(Full Version)

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

Message

Nikademus -> (5/10/2003 1:54:44 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B] After all, wasn't Battlestar Galactica just a CV in space? Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] Yes it was, and a poor one at that. I mean, whats up with such a huge ship only carrying 75 Vipers in total? Hell even Shokaku could handle 84 decently large planes, and the Essex could stuff up to one hundred or more! somebody out there in a galaxy far far away needs to better organize their flight decks. sheesh!!! :D whoops....think i just dated myself. Battlestar what?

Feinder -> (5/10/2003 2:08:34 AM)
You do realize that the SciFi channel is doing a remake of Battlestar Galactica...? Supposed to air this fall. Vipers! Boltar! Cylon Raiders! Oh my! Trivia questions for you... 1. How many battlestars were there ORIGINALLY (before the Cylon surprise attack)? 2. What was the one other battlestar that escaped the attack, besides the Galactica? And while Wilma Deering was a babe, Princess Ardalla was a true vixen. (grrrrrrrowl!) Different show tho. -F-

Nikademus -> (5/10/2003 2:22:12 AM)
1. 12 i believe, one for each of the 12 colonies of man (with Earth being the lost 13th colony....so **** lost that while these buggers are zipping around in space, we are still blowing air through props and ducts to get airborne) IIRC as well, they were hundreds of Yaren old too (uh thats "years" for you non-space geeks who's expiration tag hasn't expired yet) 2. Battlestar Pegasus i believe.....wasn't Lloyd Bridges the one who played the commander? Bonus trivia: IIRC, a Cylon Base Star housed 300 fighters. Now that sounds more like it. Now all they need are pilots who do more than just say "BY YOUR COMMAND" Bonus bonus Trivia Who would win.....an Imperial Class Star Destroyer? or a Battlestar? I heard about the movie.......cant wait to see how potentially bad it might be, then again after seeing how cheesy the orig series could be now through the eyes of an adult....how much worse can it get? :eek:

Admiral DadMan -> (5/10/2003 4:04:22 AM)
God, I hope that they 86 the kid and that stupid bear-thing type object...

kentaggie -> (5/10/2003 4:18:07 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]I believe if Luganville was taken the US WOULD pull out of Noumea because that base would be unsafe as a base of operations. The war would continue but the South Pacific would belong to the Japanese...at least for the moment. Since this game is about warfare in the South Pacific it is quite reasonable to consider this a victory and end the game at that point. One of my friends also calls 17 and 19 ahistorical. They are, in fact, historical. They are historical right up to the point where you give your first order and then they diverge from history as any game does. I know what you mean - no Midway. Well, there is no way to assume Midway would have happened the way it did after one month of player-given orders and actions. Actually Midway was such a statistical anomaly (or act of God) that if it happened in a game and hadn't happened in real life people would demand that it be fixed. That may be the reason some people play these games but don't assume that is the case for everyone. While the history serves as a nice setting and backdrop I would be just as happy if the entire game system were set on a fictitious world with made up empires. Heck, you could even convert the whole thing to space if you wanted to and I'd still love it. After all, wasn't Battlestar Galactica just a CV in space? Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] Why would the US pull out and leave their only ally in SOPAC hanging in the wind? The reason that Coral Sea and Guadalcanal happened was the perceived threat to Australia. The allies would have continued to fight tooth and nail if Luganville were captured. Agreed to a point. But the question remains why do people prefer those sceanarios by far? I think the reason is if you are going to play a long scenario, you want all of your toys and you want balance. 17 and 19 offer the best combination. Still one of the greatest musical openings on TV!

sbattler -> Hey Kentaggie (5/10/2003 6:14:19 AM)
Who in the world made you a strategy genius? Isn't the world round? Send the Aussies supplies from the right coast. The scenarios are ahistorical. Every game I've ever played is too. If a player can, using hindsight, "change" history by making different decisions than the real admirals isn't that ahistorical? Isn't history just that...history? And Hogan's Heroes has the best intro in TV land! Everybody knows that...DOH! ;)

