> Re: Conservative Play, Will often Pay (7/18/2002 1:30:36 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]... And the game accurately punishishes the overly aggressive admirals with heavy losses. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think the real question is whether the game rewards players who use a more balanced strategy at the expense of those players who are overly aggressive.

If it doesn't and the only approach that works in PBEM is the 'gung ho' one then I think there is a problem.

A player who charges in regardless in a PBEM ought to get chewed up and spat out by a player using more appropriate strategies.



Sonny -> Re: Re: Conservative Play, Will often Pay (7/18/2002 8:52:14 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]........

A player who charges in regardless in a PBEM ought to get chewed up and spat out by a player using more appropriate strategies. [/B][/QUOTE]

But what is an appropriate strategy? Who defines it? And how bad will players howl when they can't do something they think they should be able to do? That is why there is an option for Japanese sub doctrine - 'cause there would be tons of folks (even more than in the B-17 arguments) saying how bad the game is because they can't set their subs to go after Allied shipping. I understand your point though - wild *** romping around not caring if you lose a whole squadron of ships is something that should be punished - but how?

Automatic game loss for point/base/ship loss seems a bit arbitrary and would lead to lots of arguments.

It is a tough problem in any game but even moreso in a game where destruction is a major part of the game because you can't earn victory points for being nice in a war game.

The way it is set up now seems pretty good to me (although the only games I've played which have gone on past Dec. '42 are AI games). Mr. Roberson seems to be feeling the pain of being a little too aggressive early in the game by not being able to do much later in the game. Good payoff IMHO. Maybe next time he will be more cautious.:)



Admiral DadMan -> Re: Re: Re: Conservative Play, Will often Pay (7/18/2002 9:56:15 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]
... Mr. Roberson seems to be feeling the pain of being a little too aggressive early in the game by not being able to do much later in the game. Good payoff IMHO. Maybe next time he will be more cautious.:) [/B][/QUOTE]That sounds like something a parent would say.

You have kids Sonny, don't you...:)



thantis -> (7/18/2002 9:59:20 PM)

I also suffered from a combination of being too aggressive early & learning as I went during the early months of the long campaign. I was able to take Talugi, Lunga, Gili Gili (back from the Japanese), and Lae - but sustained some pretty serious losses (including most of my carrier support - Hornet & Enterprise).

I had to adopt of much more cautious approach until late 1942, early 1943 until many more ships were released from Pearl. I had a few fortunate releases that allowed me to expand operations - but it was certainly a learning experience (since I still had 500 more turns to play).

It does take a lot getting used to such a long game, since we all want to do everything as soon as possible - and **** the long-term consequences. The combination of ship losses & the unknown release sequence from Pearl make every game different....and I learn something new from the game every single day.



Sonny -> Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative Play, Will often Pay (7/18/2002 10:39:45 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]That sounds like something a parent would say.

You have kids Sonny, don't you...:) [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep - she'll be 3 in September.:)



Sonny -> (7/18/2002 10:42:56 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B].......

It does take a lot getting used to such a long game, since we all want to do everything as soon as possible - and **** the long-term consequences. ...... [/B][/QUOTE]

Kinda the same thing happens at the end of scenarios in wargames. "This is the last turn so who cares if I lose all my ships, I gotta take that port" syndrome.

Really hard to balance things out. But so far UV has done it very well.:)



Admiral DadMan -> (7/18/2002 11:00:44 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]

Kinda the same thing happens at the end of scenarios in wargames. "This is the last turn so who cares if I lose all my ships, I gotta take that port" syndrome.

Really hard to balance things out. But so far UV has done it very well.:) [/B][/QUOTE]I'm facing that now, trying to decide how much in the way of losses I'm willing to suffer taking Truk

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]
Yep - she'll be 3 in September.:)
[/B][/QUOTE]One'll be 5 in Sept, and my son is 3 1/2. They like to watch the combat animations. I often hear from my lap:

"OHHHHH!!"
"KABOOMIE!"
"Daddy, how come your ships got fire on it?"
"OOOOOHHHH!"
"OUCH!!!"
"That's Gotttaa Hurt!!"
"Get 'em Daddy!!"
"Daddy, can I click 'Done' this time?"

All those 2 and 3am wake ups are starting to pay off now with my own cheering section.



zed -> (7/18/2002 11:36:52 PM)

The Japanese cannot keep sufficient fuel available for the Surface Combat TFs in Scenario #19, so I usually send them out bombarding places they dont come back from, ie, PM, Luganville, Gili-gili, Cairns. Sometimes they do amazing damage, sometimes they are wrecked before they get there. I console myself by saying, At least they were not destroyed in port, which is what happened to most IJN ships.



Admiral DadMan -> (7/18/2002 11:47:25 PM)

My EAB and Engr units like a little sprinkling of shellfire once in a while.

They have races to see who can fill the holes in the Airfield fastest.



11Bravo -> Forgive me Intel for I have sinned (7/18/2002 11:51:41 PM)

I started off playing aggressively. Then the casualties started mounting. I pressed on, regardless, Hey, its a game I thought. The casualties continued to wrack up. Then it caught up to me. The horror of killing all those electronic soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Now I can't sleep at night without seeing a constant parade of 1's and 0's marching past.



