Midway (Full Version)

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



Message

herwin -> Midway (8/18/2011 3:17:34 PM)

I'd like to suggest that someone put together a simple Midway scenario--one island, two fleets, some land-based aircraft. I'm not suggesting that it be a competitive game, but rather a tool to study WitP-AE. The first day of operations can probably be preplanned. I'd do it, but I currently lack the resources. I predict we would see four patterns:

1. The search assets based at Midway will be unreliable in their initial detection of the Japanese task forces.

2. The land based aircraft at Midway will not launch.

3. The usual outcome of the initial American carrier attack will be none, one or two Japanese carriers lightly damaged.

4. The usual outcome of the initial Japanese carrier attack will be two or three American carriers sunk or heavily damaged.

If someone does that and posts the results, I'll be happy to do a WinBUGS simulation to work out the likely pattern of battle outcomes. I suspect we'll find what Nimitz expected to be the likely outcome will not be at all likely in the game.



rev rico -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 4:33:04 PM)

Doesn't Midway only has to be POSSIBLE not probable?

One time I sent KB hunting for the Enterprise & Lex after PH. It found them, but things didn't go as I hoped. Lex was sunk and Ent crippled BUT Zuikaku was sunk, Hiyru crippled, and Kaga heavily damaged. Another time I tried the same and both US CVs bit the dust for no IJN losses.




Shark7 -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 4:40:29 PM)

With a few variables being different, Midway could have ended in any number of ways historically. US Victory, draw, IJN victory, complete disaster for both sides, etc...

But I would be interested to see if the game comes up with a predictable outcome to scenario.

Unfornately, I believe herwin is probably right though...with the IJN always getting first strike due to turn resolution order it will likely not end well for allies. But I'd like to be proven wrong.






PaxMondo -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 4:42:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rev rico

Doesn't Midway only has to be POSSIBLE not probable?

One time I sent KB hunting for the Enterprise & Lex after PH. It found them, but things didn't go as I hoped. Lex was sunk and Ent crippled BUT Zuikaku was sunk, Hiyru crippled, and Kaga heavily damaged. Another time I tried the same and both US CVs bit the dust for no IJN losses.



Very similar results for me ... I haven't lost a CV chasing the allied CV's, but I sure have had them spend a great deal of the war in the SY. My current GC game, I've found them each independently and had 1st time, Kaga put in SY for (well she's still there and going to there yet for a while) and 2nd time Hiryu and Shokaku both had to go to docks. Shokaku not so bad. Hiryu will be there for a LONG time. Took me almost a month just to get her to the HI .... Yep, I need a lot more practice in my tactics. [:D]



Nikademus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 4:49:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I'd like to suggest that someone put together a simple Midway scenario--one island, two fleets, some land-based aircraft. I'm not suggesting that it be a competitive game, but rather a tool to study WitP-AE. The first day of operations can probably be preplanned. I'd do it, but I currently lack the resources. I predict we would see four patterns:

1. The search assets based at Midway will be unreliable in their initial detection of the Japanese task forces.

2. The land based aircraft at Midway will not launch.

3. The usual outcome of the initial American carrier attack will be none, one or two Japanese carriers lightly damaged.

4. The usual outcome of the initial Japanese carrier attack will be two or three American carriers sunk or heavily damaged.

If someone does that and posts the results, I'll be happy to do a WinBUGS simulation to work out the likely pattern of battle outcomes. I suspect we'll find what Nimitz expected to be the likely outcome will not be at all likely in the game.


I'd like to suggest that you and El Cid form a team and create the ultimate battle tested WitP simulator. I predict we'll see four patterns.

1. The Scenario Design subforum will crash from the lengthy exchanges you two will post publically

2. The development time might exceed the time that the expansion cycle of the universe as we understand it.

3. The results of your combined efforts will yield equally variable results because the game is not a NORAD battle simulation but alot of code aided by random die rolls.

4. WitP will remain an operational level wargame....not a tactical carrier battle game.





Terminus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 4:51:48 PM)

And there'll be the fifth pattern,

5. Nobody but "Herwin" and "El Cid" will care at all.




Chickenboy -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 5:13:46 PM)

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]



AW1Steve -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 5:57:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]


I couldn't agree more![:(]

Why can't you do a Midway scenario and expect different results? We have Coral Sea and the Kiska/Attu invasions. And you definately won't get those to come out as in real life. (In fact if you try it in the Thousand Mile war , you'll definately get your head handed to you!). I for one would like to see a lot more short sceanrios. And I applauld anyone making them. [&o]



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:03:53 PM)

quote:

With a few variables being different, Midway could have ended in any number of ways historically. US Victory, draw, IJN victory, complete disaster for both sides, etc...


