RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (Full Version)

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



Message

BBfanboy -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 3:29:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndriahBlashkovich


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
8) the knowledge that most Allied submarines will be all but impotent until at Jan 1943

Funny, AFB's use the same knowledge to hide their subs with those torps until the dud rate improves. I don’t see you railing about the AFB's using the info to their advantage. Now that I think of it, how do I take advantage of that as a JFB? I still escort my task forces , I move what I need to move in the ships I need to move them in, etc. I've read far too much about the dismal performance of US torpedoes to suggest that they should have their dud rate reduced. If it were up to me, the dud rate would not go down until a certain number of torpedos had been duds on attacks. We all possess knowledge that gives us an advantage over the men whose decisions we second guess. This is not the first, last or worst of them.



Not to mention IJN gets horribad ASW performance that never really properly improves, unlike the USN torbs. So the AFB complaint is pretty balanced out, imho, but people tend to forget that little detail. AFBs get less offensive submarine potential at the start of the war, JFBs get less ASW potential throughout the whole campaign.


This begs the question 'what do you believe is proper for Japanese ASW improvements?'.

Most AFBs would point out that its quite PROPER for Japan to NEVER improve their ASW capabilities.

The game already provides more than ample opportunity to improve Japanese ASW well above historical capabilities simply through crew experience.

We are always torn between wanting a historic simulation game vs a competitive player vs player (or AI) game. It comes down to preference. I would agree to Japan getting slightly better ASW equipment (just by tweaking accuracy and effect of their historic weapons) but would definitely complain if Japan got anything over 50% of Allied effectiveness. Part of the game is the Japanese player having to try and protect increasingly vulnerable sea lanes and harvest as much as he can before they get shut down. Without that Japan gets too much harvest and can make huge numbers of aircraft to forestall allied victory beyond March 1946.



MakeeLearn -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 3:46:23 PM)

quote:

...tweaking accuracy...


would give a bonus to Japan [;)]



[image]local://upfiles/55056/EB2210FD35EF41B5AA7A340CFDFB6B32.jpg[/image]



RichardAckermann -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 4:04:35 PM)

It is odd to read some AFBs complain about the JFB ability to improve ASW ability by alot. IIRC, one of the grand campaigns does read "Can you do better than Yamamoto...?"
So improving the efficiency above historic levels seems to be part of the game plan.
All those AFB vs. JFB "you get more than we do" discussions tend to escalate.
I am wondering how much of a bashing I will recieve from both sides once I release the early beta of my project.



DanSez -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 5:15:45 PM)


There are complaints about both sides, that is why I LIKE the idea of HRs to help settle expectations.

The game is great, but it has some limitations and just one point along this line:
there are not 'fatigue points' assigned to sub crews who spend months on the prowl that in real life were not possible.

ok, so that is a small issue. Seems everybody has some,
but to try and address a potential opponents concern, I would offer a swap along these lines:

Some limitations to 4-E bombers (recon, or only bomb dot bases, 10k alt limit)
in return
Japan can only haul fuel and oil in Tankers/Oilers and not try to force the Magic Highway.

That way each player could address a 'grievance' and play their version of a simulation.




Anomander Rake -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 6:51:43 PM)

The problem is that "AFB" ;-) accept only the game in which the Japanese player will play in exactly the same way as history or possibly worse.



spence -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 7:01:05 PM)

Actually my (AFB) complaint is that there is NO POSSIBILITY for the Allied Player to adjust in any way to improved Japanese ASW (among other things). The Allied Player is stuck with the same submarines with the same weapons for the duration of the game (except lousy torpedoes for 1/2 the war). A number of weapons developed and used during the war are not included. Acting as if the improvement of one side in some aspect of warfare will not create the impetus for the other side to improve in that respect is delusional. The Allies demonstrated time and again that they were capable of adapting to tactcal/operational advances the other side made.



HansBolter -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 7:28:15 PM)

A large aspect of the 'Japanese don't get adequate ASW upgrades' hinges on what you are using for ASW.

While Japanese shipborne ASW can mostly only improve through crew experience, the potential for a Japanese player to exploit aerial ASW abounds.

Once again, improvement is dependent more on pilot experience than it is on improved devices, but BOTH sides have the same potential to develop a devastating aerial ASW capability.