Micah Goodman -> (5/10/2003 10:21:22 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B] I'd like to see points for ground troop losses increased with a bigger increase for the allied player. It's harder for a democracy to fight a war if they are loosing lots of young men than it is for a totalatarian militaristic country to do so. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] You know, I constantly hear this refrain about democracies not dealing with huge troop losses from people and I have one question, please name me one war in recent memory that a democracy lost or surrendered because of “Huge” troop losses? There is not one. Many will say what about Vietnam? Huh, Huh? I would say what about it? Vietnam was lost (from the American perspective) because of the worst PR campaign in modern history. Ask most Vietnam Veterans about the Tet offensive and they will soundly tell you that they stomped the snot out of their opponents. They didn’t realize they ‘lost’ Tet until the American media decided the Viet Cong and NVA won it because it happened all over the country at one time and regardless of the heavy losses suffered by the NVA, VC forces they won because they attacked. And because they attacked that must mean America was not winning so therefore the NVA, VC must be winning. By and large these same morons from thirty years ago recently sat behind their anchor desks and informed us of another Vietnam in Iraq and how mired down we would become and how the sky was falling and how the world would soon end. Guess what? They were wrong in the late sixties and they were wrong in the early 2000’s. If America was not willing to suffer losses why did they continue the war as the death rate rose higher and higher in the Pacific? When the 1st Marine Division was mauled at Pelilau(SP?) why didn’t we say, “Man, those Japanese can fight, we better throw in the towel?” Why didn’t the French or the British throw up their hands and say enough is enough during WW I when whole regiments were being destroyed in a matter of minutes? Yes, I know the French came close but they didn’t actually do it. I saw a report on the news shortly before the ground war in Iraq started that showed a comparison of this question asked at the start of or prior to a major war fought by the U.S., and it was this, “Do you know why we are fighting this war?” I do not remember the exact numbers but they were close to this, WW II, mid 70 percent range. Vietnam, mid twenty percent range. Operation Iraqi Freedom, mid eighty percent range. From this brief example I would argue that democracies WILL take loses if they believe the cause is important and just and will not support wars that the people of those countries deem not in the national interest. But, I whole-heartedly agree with Fiender, I agree that the Japanese should get a win if they do better than their historical counterparts. This will be even more important for WitP. How can the Japanese hope win when the Americans could possibly have 100 plus aircraft carriers roaming the Pacific by late 1944? I want the Japanese player to say you lose, I still control the Philippine Islands in August 1945.

Oleg Mastruko -> (5/10/2003 12:18:15 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Micah Goodman [B]But, I whole-heartedly agree with Fiender, I agree that the Japanese should get a win if they do better than their historical counterparts. [/B][/QUOTE] I don't know... suddenly it sounds too easy for the Japanese. In most wargames I played I managed to do better than historical counterpart. Just knowing what mistakes historic side made, was GREAT advantage. I did complain many times how Japanese chances of victory in UV are too slim, but now it sounds too easy. Playing better than historic Japs seems like a piece of cake... First, we'll avoid Midway, then we'll build up Lunga real FAST, then we'll avoid meat-grinding of Guadalcanal, then we'll train more pilots and take care not to waste best pilots in senseless attacks etc. - piece of cake. And BTW how do you measure success against history in unhistoric scenarios (17 and especially 19)? Who can tell what would IJN do with Midway carriers in Solomons. O.

Yamamoto -> (5/10/2003 2:04:19 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Micah Goodman [B]You know, I constantly hear this refrain about democracies not dealing with huge troop losses from people and I have one question, please name me one war in recent memory that a democracy lost or surrendered because of “Huge” troop losses? [/B][/QUOTE] Well, there's Somolia for one. We lost two helicoptors and some ground troops and we got the hell out of there. Democracies DO have a hard time fighting wars when they start to take losses. The reason that wasn't the case so much buak in WW2 is because there was no television. Today there are so many liberals in this country that not only do we have to be very careful not to take losses when we enter a war but we have to make sure we don't INFLICT too many losses on the enemy either. Does anyone think for a minute that we could have fought WW2 successfully with the atmosphere we have today? It would never happen. After the first fire-bombing of a German city the Germans could get peace terms within a matter of days. The terms might favor the allies but the Nazis would still be in power today that's for sure. Well, it's 3:10 AM so nothing in the posting probably makes sense. I'm off to sleep. Yamamoto

Admiral_Arctic -> (5/10/2003 9:57:04 PM)
The loss of Townsville and/or Luganville wouldn't be the end of the Allied fighting will and a premature surrender. But it would be the end of your command. If you couldn't recapture the base within a reasonable time (31st Dec 1942) you would be sacked. The Allies lost Philipines and Singapore but didn't surrender. The war continued. They lost Java, Sumatura, and Burma. Rommel got a promotion to field marshall for capturing Tobruk, but he didn't win the war and the Allies didn't surrender. They sacked the commander (Ritche then later Aukenleck) and eventually Montegomery took charge and they (eventually) counter-attacked and kicked butt. Just because MacArthur survived Philipines to command another day, the loss of PM and then Townsville would have secured his pension but not lost the war. Even the victorous capture of Guadalcanal was not enough for Ghourney to keep his command. Britain fought on after the disasters of 1939 and 1940 and could only expect the worst for 1941. The loss of France and Dunkirk, the staggering losses of shipping in the Atlantic and disappointments in the Mediterrerean. But they sure did change a lot of leaders including poor old Dowding and sacked prime minister Chamberlain. Also if Townsville or Luganville were captured by the Japs, the reinforcement schedule would have been so radically changed that our OoB would be unrecognisable. The triggered reaction would bring in enormous resources so that the NEW commander could do what you couldn't.

Mr.Frag -> (5/10/2003 10:22:57 PM)
Great point AA, perhaps you bring new light to the discussion. It is not about the USA leaving the war, it is about the theater commander (YOU!) being re-assigned to supply desk for Alaska :D Obviously the USA would never have pulled out no matter what, but you can bet your last dollar that certain key events would have resulted in a few 4 stars being sent packing. Maybe that should be a mesure of the victory conditions and also the Special Virctory conditions. Lots of other games demote you if you blow it bad enough, why not UV?

