Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why?

Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (Full Version)

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

Message

asdicus -> Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/5/2011 7:38:57 PM)
For all scenarios I note that Singapore starts with 50% port damage on 7 december 1941. This takes 5 days to repair and makes a big difference to loading/unloading ships. Also of course you cannot build any forts at singapore for 5 days either while the port is repaired. I cannot see any historical reason for the major port damage at the start of the game. The port was undamaged and working fine. Can any of the developers please explain why the port damage was added ? I would like to remove it in a custom babes scenario but I need to justify the change to my opponent.

spence -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/5/2011 11:15:41 PM)
Singapore was bombed by the aircraft which, in AEs present incarnation, sink the Prince of Wales and Repulse (9 out of 10 times). I'm sure those superbombers could have done both if they'd been commanded by a suitably brilliant JFB.

Herrbear -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/5/2011 11:38:38 PM)
I don't know either, but I think it is because they wanted to simulate the damage done to the port by the Allied forces before the fall of Singapore. In the game this cannot be done, unlike oil or resources which do get damaged when captured.

spence -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/5/2011 11:58:51 PM)
quote: I don't know either, but I think it is because they wanted to simulate the damage done to the port by the Allied forces before the fall of Singapore. In the game this cannot be done, unlike oil or resources which do get damaged when captured. The game mechanics dictate that the damage will be repaired as soon as possible and according to the initial poster that takes 5 days. Perhaps I've been uncommonly adept at defending Malaya but losing Singapore after less than 5 days seems unlikely to me. Frankly I just think that the DEVs didn't consider what wouldn't have been done if those Nells/Bettys had spent the first day on standby waiting for a sighting report instead of dropping bombs on a surprised and brilliantly lit up Singapore.

asdicus -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 12:26:17 AM)
If the port damage is supposed to relate to the japanese night bombing raid dec 7/8 on singapore then the port damage of 50% is widely overstated. According to Shores Bloody Shambles vol 1 the night bombing raid on dec 7/8(same night as the landings at kota bharu) was made by land based nell bombers. There were 2 waves - the first wave of 34 nell all turned back due to bad weather and so did 14 out of 31 nell in the second wave. Thus 17 nell's actually made the attack - most bombs hit non military targets(eg chinatown) although 3 blenheim's were damaged. 50% port damage is a lot - the actual military damage was insignificant. 5 days of repair work makes a big difference to the allies at singapore especially if the japs do something different eg land at mersing in force.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 2:23:19 AM)
Why not just be honest? It's another sop to the JFB crowd.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 3:58:23 AM)
Could it be a simulation of confusion? Perhaps it took a while to get everything ship shape after the officers had to put down their Singapore Slings at the Long Bar, wot? Cheers, CC

Alpha77 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 2:48:49 PM)
I haven´t even noticed that, as there was so much chaos overall in 12/41 [:D]

asdicus -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 3:42:14 PM)
I don't want to get into a JFB or AFB argument. I bought the game on release, like it very much and appreciate all the work done by the developers and support staff. The babes scenario is great but I am tweaking it a bit for my own interpretation of historical game start conditions. The singapore port damage looked like an anomaly to me so I am seeking reasons for this from the scenario developers. I can then justify(or not) changing things to my pbm game opponent.

JWE -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 5:35:39 PM)
Originally done to represent the differential between shipyard potential for the Allies and the Japanese, given the 50% data reduction upon capture. Was implemented very early in the game system development, and simply wasn't updated through all the subsequent changes. Might have done it differently, if I knew how things would evolve. Only takes 5 days to fix it, so ... deal with it.

Rainer -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 8:29:58 PM)
quote: Why not just be honest? Good idea. Give it a try ...[8\|]

Nomad -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 9:28:00 PM)
I always felt that it was either supposed to be that way or an unimportant data base error. I have never worried about it. 5 days / 1600 days in a game = .3125% of the game. Whooppppppeeeeeeeee I really feel so cheated. [:)]

Sredni -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/6/2011 9:41:41 PM)
Well, this could be one of the reasons that singapore usually falls sooner then historical in most games. A minor contributor. The fact that nobody sends the 18th to die there probably has a much bigger impact on this. Though thinking about it in AE I dunno if the 18th could get to singapore. By the time the convoy could reach singapore there's enough air power over singapore to sink any convoy.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/7/2011 4:22:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer quote: Why not just be honest? Good idea. Give it a try ...[8\|] Always have..., how many other posters on this forum use their real names? [8D]

Rainer -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/7/2011 4:32:33 PM)
quote: Why not just be honest? It's another sop to the JFB crowd. Accusing the developers with an unfair argument (or no argument at all) is unfair and dishonest. No matter what name or disguise you use. If you tried to be sarcastic I missed it ...

erstad -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/8/2011 12:58:44 AM)
quote: Always have..., how many other posters on this forum use their real names? Me! Me!

bigred -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/8/2011 3:24:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni Well, this could be one of the reasons that singapore usually falls sooner then historical in most games. A minor contributor. The fact that nobody sends the 18th to die there probably has a much bigger impact on this. Though thinking about it in AE I dunno if the 18th could get to singapore. By the time the convoy could reach singapore there's enough air power over singapore to sink any convoy. English: SS EMPRESS OF ASIA beached and burning. Most of the troops on board were rescued, but nearly all their weapons and equipment were lost. EMPRESS OF ASIA was the only vessel of the convoy reinforcing Malaya to be lost under the air attack. The vessel on the right is SS FELIX ROUSELL. The convoy comprised four vessels bringing the remainder of the 18th British Division to Singapore, and was the last convoy to reach the island before it fell. [image]local://upfiles/27655/91FABE76763B4FAEBC584433B2642863.jpg[/image]

