Why do we play this game? (Full Version)

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



Message


Roger Neilson II -> Why do we play this game? (2/1/2012 8:49:44 PM)

This post is occasioned by a debate that keeps resurfacing - especially in a certain very long and herbaceous AAR. I'd like to take it out of that AAR and not clutter the bushes there any more.

The AAR in question has done a great service in getting so far so fast and pushing at the envelope of what can be done. We are seeing some massive gargantuan clashes of stuff and this is throwing up all sorts of issues which Michaelm seems to be trying to deal with. All good.

It is however laughable in its extremes - like a lot of long running TV programmes it long ago bade farewell to any sense of reality. It like those soaps based in a street where they have had more homicides than a capital city, and where each of the residents has now had an affair with every other available fellow resident.

I currently have two PBEMs on the go, and have been playing WITP before this for many years. In one of my current AARs there is just a sense that just maybe I can look forward to uncurling from the ball on the floor, let my head stop ringing from the 18 months good kicking I have had at the hands of the evil empire, and begin to give some back! Gradually I will pick myself up off the floor and begin to win back the ground and teach the LYBs that they should never have messed with us. That's history, that's what happened. What is different about a game like this (and I love it) is that the timeline can alter, the names of famous contested ground will be different, but the overall parameters remain the same. In this as in another conflict, War between the States or whatever you want to call it, a small 'county tried to take on a massive one and the result should never be in doubt…. what should be in doubt is when the end comes. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to do better than they did in reality.

If I want to play science fiction then there are plenty of games out there. I don't use them.

I actually am quite sorry to see the game move from the allied kicking phase to the allied reconquest phase, because I do like the mess and attempting to stem the leaks as the good ship Allies is holed time and time again. I like creating order from chaos and I have an empathy for a world that is suddenly tipped over and everyone has to think a different way.

If I want to play a game that has a winner and a loser then I will play game that will last a short while and has a clear cut end. Many of my games have never got that far because this is such a monster. I don't care. I don't care what the end result is.

I can still recall some moments in games from years ago, never mind who 'won' or 'lost' the overall campaign - it was sweet to think through how I got a ship, or a unit into, or out of danger, if I executed a skilful attack, or pulled off a surprise. Sometimes the safety of a badly mauled ship back in harbour is a major success.

I have never played the AI, it does not interest me. I have some be very kind people who play on the other team to me. I regard it as a sort of contract - I will do my damnedest to make them have to think very hard, they in turn will do the same FOR me. Every time I get a move from them i hope that my last clever idea has worked, and that there are new challenges. I thank them for the time, and the effort they put into entertaining me. THEY ARE NOT MY ENEMIES.

So I want a game that is lodge in historical parameters. I am not going to play a game that gives the Japanese a greater industrial capacity than the Allies…. because that isn't how it was.

Its a bit like moving Moscow to where Kiev is so that the Germans have a better chance in success with Barbarossa…….

As has been said by another very knowledgable contributor, war is not fair or balanced. I am getting tired of attempts to give a balance it does not, nor should have. This game is about reflecting the huge struggle that went on across half the globe. I play it because I want to feel what it as like, not because I want to use death stars.

I'd much prefer a more realistic approach and an ironing out of the kinks - e.g. Panzers in China syndrome.

Over here they want to build a new rail line at a cost of squillions of money we don't have so some rich people can get from A - B twenty minutes sooner than now…… me I prefer to be able to appreciate the scenery on the journey than the arrival at some bleak station at the end.

Ok steps down from soapbox......

Roger




obvert -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/1/2012 9:46:11 PM)

Very well said. I think most of us feel the same. That is why this is so popular and draws so many people of all kinds in to play.

Many Allied players however want to play against things like scenario 2 as a challenge, to see what they can do against a stiffer test. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is for a lot. I would want a tough game as Allies.

As Japan I've started two PBEMs, one in Scen 2, one in Scen 1. The current game in Scen 1 is more fun to me because it offers more limitations that I must overcome. I have to be more creative within a tighter framework. It teaches me more of what it might have been like as a commander in the war. One day maybe I'll play another mod that limits the game even more, and I might like that.