I have seen quite a few AARs where Allied players were loathe to deploy subs to historic choke points because of intimidating Japanese aerial ASW capabilities.

Claiming that the Japanese don't get an ability to improve on historic ASW capabilities is patently false.



HansBolter -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/12/2018 7:36:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

The problem is that "AFB" ;-) accept only the game in which the Japanese player will play in exactly the same way as history or possibly worse.




No, we just want the same capacity for improving on historical performance that is granted the other side.

Barring that, we want the other side to work within the same limitations we have.

Fair is fair. Skewed in favor of one side is skewed in favor of one side.

Doesn't get any more black and white than that.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 1:07:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndriahBlashkovich
Not to mention IJN gets horribad ASW performance that never really properly improves, unlike the USN torbs. So the AFB complaint is pretty balanced out, imho, but people tend to forget that little detail. AFBs get less offensive submarine potential at the start of the war, JFBs get less ASW potential throughout the whole campaign.

If you read a sampling of my posts on this forum, I think most people would consider me a JFB.

I cannot agree with you here.

- IJN ASW should be less effective than Allied ASW due to lesser electronic capabilities. The problem here is that most AFB equate "lesser" technology to "worthless and ineffective". While looking at some of the after action reports here: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/WDR58/index.html#contents1 I noted that some reports from subs indicated that the IJN did not have trouble maintaining contact. Just because the sonar was a microphone on a fishing pole does not mean they could not be used to locate a sub.
- The IJN can greatly enhance it's historical ASW performance through in game mechanics of experience, commitment of assets, and air ASW patrols. IJN ASW efforts were so limited that there is a LOT that can be improved. See my post #50 in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4357430&mpage=2&key=
- Japanese DC's increase in effectiveness as you upgrade your ships and go from Type 95 to Type 95 mod 2 to Type 2. The IJN ASW mortar is probably overpowered given the difference between it and something like the Hedgehog.

The degree to which ASW increases is not the same, but asserting that the IJN ASW capability is static throughout the war is simply not true.

I also object to the "balance" notion. I'm not interested in "trading" torpedo effectiveness from a balance perspective. I think there are a lot of strong arguments that IJN ASW efforts could have been substantially impacted the loss rate of IJN merchants and Allied subs both. Likewise, there is strong evidence that US torpedoes were **** in the early war.

Side Note: Before this link (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm) was broken, I read reports

O-01-1 Japanese Torpedoes and Tubes -- Article 1 -- Ship and Kaiten Torpedoes.
O-01-2 Japanese Torpedoes and Tubes -- Article 2 -- Aircraft Torpedoes.
O-01-3 Japanese Torpedoes and Tubes -- Article 3 -- Above-water Tubes.

and was surprised by the number of torpedoes Japan produced. The information there seemed at odds with the oft cited idea that IJN torpedoes were an incredibly scarce resource. Does anyone have those reports in hard copy or electronic form that they can send or post? I'm currently inquiring about getting a complete set (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/research-guides/us-naval-technical-mission-to-japan-reports-in-the-navy-department-library.html#library) for myself, but so far I haven't gotten an estimate of cost or time to get them.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 1:18:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

The problem is that "AFB" ;-) accept only the game in which the Japanese player will play in exactly the same way as history or possibly worse.




No, we just want the same capacity for improving on historical performance that is granted the other side.

Barring that, we want the other side to work within the same limitations we have.

Fair is fair. Skewed in favor of one side is skewed in favor of one side.

Doesn't get any more black and white than that.

How do you wish to be able to improve as the Allies? I would contend that there if far more room for Japan to improve it's decision making and therefore it's results than the Allies have. For me, it isn't about balance or fairness, it is about choices. I detailed the kinds of things that could have been done to improve IJN ASW in this thread (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4357430&mpage=2&key=), post #50.

What capabilities should the Allies have to combat the approaches I outlined?



spence -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 2:02:53 AM)

quote:

How do you wish to be able to improve as the Allies?


To begin with perhaps the addition of Mk 27 and Mk 28 homing torpedoes (escort killers: in actual use 33 hits/106 fired). Since SONAR is not included as a weapons system at all the high frequency FM SONAR that allowed US submarines to invade the Sea of Japan in spite of heavy mining is another omission. As mentioned previously the Allies were able to adapt to changes in enemy tactics/operations at least as well as the enemy adapted such changes as they adopted.

