RE: Midway (Full Version)

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



Message

herwin -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 3:33:29 PM)

There's a third game limitation. In planning, Nimitz treated a supplied and staffed level 4 airbase with its squadrons as equivalent to a carrier. The game nerfs it. That produces ahistorical results at the strategic or campaign level.



vettim89 -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 4:41:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

There's a third game limitation. In planning, Nimitz treated a supplied and staffed level 4 airbase with its squadrons as equivalent to a carrier. The game nerfs it. That produces ahistorical results at the strategic or campaign level.


Harry,

What do you mean by "The game nerfs it." In RL, the only thing the AB at Midway gave the US commanders was NavSearch. Oops, night PBY's torpedoed an AO. Besides that we have no hits on IJN ships, 24 of 26 fighters were either shot down or heavily damaged in the first attack, and very few IJN aircraft were shot down by AAA. If a player had a similar OOB at Midway, I doubt the game would give him any worse results than that




Chickenboy -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 5:06:36 PM)

Herwin, et. al.,

You had me at 'why doesn't someone make a Midway scenario for the game'?

You lost me at '...Given enough replications we can see how balanced the game really is and identify the sources of imbalance...'

I'd enjoy playing the Midway scenario with the OOB. I would be hesitant to extrapolate any global observations about how balanced the game really is OR our ability to identify the 'imbalance' from this scenario-or any other for that matter. Presumably you would want to identify the imbalance in order to then 'fix it' with the proper modeling, eh? Sorry-what you suggest as a rationale for scenario building isn't what I'm looking for.





herwin -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 5:27:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

There's a third game limitation. In planning, Nimitz treated a supplied and staffed level 4 airbase with its squadrons as equivalent to a carrier. The game nerfs it. That produces ahistorical results at the strategic or campaign level.


Harry,

What do you mean by "The game nerfs it." In RL, the only thing the AB at Midway gave the US commanders was NavSearch. Oops, night PBY's torpedoed an AO. Besides that we have no hits on IJN ships, 24 of 26 fighters were either shot down or heavily damaged in the first attack, and very few IJN aircraft were shot down by AAA. If a player had a similar OOB at Midway, I doubt the game would give him any worse results than that




Would a single carrier have done any better against the KB? Midway did two things--first, by being the equivalent of a carrier at a known place in the ocean, it spurred the Japanese to use two carriers worth of assets to shut it down as early as possible. Second, it was not taken by surprise and was able to launch its strikes, contributing to the success of the other three American carriers by occupying the KB's air defence. My experience with the game predicts that Midway wouldn't launch and might even not find the KB, and based on my experience with carrier-versus-carrier battles in the game, the most likely outcome would be the sinking of all three US carriers at the cost of one or two Japanese carriers shut down, followed by the methodical suppression and invasion of Midway.



Fishbed -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 5:48:55 PM)

People, what you are looking for is either in Carriers at War or HPS' recently released Midway title. WitP is just not made for this scale, and you will never have the excitement of recovering planes at the worst moment, or find the enemy task force minutes before it does. You will have different excitement, in par with the scale of the game, but nothing like being Spruance or Kinkaid. You're not Spruance or Kinkaid, you're Nimitz.
Everything like that is being covered by mechanics and dice rolls. If you want to be the dice, get tactical, but let's not expect things that the engine is not supposed to deliver, and never has (and we know that since UV, even though refinement and improvement has never paused since then).

So Herwin, you'd rather should go make calculations in games which actually allows for more user control in the processing and the outcome. Stop terrorizing my WitP, please, she's a good girl who never asked for that... [8|] [;)]



Miller -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 5:56:08 PM)

Actually if you set up the opposing forces as historic - IJN CVs not all full strength and half of their a/c commited to attack Midway....you might be surprised by the outcome.

In one early PBEM game Stoneage vs Spruance, a near as dammit Midway occurred (4 CV vs 4 CV) and the Japs lost all 4 CVs for none in return. Likewise my current opponent Fabertong lost in a similar fashion in his other PBEM, so it is possible for the Allies to win big in 42 with a bit of luck.......