At the end though it's a game that we choose to play for many different reasons and in many different ways. The dialogue, the HRs, and communication with the opponent is as important as moving the parts across the map, and it's the most enjoyable part. I've already met two opponents that I would love to sit down and have a beer with and talk history. That's what this game is for me. A way to compete, to test myself, and to struggle against and with another worthy opponent, learning not only about their cunning and relentless attention to detail, but also about their human mistakes, their compassion, and their appreciation for this amazing global struggle we all realize was an incredible, horrible, and very necessary conflict.

It's really most about respect, both for what happened then, the people who lived through it, and for the people we play with and against. I hope we can all stop to remember that in the middle of all of our differences of opinion in these pages.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/1/2012 11:30:14 PM)

I don't even want to get into this discussion. [:D]




bradfordkay -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/1/2012 11:49:23 PM)

"I'm playing Scenario 1 with PDU off, so no invasion of Australia, no India, no Hawaii and I've not captured all of China. I don't have 1000's of Tojo's, I have 85. I await to get pounded while limited to what Japan defended with historically."

Don't worry, with PDU off your opponent has fewer front line P38s than that (can't really count the ones in the West Coast retricted squadrons).




EUBanana -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/1/2012 11:50:38 PM)

I think historical inputs do not necessarily lead to historical outputs. The only thing historical should be OOBs and the capabilities of the units within those OOBs. Given the game replicates the randomness of war quite well, that already throws a spanner in the works in terms of the game playing out "just like IRL".

Even with historical OOBs and capabilities you don't have to prioritise the same areas that the commanders did IRL. And from reading the AARs, very few do. What-ifs are a fun part of the game. Look at all the Japanese invasions of India or Ceylon or Australia, or from the Allied PoV Hokkaido or Sumatra or even China ([X(]).




AW1Steve -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 2:52:09 AM)

I play because I learn. I learn more about a battle , or campaign in a PBEM then I do in a dozen books. History is ALWAYS a "near run thing". You can play a PBEM two hundred times and still can't produce a Midway. [:)] It's the details. And options. And those are NEVER in the history books. Besides, I want to try and be Smarter than Chester Nimitz or Isoruku Yamamoto! And that is a VERY tough thing to do!




vettim89 -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 5:19:20 AM)

I would say that I would join the "there's joy in the journey" crowd. As to the scenario 1 vs 2 thing, I can see both arguments.

One thing I am working on (still) is the antithesis to Scen 2. One thing that has always bothered me is seeing Allied players undertaking major offensive operations far sooner than what the historical constraints would have allowed. Conversely, I hate to see it when Japan invades Oz, India, or New Zealand (or all three in one AAR). So I think an even more restrained scenario might be interesting seriously chopping both sides capabilities.

Thats just me




sanderz -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 7:07:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II
We are seeing some massive gargantuan clashes of stuff and this is throwing up all sorts of issues which Michaelm seems to be trying to deal with. All good. It is however laughable in its extremes.

Surely they are trying to fix mechanics that aren't giving realistic results - isn't that what you want?


quote:


I am getting tired of attempts to give a balance it does not, nor should have.

What are you referring to here - modders or the changes to the .exe file. Not been on here long but if its mods you don't have to play them and if its the .exe isn't this just trying to make the game mechanics more realistic?


quote:


I'd much prefer a more realistic approach......

You have scenario 1, you could always try modding it to fit your preferences?


quote:


...... and an ironing out of the kinks - e.g. Panzers in China syndrome.

Have you thought about going to the Tech forum and contributing your ideas - it seems like they have some in depth discussions in there and try to fix things.







Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 7:40:42 AM)

I wasn't trying to provoke a storm here, merely taking an ongoing issues out of an AAR where I think it gets in the way.

Each to their own - I know what I like, if others want a very different game then fine - there should be room and tolerance for both. In part I felt it good tos et this out also so if and when i fancy another PBEM I can say - look here, this is my approach.

Sanderz.... sorry I possibly mis-said some things....

1. They are trying to fix some mechanics that aren't giving sensible results - but in a reality that is not historical. The numbers of planes on both sides is the problem - which is, I'd argue - not historical. So they (well Michael) is fixing a problem that is made much more of a problem by the numbers that Scenario 2 produces. I do not know if Scenario 1 would give these issues, I'm not aware of any similar situation yet.