Sure. But the variables that differed would have to be something like "Midway atoll is really just a calcium carbonate deposit floating on a really big latex baloon" or "The Japanese battle plan was thrown into the trash and replaced with something involing at least six Japanese fleet carriers."

Without that, a Japanese defeat was nearly a foregone conclusion. The Japanese knew it, predicted the same, and then decided optimistically to ignore their predictions. The US knew it, predicted the same, acted upon their predictions, and despite all manner of sloppy execution, beat the stuffing out of the Japanese.

If they'd sent six CVs instead of four at least there'd be a decent chance that they'd have two or three operational and would have sunk or damaged another US CV.



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:07:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rev rico

Doesn't Midway only has to be POSSIBLE not probable?

One time I sent KB hunting for the Enterprise & Lex after PH. It found them, but things didn't go as I hoped. Lex was sunk and Ent crippled BUT Zuikaku was sunk, Hiyru crippled, and Kaga heavily damaged. Another time I tried the same and both US CVs bit the dust for no IJN losses.




Nimitz estimated he had rough parity with the 4-carrier KB. That was based on three large aircraft carriers and Midway being the equivalent of a fourth. The actual outcome was an ambush, mostly IMO because the American carriers could operate behind Midway, with Midway handling search. Here's the Midway OB:

Air group
United States Navy
31 PBY-5 Catalina, seaplanes.
6 Grumman TBF-1 Avenger, torpedo bombers
United States Army Air Forces
4 B-26 Marauder, medium bombers
17 B-17 Flying Fortress, heavy bombers
United States Marine Corps
27 Douglas SBD-2 Dauntless, dive bombers
17 Chance-Vought SB2U-3 Vindicator, dive bombers
21 Brewster F2A Buffalo, fighters
7 Grumman F4F-3A Wildcat, fighters
1 light utility aircraft

My game experience is that a larger but similar force at Ndeni twice refused to launch against IJN CARDIVs 2 and 5. That makes the situation much less balanced.



Nikademus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:10:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]


I couldn't agree more![:(]

Why can't you do a Midway scenario and expect different results? We have Coral Sea and the Kiska/Attu invasions. And you definately won't get those to come out as in real life. (In fact if you try it in the Thousand Mile war , you'll definately get your head handed to you!). I for one would like to see a lot more short sceanrios. And I applauld anyone making them. [&o]



No-one says you can't. However that wasn't Erwin's point. He wasn't asking for a Midway short scenario for it's own sake. He was taking another potshot at the game along the same lines as his "Historical Lessons Learned from the Game" thread. If he can build a better game....i'm all for that too.




herwin -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:10:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]


He's on my block list,...



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:19:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]


I couldn't agree more![:(]

Why can't you do a Midway scenario and expect different results? We have Coral Sea and the Kiska/Attu invasions. And you definately won't get those to come out as in real life. (In fact if you try it in the Thousand Mile war , you'll definately get your head handed to you!). I for one would like to see a lot more short sceanrios. And I applauld anyone making them. [&o]



No-one says you can't. However that wasn't Erwin's point. He wasn't asking for a Midway short scenario for it's own sake. He was taking another potshot at the game along the same lines as his "Historical Lessons Learned from the Game" thread. If he can build a better game....i'm all for that too.




Fair enough. I would expect short scenarios based on Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz to be worth playing on their own, but my question was how they would stack up against the expected outcomes. In all three cases, I believe the USN expected a draw, making them good one-on-one battles. Keep them short so that the lack of surprise doesn't give the Japanese player an advantage.



vettim89 -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:26:08 PM)

The problem with any Midway scenario is that the RL results were predicated on Yamamoto's plan being executed flawlessly. The prime facets of that plan that didn't go Yamamoto's way was that the USN was laying in wait for the IJN CVTF when they arrived off Midway. They were supposed to be at PH and only sortie either right before or immediately after the island fell into Japanese hands. Ergo, the first strikes from KB went to neutralizing Midway's AB. As players using a "Midway" scenario, we would know the except dispositions of both fleets. It would be highly unlikely that you could achieve even a draw for the USN under those conditions.