Japanese ASW doctrine and weapons was very certainly deficient to begin the war and stayed that way throughout the war. They most assuredly could have improved but the game assumes that the Allies would have done nothing whatever to change in response to whatever the Japanese did. That essentially removes the most effective weapon from the Allied arsenal. The Japanese were behind the eight ball re ASW from the start. In innovation they would always start from a position of disadvantage re their Allied opponents.

Also as mentioned previously it is the inability of the Allied Player to respond to the increased emphasis the Japanese placed on ASW. The idea that only one side can get better at what they do in warfare is ridiculous.



Dili -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 2:26:19 AM)

There are not many causalities to self mines in game so it is not relevant.
A way for USN to improve their counter-ASW is to change submarines. The ones they have were slow diving and not much depth capable.
But what class designs USN had? snorkel development?
Another would be more AA guns in submarines - something that Germans tried, only with initial success but since surprise was lost it dropped.

The issue is that for Japanese player to get better odds he just needs to give more existing resources to ASW and adopt a convoy system. For Allied player it is more complicated since certainly implies a different industrial effort.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 4:56:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

How do you wish to be able to improve as the Allies?


To begin with perhaps the addition of Mk 27 and Mk 28 homing torpedoes (escort killers: in actual use 33 hits/106 fired).

Talk about ability to react... the best action against these guys is to open your range. At less than 20 (16/19.6) knots and 4k yards max range you have to fire them at point blank range or go completely undetected to fire. I find myself wondering how the effectiveness of these changed over time. I can see these easily gaming out as ineffective over time.

Now... let's take a different tack. You are lamenting the fact that your subs can't carry a war shot which will kill a 215 ton PB 33% of the time. Your subs carry say... 24 torpedoes. So figure 3 torpedoes per escort for the expectation of 1 hit (note kill is not guaranteed). Go for it dude. Load out those suckers on every sub and kill my escorts. I'd rather see them go glug, glug, glug than a TK. Mod those puppies in, just make sure they take up ammo slots on your boats and make sure they run at the speeds and ranges they did historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since SONAR is not included as a weapons system at all the high frequency FM SONAR that allowed US submarines to invade the Sea of Japan in spite of heavy mining is another omission. As mentioned previously the Allies were able to adapt to changes in enemy tactics/operations at least as well as the enemy adapted such changes as they adopted.

Japan's mine capabilities are already screwed to begin with:

1. One of the more senseless issues inherited from Scenario 1 is the Mine Tender situation. Many (but not all) of Japan's larger ports get Port size x 50 mines. Japan's 4 largest ports (Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka) get 500 mines. It would require 4 ACM's at start in each port to maintain those mines. Only Hiroshima gets enough ACM, Osaka gets ONE, and Fukuoka and Tokyo get NONE. In TOTAL, Japan gets 18 ACM to start and can convert another 37 in 15 days. Japan needs most of the at start ACM just to maintain the minefields at it's 4 largest ports.

To fully maintain all the starting minefields requires 55 to 80 ACM's. (4 size 10 ports requiring 3-4 ACM each, 5 size 9 ports requiring 3 ACM each, 3 size 7 ports requiring 2-3 ACM each, 2 size 6 ports requiring 2ACM each, 8 size 5 requiring 1-2 ACM each, and 10 size 4 ports requiring 1-2 ACM each). Even if Japan converts EVERY possible ACM, mines will still decay at major ports. That says nothing of the minefields Japan will lay as the game progresses.

2. After the first mine is hit, the likelihood that any mine will be hit goes down drastically because the minefield is detected. The 550 mines in Ominato and Hakodate are far less powerful than they appear because the DL on the minefield goes to non-zero once you hit a single mine.

3. A sub tender located in the Aleutians makes it actually more efficient to enter the Sea of Japan between Hokkaido and Sakhalin where no mining can impact you and aircraft are less likely to see you.
Your perception of risk associated with entering the Sea of Japan is out of kilter. The distance from Midway to Hakodate is 58 hexes. The distance from Attu to Hakodate is 36 hexes. The distance from Attu to Wakkanai it 32.


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Japanese ASW doctrine and weapons was very certainly deficient to begin the war and stayed that way throughout the war. They most assuredly could have improved but the game assumes that the Allies would have done nothing whatever to change in response to whatever the Japanese did. That essentially removes the most effective weapon from the Allied arsenal. The Japanese were behind the eight ball re ASW from the start. In innovation they would always start from a position of disadvantage re their Allied opponents.