2. I guess I have the feeling that there is a gestalt that is flowing to Scenario 2 as being the only one to play......my reasoning is that it may well be only if what you want is a balanced contest where the history is subordinated to the need for the contest. All I was attempting to do was argue that the game does not have to be a balanced contest of but can be seen in other ways at least equally enjoyable.

3. I'm pretty happy with Scenario 1, I do not have the ability to mod. I do have some issues with the mechanics per se but these are being looked at by people much better at it than me.

4. I have posted the odd comment at times but I long ago learned that there are real experts on here so my posts tend to be supporting things rather than breaking new ground.

I repeat, this is not meant to be an argument, but a discussion - I did like Vettim's comments - modding that goes that way would be far more to my taste.

Cheers from 'up north'.

Roger




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 7:41:34 AM)

I wasn't trying to provoke a storm here, merely taking an ongoing issues out of an AAR where I think it gets in the way.

Each to their own - I know what I like, if others want a very different game then fine - there should be room and tolerance for both. In part I felt it good to set this out also so if and when i fancy another PBEM I can say - look here, this is my approach.

Sanderz.... sorry I possibly mis-said some things....

1. They are trying to fix some mechanics that aren't giving sensible results - but in a reality that is not historical. The numbers of planes on both sides is the problem - which is, I'd argue - not historical. So they (well Michael) is fixing a problem that is made much more of a problem by the numbers that Scenario 2 produces. I do not know if Scenario 1 would give these issues, I'm not aware of any similar situation yet.

2. I guess I have the feeling that there is a gestalt that is flowing to Scenario 2 as being the only one to play......my reasoning is that it may well be only if what you want is a balanced contest where the history is subordinated to the need for the contest. All I was attempting to do was argue that the game does not have to be a balanced contest but can be seen in other ways at least equally enjoyable.

3. I'm pretty happy with Scenario 1, I do not have the ability to mod. I do have some issues with the mechanics per se but these are being looked at by people much better at it than me.

4. I have posted the odd comment at times but I long ago learned that there are real experts on here so my posts tend to be supporting things rather than breaking new ground.

I repeat, this is not meant to be an argument, but a discussion - I did like Vettim's comments - modding that goes that way would be far more to my taste.

Cheers from 'up north'.

Roger




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 7:45:16 AM)

Who knows why that's posted twice, sorry folks... computer looks like it had a momentary time loop...

Roger




EUBanana -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 8:14:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

1. They are trying to fix some mechanics that aren't giving sensible results - but in a reality that is not historical.


Historically though the Allies did not capture Hokkaido. If they had then things woulda been different.

Historical OOBs do not necessary lead to a recreation of history... If the Allies possessed more and bigger airfields closer to Japan, you would expect the air battles to be larger. If the Allies persisted in attacking across a narrow front, ditto.

As I said, historical OOBs and historical capabilities do not necessarily lead to an exact recreation of WW2. As it should be, IMHO.

The .exe changes were made as a result of that one game and what happened in it. Fair enough. Not every Allied game has such numbers of a/c involved. Mine doesn't and I'm in '44. In fact theres plenty of bombers not at the front as the front doesnt have airbase space to hold them all.




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 8:41:54 AM)

I'n not convinced that the capture of Hokkaido would have allowed the accelerated training and production of more Japanese flyers and airframes than that of the Allies combined.......

But I could be wrong, after all, post war the japanese did produce lots of cars......

(To be read slightly tongue in cheek)

Roger




EUBanana -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 8:48:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I'n not convinced that the capture of Hokkaido would have allowed the accelerated training and production of more Japanese flyers and airframes than that of the Allies combined.......

But I could be wrong, after all, post war the japanese did produce lots of cars......

(To be read slightly tongue in cheek)

Roger


The Jap a/c production is down to players being able to optimise the hell out of it... And Japan did produce those numbers of a/c, just not those numbers of a/c in Shindens, which is what players optimise the numbers to do.

I think the issue as far as Japan is that pilot training is kinda borked, so the whole degradation of pilot quality that Japan should likely suffer doesn't happen.




LoBaron -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 8:54:10 AM)

I am not really interested in scen 2 as there comparisions to
historical performance are not possible.

Scen 1 is another story and there are easy to see factors where comparisions lack:

Hindsight:
The general Japanese belief was that by better initial quality and superiority of their samurai-mentality,
they would be able to overcome any numerical or technical disadvantages. This assumption still prevailed
when it was long obvious for everybody else to be untrue.