You can achieve Midway like results in AE but the will need to be set up in a similar situation: USN surprises the IJN by being some where they were not expected



Nikademus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:30:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]


I couldn't agree more![:(]

Why can't you do a Midway scenario and expect different results? We have Coral Sea and the Kiska/Attu invasions. And you definately won't get those to come out as in real life. (In fact if you try it in the Thousand Mile war , you'll definately get your head handed to you!). I for one would like to see a lot more short sceanrios. And I applauld anyone making them. [&o]



No-one says you can't. However that wasn't Erwin's point. He wasn't asking for a Midway short scenario for it's own sake. He was taking another potshot at the game along the same lines as his "Historical Lessons Learned from the Game" thread. If he can build a better game....i'm all for that too.




Fair enough. I would expect short scenarios based on Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz to be worth playing on their own, but my question was how they would stack up against the expected outcomes. In all three cases, I believe the USN expected a draw, making them good one-on-one battles. Keep them short so that the lack of surprise doesn't give the Japanese player an advantage.




Basing on UV/WitP.....GG designed the game to favor a mutual set of exchanges that would, more times than not result in an average exchange of damage. Outside of player control settings.....this was pretty much 100% certainly.....meaning if Carrier Group A was in range of Group B, and B in range of A...there would always be a mutual exchange of strikes....irregardless of the involvement of land based search elements. If weather cancelled one carrier group's ops (the famous "cloud" in the hex) then it could also not be attacked....preventing a midway type situation. AE tries to add more variable elements to the mix and I have seen unanswered strikes as a result as well as attempts to better display uncoordinated/unbalanced strikes, which can result in odd situations. I understand the motivation behind the decision(s) however in hindsight i'm thinking Mr. Grigsby had the right idea all along given the game's operational level approach. In old Stock WitP...the only time i ever got a "Midway" result was because my opponent had set his groups to night attack, attempting to be clever....which had it worked would have been a brilliant stroke, but he underestimated the approach speed of the TF's so the carrier groups were in range in daylight.....the routine kicked in, my carriers struck his, but because his were set to night attack, there was nothing to counter-attack so his Japanese CV's were KO'd while my US CV's were untouched. Had it not been the case it would have been a mutually destructive exchange in most cases as there were only two carriers per side so the UberCAP issue would not have influenced things.



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:34:23 PM)

quote:

In all three cases, I believe the USN expected a draw,


Uh, no. In two cases the US expected to turn back the Japanese CVs (Coral Sea, Santa Cruz). At Midway, the USN expected and obtained a decisive victory. Nimitz' orders to Spruance gave him the option of accounting for unexpected developments.

Both navies understood VERY WELL that operating CVs near an enemy island airbase base when you don't know where the enemy CVs are poses an extreme risk. The Japanese only attemped that sort of thing when they were absolutely sure of operational surprise, as at Pearl Harbor. The lack of knowledge of the locations of the American CVs after the PH strikes was one of the factors that Nagumo considered when he decamped the area, and he was correct to be very concerned.

The Japanese Midway battle plan REQUIRED the COMPLETE ABSENCE of ANY American aircraft carriers. Their operational plan testing/wargaming indicated that the presence of even one American CV would ruin their day. Their assessment was correct. They continued the operation on the expectation and assertion that no American CVs would be within 400 miles of Midway.

I would expect any consim to generate routine lopsided CV victories to the USN under the same circumstances as the historical battle. The one thing I have wondered is whether the Japanese could have weathered the subsequent air imbalance and continued with their plan anyhow willing to "risk it all" on an amphib assault unsupported by fleet CVs. Could they have taken the atoll?

Of course that's moot. The whole point of the Japanese plan was to take Midway by surprise, and then "Do a Midway" on the *American* CVs (using Japanese LBA at Midway to rope-a-dope the American CVs while KB would catch them with a sucker-punch). So when KB went under, there was really no point to continuing the operation.



Canoerebel -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:35:16 PM)

Another problem with expecting the same Midway results is that AE is based upon daily turns.  You issue orders before the day begins and can't adjust during the course of the day as conditions warrant.  At Midway, of course, adjustments were made moment by moment.  So, I don't necessarily expect the game to replicate what happens during an hour or twenty four hours exactly the way they happened, but over a longer stretch of time I would expect the results to be fairly historical (or based upon historical abilities and probabilities; subject, of course, to wild swings when we introduce new variables like PDU, Scenario Two, Historic Allied Torps off, or the like).