Yup and I listed 15 ways that the IJN player legitimately can place greater emphasis on ASW ... You've given me issues I have a hard time seeing as all that big a deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Also as mentioned previously it is the inability of the Allied Player to respond to the increased emphasis the Japanese placed on ASW. The idea that only one side can get better at what they do in warfare is ridiculous.

You have 70 years of military technology development to help you: how MIGHT you counter it? The fundamental problem of a WW2 submarine is that it spent most of its time on the surface, running on it's diesels. That means it was subject to aerial(and later radar) detection. Sufficient aerial search in an area would make effective sub patrols difficult because of limited battery life. Even snorkeling, it was subject to detection. Black sky ASW is effective in WitP:AE and it should be. Until you solve the problem of battery power, you can't solve the problem of the WW2 submarine against Black Sky ASW and determined attempts to prosecute sub contacts.

You can, however, mitigate it. It means you have to operate your subs more circumspectly than you might in the face of an opponent that does not seek to improve their ASW efforts.

1. Accept that the JFB that expends more resources on ASW is going to be more effective than the IJN was historically.

2. Understand that the linchpin of IJN ASW efforts is aerial detection and that DL/MDL plays a huge role in that.

3. Further understand that night naval search is critical to maintaining MDL. At the start of each 12 hour phase, the sub's MDL is halved. MDL is much harder to maintain at night when moonlight is low/weather is bad and ops losses are higher.

4. Operate further from airbases. Suppose I have 24 aircraft conducting an ASW patrol. Logically, how many planes search a given hex?

4 hexes from the base? 24 planes / 24 hexes at range 4 = 1 plane that searches the hex.
3 hexes from the base? 24 planes / 18 hexes at range 3 = 1.33 planes that search the hex
2 hexes from the base? 24 planes / 12 hexes at range 2 = 2 planes that search the hex
1 hex from the base? 24 planes / 6 hexes at range 1 = 4 planes that search the hex

5. Operate when moonlight is low. At the top of your game screen, two very important facts are on display: % Moonlight and forecast. Both can play a part in safer operation of your subs. A new moon = 0% moonlight. Full moon = 100% and werewolves. Operate your subs when you don't have to worry about getting bit by a werewolf.

6. Naval Searching (or any air op) in bad weather is less effective and more prone to Ops losses than in good. Operate more aggressively when the weather is bad.

7. See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4410656 and review the suggestions there for additional hints. Pay particular attention to the points witpqs makes in post 4 which Korvar illustrates in Post #5





RichardAckermann -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 8:56:33 AM)

Seems most of the complaints is about JFBs ability to better counter AFBs submarines.
Maybe JFBs have more ability to improve than AFBs, because the RL Japanese did make so many more disastrous decisions that are ready to be improved by the JFBs.
Do the allied have other improvements over RL, like low naval bombing, industry bombing from china, or aggressive chinese LCUs? Where can they outperform history?

Don't take me wrong, I am not trying to take a position in this dispute, but just observing the various opinions of everyone.



obvert -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 9:46:20 AM)

This thread started as a question about a new WITP 3.

As others have stated, that isn't likely. Keep an old computer active (maybe buy an extra), and keep an old version of MS Windows on it. I'm using Win 8 with a classic shell that simulates Win 7, and that works fine, and should keep working for a long time.

The rest of this thread has devolved into the usual debate about balance. Seems it's coming up a lot lately.

Although I don't have the same vehemence against those who play the Japanese side, I see the validity of points being made about a "beefed up" Japan. This age old moniker of "JFB" is incredibly misleading, though. There are players that trumpet their banzais, play only Japan and use every tool available to enhance the Japanese side past historical possibilities. There are a lot of "JFBs" who play more historically. They use moderate builds and conserve resources, don't push boundaries farther than historical, (and often don't even push as far in some areas) and don't raid extensively.

Aside form that, more and more players play both sides. Those players are the ones I trust the most with their opinions on balance. If you've not seen the effects of over-production, wasted resources and overdevelopment of infrastructure in an endgame as Japan, you have no idea how devastating these can be on there ability to wage war from mid-44 onward. The VP system in my eyes is pretty well balanced, too, having seen it on both sides.