The Japanese player is aware of the historical error on dec. 7th.

Result is:
- he conserves his forces better
- he increases his pilot training programme
- he fights only when he needs to or has superiority
- he better shifts his production to match loss figures

You will never get a historical result with this behaviour except in case you are able to force
a war of attrition on the Japanese side as early as late ´42. Possible but not likely.

That is not a problem with the game but with the historical background.

Game mechanical factors:

WitP AE fails, or only marginally represents the Japanese issues with logistics.
This is partly addressed by DaBabes scen C where the capacity for ships is severely reduced,
resulting both in higher fuel consumption by ammount of cargo and slower buildup of remote
locations.

WitP AE does not simulate the difficulties the Japanese had with their social structure.
Basically Japan was a country of peasants governed by a feudal structure, where only a small
elite was able to access advanced educational facilities.
As a result everything from medical staff to mechanics was in dreadfully short supply, which influenced
- besides a load of other factors - airframe mission frequency and pilot recovery.
In 44, most Japanese planes were sitting on the ground missing all kinds of spare parts, only waiting
to be destroyed by either occupying ground troops or bombing runs.

The list could go on and on, but I guess the implications of the above are obvious.




EUBanana -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 8:57:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
WitP AE does not simulate the difficulties the Japanese had with their social structure.
Basically Japan was a country of peasants governed by a feudal structure, where only a small
elite was able to access advanced educational facilities.
As a result everything from medical staff to mechanics was in dreadfully short supply, which influenced
- besides a load of other factors - airframe mission frequency and pilot recovery.
In 44, most Japanese planes were sitting on the ground missing all kinds of spare parts, only waiting
to be destroyed by either occupying ground troops or bombing runs.


Sounds like an OOB issue. You could pare aviation support, or aviation support reinforcements, right down to the bone or something.

Also all the Jap a/c having service rating 1 or 2, you could bump that up.




LoBaron -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 9:07:11 AM)

The problem is one of abstraction, not of OOB.

In game there are "supplies" representing everything from rice to ball bearings or
avgas. You cannot simulate a shortage of something very specific with this abstraction.

In game there are "ressources" representing everything from coal to aluminium or crude
oil. You cannot simulate a shortage of something very specific with this abstraction.

In game there is "aviation support" representing everything from secialized aircraft mechanics to
the guys fueling the plane or reloading ammunition belts. You cannot simulate a shortage of something
very specific with this abstraction.

There is only one status of "maintenance" which covers everything from a worn out MG to worn out ball
bearings.
There is only one status of "damaged" which covers everything from a flat tire to damaged structural integrity
to a destroyed radio.


Changing the OOB does only partially solve the problem. To get rid of the root of the issue
we´d need to reduce the level of abstraction, but so would render the game unplayable.




Cavalry Corp -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 9:19:44 AM)

It would be nice if there was an official scn 1.5 !

My problem with all mods is that if the changes made apart from ship build, missing units etc ( all nice stuff) were thought realistic than they would have been put in the real agme would they not?

Cav




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:10:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

It would be nice if there was an official scn 1.5 !

My problem with all mods is that if the changes made apart from ship build, missing units etc ( all nice stuff) were thought realistic than they would have been put in the real agme would they not?

Cav


With the greatest respect (as they say in parliament) the issue is that the developers got so far with this superb game and no further - thats not a criticism at all - they simply AFAIK ran out of steam/time/life force etc etc. As with the original WITP the release was done without necessarily the full testing - which would have needed years of such testing work.

So I think we all have to live with the fact that it is, and probably will be forever, a sort of BETA version.... and enjoy the journey.

Not aware of any other game that has this level of involvement and commitment from a community.

I have a lot of time for the Dababes version, and would love to PBEM it again sometime. In the meantime I live with the situation and try out any and every new patch when i can. Most games are closed and on a 'take it or leave it basis from a commercial provider. This one has masses of encouraged involvement from us all.

I do think anyone just playing the original or 'officially' patched version is missing out on some fun.

Roger




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:13:20 AM)

quote:

The Jap a/c production is down to players being able to optimise the hell out of it... And Japan did produce those numbers of a/c, just not those numbers of a/c in Shindens, which is what players optimise the numbers to do.