11Bravo -> (7/19/2002 12:00:18 AM)

But seriously...good thread.

I play the games the way I would do it for real. My casualties are always light. No unnecessary casualties. Except enemy ones.

In my current scen 17 allied against AI, our kill ratio on ships is 9:1, even on planes, 2:1 on troops. And its only September. Those ratios are going to get better, and we are going to win.



thantis -> (7/19/2002 12:00:38 AM)

After almost 300 turns, I still have to remember that it takes a while to build-up (especially the farther one gets from Noumea) for subsequent advances.

I finally slowed down enough to start building up supplies in Lunga (to supply my Solomons advance), but my NG situation borders on starvation most of the time. I send a convoy or two in their direction a couple of times a month....but since most of my operations have been focused towards Rabaul (from my initial landings at Talugi & Lunga in the Solomons) & the AI can't even supply their NG bases, much less move on to the attack, I don't really need Port Moresby or Gili Gili anymore.

It seems like once you've secured SE NG (PM, GG, & Lae) the AI switches its attention to the Solomons & pretty much leaves NG alone.....I've been able to concentrate the majority of my forces in the Solomons & really put the hurt on the Japanese since about October 1942. This doesn't mean I don't get the odd bloody nose (like the loss of the South Dakota & Ching Chong China Lee at Shortlands back in November 1942). But it does mean that I have a lot more leeway in supplying my forces, even with a reduced number of APs & AKs.

I could run riot right now due to my overwhelming superiority in LBA & warships, but I still need to get the troops to the beach, and supply them there, which puts the breaks on, just like it would historically.



dpstafford -> We don't need no stinkin' AI (7/19/2002 12:03:30 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 11Bravo
[B]In my current scen 17 allied against AI, our kill ratio on ships is 9:1, even on planes, 2:1 on troops. And its only September. Those ratios are going to get better, and we are going to win. [/B][/QUOTE]Games against the AI don't count............



IChristie -> Time Scales (7/19/2002 12:06:09 AM)

I find part of the problem is the time scale. The scenarios are quite long, but I suffer from the natural need to be "doing something" each turn, this usually causes me to overuse resources in a way that commanders in the field probably wouldn't.

Usually I end paying for this as everything on the board slowly looses combat effectiveness and things grind to a halt after a couple months of intense operations.

I am currently playing a scenario 17 as the US, and doing my level best to play to win the scenario in the end (rather than try to invade Rabaul by Jan 1942). If anything the current losses are lower than historical at least in LCU and ships (I've lost one major surface unit - HMAS Canberra). The air war has been pretty intense at times but morale and fatigue ensure that it tapers off pretty quickly.

What has everyone else found in campaigns which were very intense in 1942? What happened in '43?



zed -> (7/19/2002 12:27:51 AM)

Another thing to remember is that ships accumulate system damage when not at anchor. I would rather have something to show for that, ie, engagement with the enemy, than just fall apart and have nothing to show for it. It takes a while for the Japanese to get either Tulagi or Lunga up to (3).



thantis -> (7/19/2002 12:43:39 AM)

IChristie,

I'm at May 15th, 1943 as part of the semi-long campaign (historical Midway, June start)........

1942 was extremely intense and losses were heavy on both sides (though heavier on the Japanese/AI side). They lost both of their initial carriers (Junyo & somebody else) to an ambush, but my carriers also took a beating as 1942 went on.

Months went by without me having a single CV in theater. I managed to take Lunga, Gili Gili, Lae, Tulagi, Vila, Munda, & Buin in 1942 - and I lost CV Enterprise, Hornet, BB South Dakota, along with several CAs, CLAAs, & DDs. I also lost a good number of AKs & APs (particularly at Gili Gili & Lae, while Rabaul was still a nest of bombers).

After I solidified my control of the Eastern Solomons & the AI was running out of ships (around February 1943), its become a game of seeing how quickly I can jump from Bouganville to Rabaul, Rabaul to Kaveing, Kaveing to the Admiralty Islands.

Its not boring yet, since its an interesting exercise in keeping my bases supplied, watching for the unexpected BB rush from Truk (happened twice already - and I lost BB Tennessee to a couple of Japanese battleships only two weeks ago) - so its hunting season.

The tempo has slowed, but only because I have a huge infrastructure to support & you never have enough APs & AKs to go around. I've put too much into this campaign to end it with anything but a complete victory - its been too much fun to quit early - and I want to see where this goes (and Shokaku & Zuikaku are still out there somewhere - I want to see them on the bottom before this game ends).



Sonny -> Re: Time Scales (7/19/2002 12:59:14 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IChristie
[B].......
I am currently playing a scenario 17 as the US, and doing my level best to play to win the scenario in the end (rather than try to invade Rabaul by Jan 1942). .....[/B][/QUOTE]

My scenarios don't start before May 1942. How do you get to Rabaul by Jan?:p :D



Didz -> Re: Re: Re: Conservative Play, Will often Pay (7/19/2002 1:03:16 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]
But what is an appropriate strategy? Who defines it? And how bad will players howl when they can't do something they think they should be able to do? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry! obviously didn't explain myself very well. The point I was trying to make was that if the game itself is properly designed then using appropriate strategy ought to result in a decisive victory over someone who is merely throwing troops at you with no regard to losses.