As for Herwin's "what I learned" thread, I don't think anybody views that as a slam against AE.  It's just a fun way of differentiating between real life and how the game approaches and tries to model real life.



Nikademus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:43:46 PM)

Carrier Force and Carrier Strike did a better job of simulating the Midway qaundry as they were tactical carrier games that not only went by Hourly turns...but also put the player in charge of flight deck operations and specific detail control of search ops.

Even with hindsight mucking things up (i.e. The Japanese player KNOWING that he faces a 3 CV force and Midway at the same time), there were still enough variability factors that "a Midway" could occur (hell the AI did it to me serveral times) but of course that was because the AI as well as the Human knew there was a carrier force in the area so it went lookin. The scripts DID however require the AI to hit Midway so if the search by the US side was lucky enough, and well done enough, the US player might get in a strike while the KB force was occupied, leading to a similar exchange.

It was difficult though. IIRC, I don't believe even the Naval War College has ever duplicated Midway's results.




AW1Steve -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:44:33 PM)

As far as the six carrier go , I don't see it. You don't give the USN the option to cancel the Doolittle Raid and have 4 CV's in Coral sea. Why not just simply start the scenario on the opening day, with the actual forces.

No other sceanrio gives you the ability to totally change the order of battle. The USN can't decide to transfer half the battle ships to the west coast , or reinforce PH with 800 fighters. And the INJ can't use the Mini-KB with the KB to hit PH. You are given basic, real world forces and similar to real world parameters. The game doesn't (unless you use the editor) to play God. It simply allows you to ask and answer the question "Are you better than Nimitz/Yamamoto/Spruance/Nagumo?" Period. Do simulate the whole war to play a scenario. Just simulate the scenario to simulate the scenario. [:)]



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:51:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The problem with any Midway scenario is that the RL results were predicated on Yamamoto's plan being executed flawlessly. The prime facets of that plan that didn't go Yamamoto's way was that the USN was laying in wait for the IJN CVTF when they arrived off Midway. They were supposed to be at PH and only sortie either right before or immediately after the island fell into Japanese hands. Ergo, the first strikes from KB went to neutralizing Midway's AB. As players using a "Midway" scenario, we would know the except dispositions of both fleets. It would be highly unlikely that you could achieve even a draw for the USN under those conditions.

You can achieve Midway like results in AE but the will need to be set up in a similar situation: USN surprises the IJN by being some where they were not expected


Nimitz, knowing the Japanese fleet dispositions, expected a draw. Hughes's analysis is similar. Given enough replications we can see how balanced the game really is and identify the sources of imbalance.



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:54:02 PM)

quote:

As far as the six carrier go , I don't see it.

Six CVs are what would have been required to give the Japanese a fighting chance of a draw with respect to CV losses under those circumstances. If your consim doesn't generate lopsided US victories given the historical order of battle at Midway then your consim is broken.

Both navies knew at the time of the historical battle of Midway that if the enemy showed up with even light CV forces while you were engaged with suppressing a major land base then you were going to lose CVs. That's why the Japanese battle plan required the absence of the US CVs. That's why the US CVs during the early war strikes against Japanese positions on the edge of their perimeter were conducted in a context of operational intel placing Japanese CVs to far from the scene of the raids to respond.

The Japanese operational plan for Midway was, basically, to capture the island by surprise, and then do to the US CVs that which the US CVs historically did to them. Their plan was to use Midway in exactly the way that, in the historical battle, the US used Midway against the Japanese.

The problems were well-known to both navies. What was not known and has not been very well described until "Shattered Sword" came out was just how hopelessly flawed the Japanese operational plan turned out to be. It was the mother of all lousy operational plans.



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:54:56 PM)

quote:

Nimitz, knowing the Japanese fleet dispositions, expected a draw.


No. He expected a win. He was willing to accept a draw.



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:56:55 PM)

Hughes discusses the surprise scenario in some depth. The problem is that with only four large carrier battles in 1942, our estimate of its probability is not very exact. That's one of the reasons I'd like to set up these scenarios.



Nikademus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:58:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The problem with any Midway scenario is that the RL results were predicated on Yamamoto's plan being executed flawlessly. The prime facets of that plan that didn't go Yamamoto's way was that the USN was laying in wait for the IJN CVTF when they arrived off Midway. They were supposed to be at PH and only sortie either right before or immediately after the island fell into Japanese hands. Ergo, the first strikes from KB went to neutralizing Midway's AB. As players using a "Midway" scenario, we would know the except dispositions of both fleets. It would be highly unlikely that you could achieve even a draw for the USN under those conditions.