Fishbed -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 6:16:58 PM)

Myself in a sopac specific scenario in a 6 US CV vs KB+baby KB november 1942 confrontation, my opponent's forces were ravaged as the US TFs, with 3x2 CVTF, ended up at dawn concentrated in the same hex between his two equally distributed CVTF, separated by a hole of something like 8 hex. In the following battle, hornet took moderate damage and that's pretty much it, while one of the Japanese CVTF was mauled finished off in the night by one SCTF detached from the CVs, with 3 CVs, 2 CVL and Yamato lost. In the north, Nagato, Akagi, Soryu and other folks all either ate a bomb or a torp.

All of this because of sheer luck, thanks to the fact that part of the enemy force didn't launch (surprise was total, it was happening south of Munda),  partly because of weather, but maybe also as some of its planes must have been in ASW duty. Death took its toll after that, as Betties and several engagement finally killed USS North Carolina in the race to south, and subs put torps in Yorktown and Saratoga, but other than Showboat no other big guy was lost, which made the tally beautiful.

But well, the level of detail in WitP just forbids you from actually failing or winning because of your own flawed or lucky personal decisions in the heat of the battle which, beside weather, are the very causes of the outcome of most of the WW2 carrier battles. In WitP, everything you decide is a consequence of your orders the day before, which may make you feel a little bit powerless (like a Commander in Chief should feel!!!). You have to accept other factors, and a lot of randomness, that can somewhat make for that feeling - but either way, you'd rather fail because you're bad, instead of having a dice roll getting the victory away from your hands. I can live with that, for it isn't in my view the point of WitP. But some others can't. I'd advice these ones to look for another game if they want to find that kind of feelings and results, for WitP ain't the good game for that, although it gives you galore of chills in other areas.



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 7:23:00 PM)

How big an airbase is necessary to be roughly equivalent to a carrier in the game?



AW1Steve -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 7:29:21 PM)

It depends on how big a carrier you want. [8|] Sorry, couldn't resist! But I'd imagine that they be going for a Yorktown class, so that 85+ planes. I don't think anyone thought it was litterly the size or number of a CV's group. I'm sure they weren't counting PBY's. And the B-17's do kind of screw with the number (by game rules 1 B17 = 4 single engines).



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 7:51:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It depends on how big a carrier you want. [8|] Sorry, couldn't resist! But I'd imagine that they be going for a Yorktown class, so that 85+ planes. I don't think anyone thought it was litterly the size or number of a CV's group. I'm sure they weren't counting PBY's. And the B-17's do kind of screw with the number (by game rules 1 B17 = 4 single engines).


So Nimitz's rule of thumb--Midway (level 4 AF in the game) = Yorktown class--is about right.

That makes operational planning in the Pacific theater a lot more understandable. You need 2-1 (or at least 1.5-1) superiority over the airfields and likely carrier opposition to succeed.



spence -> RE: Midway (8/19/2011 10:08:27 PM)

quote:

The INJ can be FORCED to have the equivalent of surprise. Like the Coral Sea scenarion, they will have to sieze Midway by a specific date or they lose on points. In both the Coral sea and Thousand mile war scenarios , the invader is FORCED to invade early or lose the game (no matter how many CV's sunk). It won't matter if the INJ attacks Midway due to there being no USN CV's around , or to beat the ticking clock , they must take Midway. Or lose the game by default.

The INJ player need not be an idiot, just a leader constrained by the politics of his leaders. As I've said again and again, the only "gamey" feature about this game is that all commanders work in "lock step". The creation of a "Grand Pubah" , so to speak. I reality, military commanders are far more likey to be told "take that hill, do it now and don't give me any excuses", than being allowed to plan the whole war at his lesuire or convienance. "Everybody" has a master , that imposed constraints and forces you to do things you object to. Even FDR was influenced by politics. Nimtz,MacArthur,and King and Marshall certainly were. So why not Nagumo or Spruance/Fletcher? The general staff gives you your instructions, what,where and WHEN it expects things done. THERE'S your handicap.