Micah Goodman -> (5/10/2003 10:47:06 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]Well, there's Somalia for one. We lost two helicopters and some ground troops and we got the hell out of there. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] But that reinforces my point; we did not take huge combat losses. The real problem was one of conviction, did the American people want to feed and rebuild Somalia? I would say that answer was no. The situation in Somalia did not threaten our national interests so there was little political will to act aggressively or decisively. I believe that the average American does understand that war means killing and killing means death, the only difference today as opposed to fifty years ago is one of political polarization. America is divided so sharply between conservative and liberal viewpoints today that political hatred for the other side drives protest or support more than any other factor. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]I don't know... suddenly it sounds too easy for the Japanese. In most wargames I played I managed to do better than historical counterpart. Just knowing what mistakes historic side made, was GREAT advantage. I did complain many times how Japanese chances of victory in UV are too slim, but now it sounds too easy. Playing better than historic Japs seems like a piece of cake... First, we'll avoid Midway, then we'll build up Lunga real FAST, then we'll avoid meat-grinding of Guadalcanal, then we'll train more pilots and take care not to waste best pilots in senseless attacks etc. - piece of cake. And BTW how do you measure success against history in unhistoric scenarios (17 and especially 19)? Who can tell what would IJN do with Midway carriers in Solomons. O. [/B][/QUOTE] You know those are some very valid points. But I was thinking along the lines of an overall combat situation at the end of the game. So What if the Japanese still hold Lunga at the end of the game if they pour everything they have to build some super base if they leave Ruabal lightly defended and the Allies take it instead? Or instead of base control make it hex control. The possibilities are numerous and some could be easily implemented. Or you could do a simple revamping of the points system. Award points based on how long certain bases are occupied by certain sides, maybe add points for enemy ship, plane, and troop losses in that order. The problem with simulating or not simulating Midway is that that battle falls outside the scope of UV. So, repeating or not repeating that battle is a great option to include or not include in a UV scenario thus added more the games replay ability. In a war game as the Japanese you might not want to avoid Midway. What if you could pull off a victory where the Japanese historically failed? But the sudden death option was an attempt at game balance that failed in my opinion.

estaban -> (5/11/2003 11:53:09 PM)
Some thoughts: 1) Sudden death victory condition = bad Get rid of the "December Surprise" Or make the game end if you pull off the December surprise, but make the victory dependent just the ratio of dead ships/planes/soldiers on each side, and leave bases out of the equation. So a successful Christmas attack merely causes a victory check, but if you lose a ton of ships and planes and men pulling it off, you can still lose the game if you are Japanese. 2) Give points per turn for holding bases. Instead of having Rabaul = 2700 victory points, have it equal 5 points per turn or something like that. That way, if the Japanese can hold historically "forward" positions like Lunga, Luganiville and PM for awhile, you get a disproportianllly high number of VPs. 3) Allied 4 engined bombers are way too powerful. I think that Macarthur and Halsey would have loved a weapon that could knock Rabaul out after 5-6 days of bombing, then maybe one visit every 2-3 days for the rest of the game to keep it beat down. 4) Similarly, level bombing from very high alitudes is way to powerful. I have had big bases knocked out by 60-70 B25s and b26s bombing from 15000-20000 feet for 4-5 days straight. At that altitude, you could not get concentration and accuracy. 5) Determine the historical victory rations, and then set that outcome as the ratio of victory. So if historically, using the game VP formula, the Japanese had 2/3 the victory points of the allies on December 31, 1943, then make that the margin of victory. Sure, the Japanese have some bonuses in the game in that they can avoid a Midway, but the allies have bonuses too in that they can mass produce bases for cheap victory points. 6) I made the mistake of not going for the Christmas surprise in the one PBEM I have played at length. I took PM, and the decided to dig in and go over to defense. It is now nearing the end of April 1943, I am down to about 400-500 aircraft total, most of my carriers are sunk, most of the allied carriers are still around, and the allies have just taken Lunga from me. I have however sunk over 230 allied ships, with 30 or so of those being PT boats. I have lost 85 ships total, for about 500-600 fewer VPs than all those allied ships, and I still think I am going to lose the game in the next 8 months.

Admiral_Arctic -> (5/12/2003 5:02:22 AM)
Don't let Rabaul get knocked out. Send more engineers. Once the Allies have regained PM or Lunga I usually keep 350+ to repair any damage immediately. Keep your flak units there. Maybe base your bombers at Kevieng during heavy bombardments so your don't lose planes unnecessarily (especially the Nells, Bettys, Vals and Kates) . This makes more room at Rabaul for fighters. Size 9 airbase can accomodate 450 planes without penalty. You can still overload the base with more if you want to. Your planes might not shoot many down directly, but you will damage them and six-ten B17/24/25/26 crashing while returning to base is just as good. It won't be long and the Allies will be looking for easier targets like infantry at a small base. Return your bombers to Rabaul.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078125