You can achieve Midway like results in AE but the will need to be set up in a similar situation: USN surprises the IJN by being some where they were not expected


Nimitz, knowing the Japanese fleet dispositions, expected a draw. Hughes's analysis is similar. Given enough replications we can see how balanced the game really is and identify the sources of imbalance.


Nimitz from my readings, expected/desired a reasonable level of attrition, not necessarily a draw. He left it up to the CO's on the spot to determine it's viability.....he wanted aggressiveness but not at the full risk to his own carriers.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 6:58:56 PM)

If there is to be a Midway scenario then I demand a database change such that there are 4 B-26's armed with torps and a crew experience somewhere between 7 and 11.


At first blush the play would seem to be for the Japanese player to ignore the crappy aircraft at Midway and go after the US carriers.....but the US player could fly off a couple of carriers worth of F4F's and SBD's to Midway and run East...then perhaps come back with the TBD's after the first wave of fighting is over.



Apollo11 -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 7:00:22 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

As far as the six carrier go , I don't see it.

Six CVs are what would have been required to give the Japanese a fighting chance of a draw with respect to CV losses under those circumstances. If your consim doesn't generate lopsided US victories given the historical order of battle at Midway then your consim is broken.

Both navies knew at the time of the historical battle of Midway that if the enemy showed up with even light CV forces while you were engaged with suppressing a major land base then you were going to lose CVs. That's why the Japanese battle plan required the absence of the US CVs. That's why the US CVs during the early war strikes against Japanese positions on the edge of their perimeter were conducted in a context of operational intel placing Japanese CVs to far from the scene of the raids to respond.

The Japanese operational plan for Midway was, basically, to capture the island by surprise, and then do to the US CVs that which the US CVs historically did to them. Their plan was to use Midway in exactly the way that, in the historical battle, the US used Midway against the Japanese.

The problems were well-known to both navies. What was not known and has not been very well described until "Shattered Sword" came out was just how hopelessly flawed the Japanese operational plan turned out to be. It was the mother of all lousy operational plans.


I fully agree with "mdiehl" on this (and yes this can happen)... [:D]


BTW, few years ago we talked about this problem on WitP board IIRC.

In that discussion thread I suggested that Japanese, perhaps, had chance to use fast moving TF to suppress / kill Midway air base using ship artillery during night (Midway is, as we all know, pretty small and there is no room to hide - several hundred heavy HE shells would obliterate it for sure).

What I wonder is if that was possible / feasible / realistic ?

BTW, if it worked with Guadalcanal - perhaps it would work even better with Midway (i.e. nowhere to hide on small Midway)?


Leo "Apollo11"



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 7:02:14 PM)

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e11ebd20-25fe-4ad0-8b8c-e63f80dfb6c4/Midway--Sheer-Luck-or-Better-Doctrine----Wildenber

An interesting piece by a US Naval War College lecturer on differences in IJN and USN CV development and doctrine that attributes the USN victory at Midway to superior US doctrine and inadequate Japanese recon doctrine.




m10bob -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 7:03:17 PM)

Just a comment...All the intel in the world and having our ships in the "right place" was nearly not good enough, when you look at the absolutely miserable, incompetant performance of the planes based ON Midway, and the completely incomplete PBY sighting reports.....

I truly believe only Divine intervention saved our bacon.



mdiehl -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 7:06:38 PM)

quote:

What I wonder is if that was possible / feasible / realistic ?


Possible maybe. The US was conducting intensive PBY recon from Midway three days prior to the battle and located the advance elements of the Japanese force. So I'd say as a working assumption that such an encounter would have the unsupported Japanese bombardment TF facing Midway's strike a.c. (but none from the USN CVs). It'd be -- interesting.



Nikademus -> RE: Midway (8/18/2011 7:11:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just a comment...All the intel in the world and having our ships in the "right place" was nearly not good enough, when you look at the absolutely miserable, incompetant performance of the planes based ON Midway, and the completely incomplete PBY sighting reports.....

I truly believe only Divine intervention saved our bacon.


John Lundstrom said it best in the forward to SS, that it was amazing the results gotten given how poorly the USN operated above the squadron level. That the US won wasn't a suprise. Yamamotto set his forces up for a loss though i can understand what he was trying to acomplish. Hindsight makes brilliant generals and admirals of us all though. [:D]



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125