I would like to call attention to the pitifully small invasion force that was allocated to the invasion of Midway: two battalions of assault troops. They had no heavy weapons, no reserves, no practice, no specialized landing craft, no liason with either the aircraft or ships of the IJN and were not even from the same service. It seems to me that they were opposed by a full Marine Defense Battalion along with a couple of companies of Marine Paratroops or Raiders and a tank platoon along with USAAF/USN base force units. Wouldn't be in the least surprised if it turned out the defenders outnumbered the attackers and in this instance the defenders were not demoralized uninspired colonial troops. One of the "Shattered Sword" Appendices paints a pretty dismal picture of the actual landing (with the forces available) even given a Japanese victory in the naval confrontation/or lack of naval confrontation a la original plan.

Perhaps the system just can not handle this battle.




Pascal_slith -> RE: Midway (8/20/2011 6:44:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.




There were a series of papers in the Naval War College Review written by a number of people who had studied the battle. Wildenberg is one. The authors of "Shattered Sword" were another. Check the issues around the Wildenberg one (don't have the links just now).

The usual list of books to refer to: John Lundstrom's "First Team" and his "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral". "Shattered Sword" and "Midway Inquest". All the recent research has concentrated on comparative flight operations/deck operations doctrine, timing of orders, and recon.




toonces -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 1:05:24 AM)

I've been reading this thread with interest. Although I agree that WiTP:AE is not the best game to simulate this battle- too many moment-to-moment decisions impacted the battle that cannot be accurately simulated in WiTP:AE- the idea of a Midway scenario still interests me.

I opened the editor for the first time this weekend. Wow, not an intuitive piece of software at all. I suppose it gets easier to use with practice.

Anyway, two immediate questions came to mind when looking at the editor and thinking this through-

1. What scenario would it be best to start with as a baseline for editing? It would see one of the GC scenarios would be best, but wow, that is a lot of "stuff" that would need to be hacked out...

2. When would you start the scenario? The start date makes a big impact on the locations of the opposing forces. How long would you run the scenario through?



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 4:16:44 AM)

Midway, based on Shattered Sword by Parshall and Tully. Start it the morning of contact. Consider only the four Japanese CVs, the three American CVs, and Midway. The winner is the side ending up with more carriers/islands with systems damage/runway damage<50%.



jmalter -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 6:09:18 AM)

hmm, is Midway really a carrier-equivalent?

what is its airbase# capacity in June '42? IMO the historical situation had the base over-endowed w/ aircraft, to the point where re-fueling was accomplished by hand-crank pumps from 55-gal drums.

didn't Hornet's DBs miss the strike against KB, & diverted to land at Midway? that would've been an add'l strain on its airbase capacity.

In AE-play context, IMO Midway base is severely constrained by aircraft overstacking at start, i don't think any naval AV units were present to support the multi-engine floatplanes. If add'l airgroups are landed at Midway when a USN CV is damaged/lost, the Midway base-hex could easily be over-stacked by # of groups as well as # of airframes. it would lose ability to launch co-ordinated strikes. when combined w/ damage from the initial IJN airstrikes, the Midway airbase becomes ineffective.

so a lot depends on the quality of the air HQ unit assigned to Midway, does it have enough oomph to effectively increase the airbase size?



Fishbed -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 12:14:07 PM)

Strike coordination was an issue anyway, so overstacking probably simulates that somewhat, as long as it doesn't prevent the planes from launching. But not a single package actually arrived over KB at the same moment, including the VMSB group, split between the Dauntless and the Vindicators.



Lanconic -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 1:01:00 PM)

What is the point of this thread? Why is 'Shattered Swords' being used as if it were a primary source?

So what next year someone else will publish, yet another re-hash of Morrison, and be declared the latest
prima donna? And of course unless we all run out to buy the buzz book, we are consigned to the un-illuminated?

The Japanese (you remember them right?) asserted decades ago, that the reason they lost at Midway was
OVER CONFIDENCE. I see nothing in any of these posts that would suggest they were wrong.




herwin -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 2:58:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

hmm, is Midway really a carrier-equivalent?

what is its airbase# capacity in June '42? IMO the historical situation had the base over-endowed w/ aircraft, to the point where re-fueling was accomplished by hand-crank pumps from 55-gal drums.

didn't Hornet's DBs miss the strike against KB, & diverted to land at Midway? that would've been an add'l strain on its airbase capacity.