Icedawg -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/8/2011 6:40:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad quote: Always have..., how many other posters on this forum use their real names? Me! Me! Me too! [:D]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/8/2011 11:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg quote: ORIGINAL: erstad quote: Always have..., how many other posters on this forum use their real names? Me! Me! Me too! [:D] "Icedawg" and "Erstad"? Your parents by any chance related to the lady who named her twins "Orangejello" and "Lemonjello"? [:D]

Cyber Me -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/9/2011 8:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus For all scenarios I note that Singapore starts with 50% port damage on 7 december 1941. This takes 5 days to repair and makes a big difference to loading/unloading ships. Also of course you cannot build any forts at singapore for 5 days either while the port is repaired. I cannot see any historical reason for the major port damage at the start of the game. The port was undamaged and working fine. Can any of the developers please explain why the port damage was added ? I would like to remove it in a custom babes scenario but I need to justify the change to my opponent. It was Percival's order not to fortify the northern shores of Singapore up to 27th Dec 1941 because he didn't want to panic the civilians and wounded retreating troops- even though 6500 engineers could have been adding to the defences. Even when the Commonwealth forces crossed onto the island virtually nothing was done- the the little progress was made in the wrong positions as Percival mis-judged were the Japanese were going to invade- "There were no permanent defences on the front about to be attacked," Churchill said. By the time the Australians reached their front on 1st Feb 1942 they had to prepare their defences from scratch and only at night as the bank was now subjected to near constant bombing, strafing, and shelling during the day.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/9/2011 11:26:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cyber Me quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus For all scenarios I note that Singapore starts with 50% port damage on 7 december 1941. This takes 5 days to repair and makes a big difference to loading/unloading ships. Also of course you cannot build any forts at singapore for 5 days either while the port is repaired. I cannot see any historical reason for the major port damage at the start of the game. The port was undamaged and working fine. Can any of the developers please explain why the port damage was added ? I would like to remove it in a custom babes scenario but I need to justify the change to my opponent. It was Percival's order not to fortify the northern shores of Singapore up to 27th Dec 1941 because he didn't want to panic the civilians and wounded retreating troops- even though 6500 engineers could have been adding to the defences. Even when the Commonwealth forces crossed onto the island virtually nothing was done- the the little progress was made in the wrong positions as Percival mis-judged were the Japanese were going to invade- "There were no permanent defences on the front about to be attacked," Churchill said. By the time the Australians reached their front on 1st Feb 1942 they had to prepare their defences from scratch and only at night as the bank was now subjected to near constant bombing, strafing, and shelling during the day. But the question remains. Since the player IS Perceval (and many others), why does Singapore start with the totally unwaranted 50% port damage? Wake Island battered the first Japanese invasion attempt..., but the game doesn't force the Japanese player to get battered as well.

HansBolter -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/9/2011 12:36:50 PM)
mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history). The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether.

treespider -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/9/2011 2:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 But the question remains. Since the player IS Perceval (and many others), why does Singapore start with the totally unwaranted 50% port damage? Wake Island battered the first Japanese invasion attempt..., but the game doesn't force the Japanese player to get battered as well. Nor does the game force upon the Allied player the Western sensibilities as they relate to a consideration of the effects of a protracted siege upon the civilian population of Singapore... Nor does the game force Britain to defend Singapore, evidently in the 11th hour Churchill and the War Office decided that Rangoon or Java would be a far better option... Nor does the game Force the Allied player to sally forth with Force Z... Nor does the game force upon the Japanese player a consideration of the handling of prisoners... Nor does the game force upon the Japanese a consideration of the contest between Army and Navy... Nor does the game force Allied players to devote landing craft assets to Europe... Nor does the game... Nor does the game... Nor does the game... Wah, Wah, Wah... If you don't like Singapore starting with 50 damage.. open up the handy dandy editor located in the SCEN file...click file...click open ...highlight Scenario 1 ....click Load/Save....click on Locations....scroll down to slot 722 .... change Port Damage from 50 to 0 or whatever number you like... then click File...then click Save Scenario As.... then save it in a slot #26 or higher...

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/9/2011 2:56:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history). The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether. Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking...

HansBolter -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/10/2011 9:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history). The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether. Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking... Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early. I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)]

Tijanski -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/10/2011 4:34:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history). The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether. Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking... Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early. I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)] The designers who did this posted whey he did this and says it is a error and a oversite but it does not hurt anything in the long run. Why is this still going on?

Nomad -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/10/2011 10:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tijanski quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history). The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether. Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking... Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early. I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)] The designers who did this posted whey he did this and says it is a error and a oversite but it does not hurt anything in the long run. Why is this still going on? Some people are convinced there is a conspiracy. [image]local://upfiles/4176/D7AA536E14F649DEAEEA3346325970BE.jpg[/image]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/10/2011 10:37:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad Some people are convinced there is a conspiracy. This thread has just about confirmed for me that we have officially run out of things to talk about. We need to rewind the forum. I'll start: "PT boats are insanely overpowered!!!!"

spence -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/10/2011 11:29:35 PM)
The only thing that actually sticks in my craw is the two standards applied; to wit: 1)If any Japanese commander screwed up, let's give them the ability to fix it in the game. 2) If any Allied Commander screwed up, let's hard code it or make a house rule about it to make it so in the game too.

asdicus -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/11/2011 6:55:09 PM)
I started this thread and to be honest I am disappointed that some posters have taken to bashing the game developers. JWE was kind enough to answer my question and that is sufficient for me. I think witp ae is a great game with a lot of excellent and dedicated developers and testers. Sure there are some issues but they don't detract from the overall game experience - you just learn to play around any stuff which causes unhappyness. Please no more posts in this thread moaning about stuff - thanks.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375