That said, I'm disappointed that the cool options Japanese players have available to convert ships, get R & D personalised, use experimental designs and put them into practice, and that there is too much focus on certain historical certainties (like ship withdrawals) limit the personalisations and tweaks an Allied player can make.

Why don't B-26 have the option of being a 2E TB? Why is their no FF Wildcat(fish)? Why can't Langley be converted back to a CVL? Why aren't other experimental plane models added in for flavour and more interesting options for the Allies? Why aren't garrison levels and partizan activities prohibitive for the Japanese taking and holding all of China?

So there are things I wish the game included, but that doesn't mean I'm not happy with it. I think in capable hands, and if the Allies allow a CV combat early, (as they did historically on numerous occasions), even playing stock PDU-off the Japanese could win a decisive battle without doing virtually anything unhistorical. They simply "win" Midway.

Likewise, if the Japanese split the KB, or take risks that the Allies read well and jump on with force, the Allies can deal Japan crippling blows in 42 that they never recover from.

Both of these scenarios have plenty of examples in already played games. So it really comes down to playing the game. Can you as a player take what you know this game allows, and make the most of it against your opponent. That's why we're all still here playing it. [:)]






Zecke -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 10:05:51 AM)

One of the Best players here is Willy (from Holland) (howsˇ the operation ORANGEż; cabronˇ mira que darme la copyˇ[&:]y quedarte el originalˇ[X(]

En finˇ; Bienˇ; willy as allied in the PBME (me japan) risk his Cvs in an earlier 42; and he took control of the pacific; which can do any allied players ; an allied player must risk his Cvs just at the beguining and also bombing any airfirld without escort at the beguning of 42 WITP/WITPAE



RichardAckermann -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/13/2018 1:15:39 PM)

I am not seeing the debate about balance as a devolution of this thread. Balance is an essential topic when thinking about creating a new WITP.
The entire thing seems to be quite delicate to properly adjust.





Brady -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/16/2018 9:12:21 PM)

!



PaxMondo -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/20/2018 2:57:03 AM)

Brady,

Nice to see you drop by ...



SheperdN7 -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/25/2018 10:54:00 AM)

Might be a new IP someday covering the Pacific War, but a continuation of WitP? Not a chance.



Yaab -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/25/2018 12:47:30 PM)

Of course there will be another war in the Pacific. Come on, nerds, do you want to play forever?



RichardAckermann -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/25/2018 1:14:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Of course there will be another war in the Pacific. Come on, nerds, do you want to play forever?


Game: +1
Real war: -1. Not gonna order that.



rustysi -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/25/2018 6:36:16 PM)

quote:

Come on, nerds, do you want to play forever?


Yes.[:D]



Rogue187 -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/26/2018 4:56:14 PM)

This topic really spawned a life of its own! As for my two cents, the hard part of any war game is play balance vs reality. Gen. Colin Powell once said in an interview about the Gulf war, "I'm not a boxer. I don't want a fair fight." (I don't remember the quite exactly) This is the problem with any of these games. Do you hobble the strong side to help the weak side? Or do you make it as realistic as possible which will make it hard, if not impossible, for the weaker side to win? In playing AE, I wouldn't want to see unrealistic advantages given to the Japanese or disadvantages given to the Allies. In reality, the war was pretty balanced over all. The Japanese have the early advantage. But as time goes on, it shifts to the Allies. The goal of Japan was not to invade the US, but to create a stable bubble that would protect the home islands as well as provide the resources they needed to fuel their economy. I think the hard part of this game is that it is played with 20/20 hindsight. In the real 1941 and early 1942, things looked very grim. There really wasn't an option to say, "lets not do any offenses in the Pacific until the better stuff comes." You have to do something. You have to fight.

I would rather play as realistic as possible. Not because I want to crush the Japanese every time, but because I want to see that shift from inferior to superior forces. If I were to play the Japanese, I would want to be as aggressive as possible early on in order to make it as hard as possible for the Allies to win. I don't think its possible for a developer to make the perfect war game, but a few come close. I think it all really boils down to a simple question, do you enjoy playing the game?



RichardAckermann -> RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? (1/27/2018 8:40:09 AM)

One of the problems with WITP AE is the fixed OOB, being aggressive as japan does give you overstretched forces, as you only get units that were created due to the real timeline and events. Better economy/industry does not give you advantage in covering areas that were not captured historically.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625