IU'd love to know what the relevant numbers of airframes were that Japan produced relative to those deployed by the Allies in the war..... my 'gut feeling' is there is no way they could have achieved anything like parity.

Anyone got any figures?

Roger




LoBaron -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:30:40 AM)

The Japanese produced aircraft higher or similar to what is possible ingame, even in scen. 2.

But they were not able to use the a/c produced to the extent possible for the Japanese player in game,
simply because they lacked the technicians, infrastructure, and spare parts.

So where we have a delta between history and the game is not # of a/c, but missions flown
per a/c.

This is where we are back at the issue with abstracted values.




CT Grognard -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:31:13 AM)

It is my desire to, once I have sufficient time available again, engage in a Scenario 28C (DaBigBabes "C", the one with the reduced cargo capacities) as the Japanese player, with PDU off.

I would like for it to be made as historical as possible by use of lots of house rules. I really enjoyed the Historical War Project that Fletcher and cantona2 were busy with last year. A lot of the house rules I've been working on are based on those that Fletcher used.

So, here's an idea of the house rules I'm toying with for a Da Big Babes Scenario 28C as the Japanese player:

GENERAL
-       IJA and IJN ground units may not invade an enemy-held base at the same time
-       IJAAF units must operate with IJAAF aviation support and IJNAF must operate with IJNAF aviation support
-       The only IJAAF plane that may be used in an ASW role is the Ki-51 (to reflect historical use)
-       Kido Butai will make a single port attack on Pearl Harbor, and will return directly to Japan; if the first assault on Wake by Japan fails, the Japanese player may divert KB to support a second assault
-       Americans cannot react to the landings at Tarawa, Wake and Makin; once the first landings take place the Americans are relieved from this rule (if no landings occur, by 14 December 1941)
-       Manila and Singapore may have fighters up and on CAP on the 1st turn, but the Allied player cannot transfer squadrons on the first turn
-       The Allied player may give alternate orders to Force Z on the 1st turn. All other Allied TFs may not have their destinations/mission amended; no new Allied TFs may be created on the 1st turn
-       Japanese submarines can only be equipped with the E14Y1 Glen
-       No partial parachute deployments (i.e. one unit, one target)
-       No submarine invasions (with one exception, Marine Raiders on SST submarines)
-       All PT boats in a hex must be in the same TF
-       4E bombers cannot operate on Naval Attack below 10,000 ft
-       4E bombers (excluding B-29s) can operate on Ground Attack in hexes that do not have Allied units in them (i.e. cannot be used as close air support). B-29s cannot be used on Ground Attack at all.
-       No strategic bombing (oil, resources, HI, LI, manpower) until July 1943
-       No night bombing allowed if moonlight is less than 50% (except for B-29s equipped with ground mapping radar)
-       The minimum altitude for night bombing is 3000 feet
-       Fighters may only fly sweeps or CAP in either their best or second best maneuver altitude bands
-       Japanese surface ships cannot transit the Malacca Strait until Singapore has fallen
-       The atomic bomb may not be used on Tokyo
-       Commonwealth land and air units may only operate to liberate Commonwealth possessions as well as the Dutch East Indies (e.g. Australian units are limited to Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, India, Burma, Malaya, Borneo, and the Dutch East Indies)
 
MONSOON RULE
-       From 15 May to 15 October each year (Monsoon Season) offensive operations in the jungle and mountain hexes on the Burmese front (everything above “Thailand” label within Burma and Thailand borders plus the few jungle hexes going 3 or 4 hexes into “India” – Kohima, Ledo, Imphal area) is highly restricted:
-       No shock or deliberate attacks in jungle hexes within the area;
-       Deliberate attacks allowed in non-jungle hexes;
-       Bombardment attacks allowed everywhere;
-       Movement into friendly/empty hexes allowed
-       The percentage of aircraft allowed to fly from an airfield in this region during this time is a factor of its size*10% (so an air unit flying from a level 2 airfield can only fly 20% of its aircraft, and must set Rest to 80%)
-       No carrier aircraft strikes on Burma from the Gulf of Bengal during this time (however, carrier aircraft can still strike Bengal, Northern India or Malaya from carriers in the Gulf of Bengal)
 