In AE-play context, IMO Midway base is severely constrained by aircraft overstacking at start, i don't think any naval AV units were present to support the multi-engine floatplanes. If add'l airgroups are landed at Midway when a USN CV is damaged/lost, the Midway base-hex could easily be over-stacked by # of groups as well as # of airframes. it would lose ability to launch co-ordinated strikes. when combined w/ damage from the initial IJN airstrikes, the Midway airbase becomes ineffective.

so a lot depends on the quality of the air HQ unit assigned to Midway, does it have enough oomph to effectively increase the airbase size?



Book quote here.

I lack copies of the various books here in Mariposa, but I suspect the original source is Layton or Rochefort.

There was no HQ assigned to Midway, but you probably need to fake it.



LoBaron -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 3:03:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

If one wants to recreate Battle of Midway's AM air phase, about half of japanese bombers should be set to airfield or ground attack. And I'm pretty sure that setup is going to end in tears for IJN.


This.

Many battles were decided on a much smaller scale than a day.

For this reason WitP cannot replicate them in detail, the timeframes between which influence at command
level is possible are simply is too large.

It tries to simulate much of this by adding randomness to broaden the spectrum of potential
outcomes, but neccesarily that still favours the side which is favoured by the hardware in theatre.


You would have to force a setup which in advance advocates desaster for the Japanese to get an accurate
simulation of the events.
E.g. Nav search on IJN CV´s @ 10% for every second squad only, purposely incorrect settong of search arcs,
half the planes on airfield attack,...

Obviousely no sane player would do this, but if he did I would expect results similar to Midway.



Puhis -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 4:59:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

What is the point of this thread?



You see, mr. Erwin have read a few books and manuals. So his game strategy can't be bad. If he fails, the game is simply borked.

If you look at his AARs and these "borked" threads, there's a clear pattern. When he lost Luzon, ground combat model and supply model were borked. When his troops were loosing in China, the game was borked. Now his bombers failed to attack the KB, the air model is borked.

So mr. Erwin wants a Midway scenario so that he can prove that the game is BORKED, when he doesn't get "historical" results.

No other point.



Drambuie -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 5:51:37 PM)

Interesting, personally I'm on the side of 'don't really care the game isn't designed to replicate these intricacies just accept it' but interesting nonetheless.

One thing I'd consider with the focus on the idea of Midway as a fourth carrier is - was this Nimitz's opinion based on pre-war thinking of the usefulness of LBA, the obsession that bombers were more accurate than they proved to be in many real situations etc, or on actual evidence of their contribution to similar scenarios up to that point? Did this doctrinal thinking about bases also impact on the Japanese plans?

As previously mentioned to me Midway's contribution seems limited and about as rubbish as the game would probably simulate [;)]



US87891 -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 6:25:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drambuie
As previously mentioned to me Midway's contribution seems limited and about as rubbish as the game would probably simulate [;)]

Quite. My friends and I have played several six day Midway scenarios as a training exercise before entering into some of the more complex Babes based CRX scenarios. I find that the scenario is well thought out, and the results are reasonable. Several different factors come into play but, in general, the results are what one might expect from a randomization of the 'luck' factor.

Matt



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 6:33:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drambuie

Interesting, personally I'm on the side of 'don't really care the game isn't designed to replicate these intricacies just accept it' but interesting nonetheless.

One thing I'd consider with the focus on the idea of Midway as a fourth carrier is - was this Nimitz's opinion based on pre-war thinking of the usefulness of LBA, the obsession that bombers were more accurate than they proved to be in many real situations etc, or on actual evidence of their contribution to similar scenarios up to that point? Did this doctrinal thinking about bases also impact on the Japanese plans?

As previously mentioned to me Midway's contribution seems limited and about as rubbish as the game would probably simulate [;)]


Can someone respond to this question? I only have only electronic access to possible sources until next week.



Feinder -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 7:33:29 PM)

Dr. Erwin,

I guess the question for you is, do you really want ~MIDWAY~ (specificially, with all the bells and whistles and accuracy). Or do you really just want a sand box to test stuff with?