So! nobody should need to define what is a good or bad strategy because if the game has been well designed a good strategy will work and a bad one won't.

As for players howling because they can't do something they feel they ought to be able to do. Well we get that now anyway and TBH I'm probably one of the worst offenders.



Nikademus -> Re: POLL: How many losses have you taken? (7/19/2002 1:42:56 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Peck
[B]I ask this question because in every PBEM game I've been in (Scenarios 17 and 19), the losses are far, far higher than historically. In May '42, the Americans and Japanese can easily lose a half-dozen cruisers and numerous transports, leaving the gaping question of how many ships everyone will have left by December '43.

This isn't just academic interest. Campaign scenarios in many games break down because players always behave more aggressively than their historical counterparts. If you've lost more ships by August '42 than were lost in real life by August '43, do you discover you've blown your PBEM game 300 turns later? Does hyper-aggressiveness by the US or Japanese at the beginning of the game tend to unbalance it in the long run?

I know many believe that you should be left alone to reap the penalties for your play style. But I'm still curious what happens when you have the same number of ships lost at twice the historical rate. Perhaps someone mathematically inclined can compute some averages.

Michael [/B][/QUOTE]


Very true....one reason why i often dont play humans in spite of the greater challenge vs a lackluster AI.......the simple reason that players tend to 'game' too much, utilizing strategies (agressive strategies) that make a mockery of the historical events being portrayed. No i'm not advocating that all wargames should be played like and proceed as they did in real life (whats the point??) but it does get a little 'twilight zonish' when you see blitzkrieg invasions against bases thousands of miles away with no real chance for sustainment in the face of the enemy (often w/ the realization that it cant be held but done to "put a crimp in the other player's timetable" cause some chaos etc etc. The ships lost and the men sacrificed are deemed a worthy trade in "game terms" In real life though it would be far different.

The points issue is another sticky one. Personally i never pay much attention to "points" because in the real world there were no "points".......the only condition(s) that matter are real world conditions.....have i held the line......did i successfully defend my bases.....take the enemy bases....sink his major warships....etc etc

Since the player is not going to be "pulled" by a higher power as in real life there's probably little that can be done short of implementing a set of harsh conditional/situational rules that will probably piss off more players than it pleases. Already there are a few in place though that seem reasonable. If the US takes Normua IIRC....the game ends......same for Truk. Outside of that dont see what else can be done since both sides can recieve (eventually) reinforcements that may give them a chance to get back into the game.

Besides which.......being on the losing side of the victory curve is a big part of this game. The Solomons conflict for example was decided from the moment the last Japanese foot soldier left Lunga, but the Japanese decided to fight for every inch of territory rather than withdrawl and end the attrition battle. Part of the challenge may lie in attempting to find a way to do better in such a situaition if your on the losing side of the power curve.

This is why serious gamers tend to implement "house rules" to try to make things a bit more realistic. I remember there was mention of it in PacWar...(revolving around massive transport invasions with like 10 divisions attacking atolls and such). A more recent example and one close to home was the great "airborne supply" debate over on the War in Russia forum....some innovative players having discovered that in the game you could not only keep a whole panzer corp alive soley via airlift.....but that you could retain mobility as well leading to "deep expeditions" 100's of miles behind enemy lines with the intent of cutting off key rail heads thus causing an entire front to collapse.

No way this could happen in the real world, nor would any German commander send a highly valuable panzer corp by it's lonsome 500 miles behind the front heading for the Urals. Thus 'house rules' are put into effect preventing players from moving units at certain supply levels and being sustained only by air transport.

I'm leary of making the game end early with two many conditions.....though usually the players themselves will conceed like in a game of chess if the situation is totally hopeless so its kind of unnessessary (who wants to play a 300+ turn game by PBEM if their in a totally hopeless situation?)

As for my own losses.....yeah...quite lopsided...on the enemy's side at least....all six prewar carriers sunk......one battleship, the 2nd modern crippled at limping back to Pearl......all current available heavy cruisers.........all CLAA's, all but one CL. All this by 10/42

Pretty twilight zonish but in this case, what rule would prevent the AI from doing simple bombardment raids of Lunga? Not out of the ordinary. The only "flaw" was in the AI's inability to realize that this was truely a losing strategy (something a human mind would have figured out quick) it only saw that Lunga was occupied and it's coding moved it to harrass it with whatever was available.

As for the "Penalty" well besides the massive points, there's the balance of power.......totally in my favor...the ultimate penalty :)



dpstafford -> Re: Re: POLL: How many losses have you taken? (7/19/2002 1:54:29 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]....one reason why i often dont play humans in spite of the greater challenge vs a lackluster AI.......the simple reason that players tend to 'game' too much, utilizing strategies (agressive strategies) that make a mockery of the historical events being portrayed.[/B][/QUOTE]Colonel Sanders, thy name is "chicken".



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.640625