CHINESE THEATRE:
-       No industry bombing in Chinese bases by either side (reflecting dispersed artisanal light industry), but bombing “manpower” is allowed.
-       A maximum of 4 squadrons of US four-engine bombers may operate from Chinese bases, but only from level 6 airfields or higher, and the aviation support must be provided by an American unit.
-       Chinese forces (and air units) cannot go outside its borders except those assigned to the Chinese Expeditionary Force in Burma/Northern Combat Area Command
-       The NCAC shall be limited to four Chinese Corps (12 Chinese Divisions) and one Chinese squadron (to reflect historical deployment of 17th Pursuit Squadron (I-153s)) and may only enter Burma once Rangoon has fallen to the Japanese
-       The AVG may operate in Burma and China only
 
KWANTUNG ARMY
-       Units must pay PPs to cross the Kwantung border
-       The Japanese player may buy out artillery units to a maximum of 1 artillery regiment for every 3 infantry regiments who have already paid the PPs to exit (i.e. no stripping of artillery units only)
-       No Kwantung HQs may be bought out until 1944 or the invasion of the Marianas, the liberation of Rangoon or the occupation of a base in the DEI with a level 4 airfield or higher
-       No air units may be moved out of Kwantung until June 1942; from then one daitai may be moved per month but subject always to a minimum of 4 fighter daitai and 8 bomber daitai. This does not prevent air operations from Kwangtung to China.
-       If the Japanese player decides to invade the Soviet Union, he must invade Soviet territory in an unoccupied hex to activate and may then only begin offensive operations a week later (to reflect the excellent intelligence assets the Soviets had in the Japanese government which would preclude strategic surprise).
-       Once the Soviets are activated, no Japanese unit in Kwantung may get an HQ reassignment, except isolated units can be evacuated by sea.
 
DUTCH EAST INDIES
-       Dutch air units cannot be disbanded nor can they be withdrawn.
-       Dutch surface vessels may operate in Indian Ocean waters or between Australia and New Guinea, but not the Pacific.
-       Dutch submarines can only operate between the South China Sea and northern Australia (i.e. off Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Celebes and Timor)
-       Garrison requirements must be observed by the Allied player
-       No strategic bombing in the DEI until 1944
-       IJA units need a minimum of 25 planning points to amphibiously land at/parachute into an enemy-held DEI base (not needed for IJN units)
 
PHILIPPINES
-       All US units in the Philippines must have replacements OFF
-       Allied air units in the Philippines may not receive replacement aircraft other than by disbanding other Philippine-based air units into those units
-       Philippine-based air units may not be disbanded or withdrawn in a manner that would result in the transfer of aircraft or the pilots back into the aircraft or pilot pools; if the unit is withdrawn, the Allied pilot must answer “NO” to the reform unit in x days question
-       Manila is an open city; as such the Allied player may not build additional fortifications and must retreat from the city once the Japanese reaches the city; the Japanese player can only take Manila as part of a general advance (of at least two divisions strength) from the north, south or east of Luzon. Once Japan has conquered all of Luzon, Manila is no longer an open city
-       There is no restriction on the Allied player using surface or air transport at any time to move supplies or troops in or out of the Philippines
-       Submarine transport missions by the Allied player may only be used to resupply and evacuate cut-off or isolated Allied units, or Bataan (once the Allied players have retreated there)
 
AUSTRALIA
-       The Japanese player may only invade Australia once Timor, Ambon, Kendari, Mindanao, Batavia and Soerabaja are in Japanese hands and once he has saved a reserve of 3000 political points. These political points should be kept in reserve until (1) the capture of all ports in northern Australia (Port Hedland; Broome; Derby; Wyndham; Darwin) or (2) the capture of Perth, or Sydney, or Brisbane
-       IJA units invading Australia need a minimum of 80 preparation points (not needed for IJN units)
-       If Australia is invaded, the Allied player may not spend PPs on anything except sending forces to Australia by any means or medium, whether land or air force (with the exception of reassigning leaders)
-       Australian CMF units may only operate in Australia and Papua New Guinea
 