Yes, I actually did do a Midway Scenario for the original WitP. Frankly, it was a LOT of work, and a royal pain-the-arse. Essentially, it's (almost) everything in the Japanese OB available in June 1942, vs. 3x US CVs, some cruisers, and some destroyers.

~CAN~ a Midway scenario be done for WitP-AE? Sure. But frankly, I for one, don't have the time do actually create the thing. It's gi-normous (esp if you include the Aleutions operations, which you certainly SHOULD).

But if all you really want is sandbox to test "what happens if I put 4x IJN CVs vs. 3x US CVs" near an island with handful of LBA; pull the cord and see what happens... That's not hard.

-F-



Alfred -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 8:07:24 PM)

Feinder,

Nice to see you gingerly making your way back to the forum. Does that also mean we are going to see the reinstitution of your brother's famous, "The game is borked, this could never happen in real life" threads?

Alfred



LoBaron -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 8:20:11 PM)

Nothing speaks against a Midway scenario.

One has to be aware of the following though:
It will never lead to the Battle of Midway.

There were many things that went wrong for Japan before the battle even started.

This cannot be simulated, because it concerns signal intercepts, knowledge delta of enemy forces,
doctrines and maybe most important a compromise decision borne from divided interests from those
in command.

To provoke such a situation with a similar outcome you have to play PBEM, outguess the opponent,
and at the same time provoke him into making a move you think is advantious to you.
Because exactly the same happened at Midway.

Recreating the scenario and counting points does in no way simulate the setup of the battle because
the most crucial puzzle parts cannot be replicated.


Stop dreaming about a true historical recreation, because simple hindsight makes this impossible.

Herwin this would also be my answer to your first post.



herwin -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 9:11:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Dr. Erwin,

I guess the question for you is, do you really want ~MIDWAY~ (specificially, with all the bells and whistles and accuracy). Or do you really just want a sand box to test stuff with?

Yes, I actually did do a Midway Scenario for the original WitP. Frankly, it was a LOT of work, and a royal pain-the-arse. Essentially, it's (almost) everything in the Japanese OB available in June 1942, vs. 3x US CVs, some cruisers, and some destroyers.

~CAN~ a Midway scenario be done for WitP-AE? Sure. But frankly, I for one, don't have the time do actually create the thing. It's gi-normous (esp if you include the Aleutions operations, which you certainly SHOULD).

But if all you really want is sandbox to test "what happens if I put 4x IJN CVs vs. 3x US CVs" near an island with handful of LBA; pull the cord and see what happens... That's not hard.

-F-


I'd like a sandbox, but I suspect a lot of other people would like a scenario or three.



spence -> RE: Midway (8/23/2011 10:16:10 PM)

A campaign game or broad scale scenario that starts around May of 1942 and encompasses all of the Japanese strategic possibilities is probably the most eagerly desired new scenario by many players.



toonces -> RE: Midway (8/24/2011 1:42:38 AM)

I'm not sure, even reading Dr. Erwin's post, what exactly HE is looking for.

However, the idea of a- say 1 week- campaign centered around the Midway operation sounds interesting to me.

I caveat that by saying that if you are looking for "The Battle of Midway", then as posted above, I don't think WiTP:AE is the best simulation for that. As stated, there are too many variables that are hard to simulate at WiTP's scale to get an accurate Midway result...this is wargame simulation 101 and I don't need to belabor it.

It could be an interesting exercise if you make the scenario start far enough out that there is maneuvering room for both sides, with Japanese victory conditions tied in some way to force them to go for Midway and open themselves up to counterattack by US forces, it could be "fun" if not exactly historically correct.

If the goal of this thread is to test mathematical models, then I agree, what's the point? Scale is everything. I'm sure Dr. Erwin, and any other student of wargaming understands this limitation.

I don't frequent these boards much, so I may have missed a lot of the background. The idea is something I've toyed with before though, hence my interest.



Knavey -> RE: Midway (8/25/2011 6:41:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Feinder,

Nice to see you gingerly making your way back to the forum. Does that also mean we are going to see the reinstitution of your brother's famous, "The game is borked, this could never happen in real life" threads?

Alfred



Shhh! [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125