INDIA AND CEYLON
-       No Restricted Allied unit in India may change its command area until 1 January 1943. PPs need to be paid in order for units to leave India (this is to reflect the large number of British troops required in India to suppress the “Quit India” movement as well as the Indian National Army guerrilla activities).
-       If Japanese forces cross the border into India, British and Commonwealth units may only spend political points to send reinforcement units to India
-       The Japanese player will need a reserve of 4000 political points in order to invade India; this must be maintained until the capture of Calcutta, Bombay, Colombo or Trincomalee
-       Any IJA units invading India or Ceylon must have at least 80 preparation points
 
THAILAND
-       Thai ground forces may carry out garrison duties at bases in Burma within 3 hexes of the Thai border
-       US ground forces may not enter Thailand, but US air forces are able to bomb Thailand (the USA never declared war on Thailand)
 
ROYAL NAVY
-       Until September 1942 no RN capital ships (CV, CVL, BB or BC) may operate in the Pacific (except for repairs, transit to ports in the US and return from them)
-       From 1 January 1943 a single capital ship may operate in the Pacific (as was the case with HMS Victorious in the Solomons campaign)
-       From 1 January 1945 the Royal Navy may operate freely in the Pacific (once assigned to the Pacific Fleet under US command)




Puhis -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:49:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
So, here's an idea of the house rules I'm toying with for a Da Big Babes Scenario 28C as the Japanese player:

GENERAL
IJA and IJN ground units may not invade an enemy-held base at the same time


This rule have absolutely no historical basis. IJN and IJA units operated at the same time many times during 1942 (Tarakan, Ambon, Midway etc.)




CT Grognard -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:52:07 AM)

OK, happy to amend, will make it a lot easier on me as the Japanese player!




Powloon -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 10:52:38 AM)

One of the issues I think is that Japan has full control of its own destiny as it has full (ish) control of its own production whilst the Allies do not. The Allies have a fixed set of reinforcements and replacements (excepting the emergency reinforcements when Japan crosses the line somewhere in Oz, India etc). The Japanese player gets to optimise his production and can avoid the mistakes of history using hindsight and knowledge of the game without having to pay any of the associated historical political costs.

I realise this is a basic design decision and it is far too late to change it even if people wanted it. What might be an idea is on the dates of the major allied conferences the game checks the overall figures in aircraft (ship) production and types and based on the comparison to the allied side at the game date either moves reinforcements up the que or release emergency reinforcements. This would help to reflect at least partially the changed political reality caused by increased Japanese production and conquests whilst still giving the Japanese player periods of ascendancy.




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 11:00:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The Japanese produced aircraft higher or similar to what is possible ingame, even in scen. 2.

But they were not able to use the a/c produced to the extent possible for the Japanese player in game,
simply because they lacked the technicians, infrastructure, and spare parts.

So where we have a delta between history and the game is not # of a/c, but missions flown
per a/c.

This is where we are back at the issue with abstracted values.


Fair enough, but what I'm really after is the relative numbers.... it would appear in the game the Japanese can produce as many if not more than the Allies - whereas I don't think given the industrial muscle - and despite the European theatre this should be the case - but I may be wrong.

Roger




EUBanana -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 11:09:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

It would be nice if there was an official scn 1.5 !

My problem with all mods is that if the changes made apart from ship build, missing units etc ( all nice stuff) were thought realistic than they would have been put in the real agme would they not?

Cav




AE is itself a mod, really. It's all just an iterative process, inching towards perfection with each rehash.


quote:

Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"


[:D]




CT Grognard -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 11:13:52 AM)

It's difficult to compare since the US and UK were fighting both the Germans and the Japanese at the same time, but the combined Allies outproduced the combined Axis powers by 3 to 1.

Total Allied aircraft production during World War II was more or less as follows:

TOTAL: 647,422

USAAF: 297,199
US Navy: 60,456
Sovet Union: 158,218
United Kingdom: 131,549

Total Axis production during World War II was more or less the following:

TOTAL: 207,699

Germany: 119,871
Japan: 76,320
Italy: 11,508





CT Grognard -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 11:15:11 AM)






AE is itself a mod, really. It's all just an iterative process, inching towards perfection with each rehash.


quote:

Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"


[:D]



I love Alpha Centauri!




Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why do we play this game? (2/2/2012 11:20:30 AM)

That's useful, so as a 'rule of thumb' anything that gives the Japanese parity in terms of airframes is probably being generous?

[Runs for very deep bunker]

[sm=fighting0043.gif]

Roger




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625