RE: What Was The Idea ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

testarossa -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:13:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I'd love to get Mike to toss out a hardcore version of WitP where supply use is quadrupled, SYS damage rates are dramatically increased for any speed beyond cruise, etc. There are a lot of things relaxed for playability that get abused by players simply because they can.


No. Make it on HISTORICAL difficulty.[:D]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:19:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

The problem is the intensity of the ops (by size and frequency), not the actual accuracy of the model. Even if everything was 100% accurate, Rabaul would -still- get leveled, because we run ops at a pace that far exceeds anything that was historical.


And *that* is why there are so many things in the game to attempt to break your aircraft non-stop to teach players some self control and bring them into some form of reality with the operational tempo of the real world.

From what I have seen, people use aircraft at rates that would have them scrapped and needing to be completely rebuilt or replaced weekly.

I think one of the things that allows this is the abstraction of supply into ammo. If you really had to cart bombs around to bases and built up a stockpile to use your bombers in a week long blitz, you'd suddenly find yourself with lots of aircraft with nothing to do.

I'd love to get Mike to toss out a hardcore version of WitP where supply use is quadrupled, SYS damage rates are dramatically increased for any speed beyond cruise, etc. There are a lot of things relaxed for playability that get abused by players simply because they can.


"Oh....My....Gawd! Magnum, WITP was supposed to be hardcore but it's more a crustacean. Get cracking! [:D] Can you imagine!!![:D][8D]Go Mike! Go Ray!"[&o] Sorry. "Zeus...Apollo!"



mlees -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:22:16 PM)

quote:

I'd love to get Mike to toss out a hardcore version of WitP where supply use is quadrupled, SYS damage rates are dramatically increased for any speed beyond cruise, etc. There are a lot of things relaxed for playability that get abused by players simply because they can.

I dunno. I get annoyed at watching my CV's and BB's collecting 3 SYS damage just sailing from San Fran to Pearl at "mission" speed. This means a week in drydock. Sigh. Different strokes, I guess.

If we play one day turns, and the game was slowed down as you suggest (joke?), people would get too bored too quickly...



Jim D Burns -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:23:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
(Heck, even in your post, you say "if adequate engineers are on hand".)

The gripe I have is that sustained air strikes don't do enough against land units. In my game, I pounded the Japanese 18th division (in Akyab) DAILY, for a YEAR, and they STILL show 20,000 guys eating rice and chillin' out. (Has done wonders for my pilot exp, though...[8D]) Just my opinion.


Of course engineers on hand makes all the difference, but the allies bombed Rabaul for over 6 months straight and NEVER closed the bases ability to launch aircraft. Not because they failed to damage the bases, but because it was easy to repair damaged runways. The real goal of airfield raids was to destroy grounded aircraft and munitions stores. In all my years of reading WWII history, I’ve never read an account of air operations where the stated goal was to close down the bases operational abilities.

Carrier raids in support of landings could temporarily close the base but that was due to the sustained nature of heavy air over the base making it impossible for engineers to repair damage. If the carriers were to leave I bet fighters could have been launched within hours, but of course wherever carriers were committed we stayed, so there are no historical accounts to point to.

You have to remember this is WWII we’re talking about. Ground support was pioneered by the USMC during this war and was for the most part very ineffective until late in the war when napalm and other area affect troop killing weapons were invented. I think the game far overestimates the ability of airpower to kill deployed troops in the game.

Most historians overestimate the value of airpower against troops due to the excited stories told to them by veterans. The true value of WWII airpower against troops was the suppression effects caused by fear of potential damage rather than actual damage caused. As an example read this article http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html that discusses allied airpower effectiveness during the Normandy campaign.

Here we have total air dominance over the battlefield with dozens and dozens of fighter bombers roaming the skies over the battlefield every hour of the day at will. There is account after account of how the airpower destroyed entire German panzer divisions to draw from, but an actual study done at the time shows only about 10% of the panzers destroyed were hit by air weapons.

The Mortain example shows very few panzers were actually hit by air weapons (20-25%), yet every single historical account I have ever read credits allied airpower with stopping the German attack.

So yes I think WitP far overestimates the ability of airpower to actually damage troops. Disruption and suppression should be the main effect, but for now we see typical results of hundreds dying in every air raid. Tone it down but leave disruption the same. I won’t even go into how bad naval bombardments are.

Jim



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:39:08 PM)

I am doing daylight bombing with 24's and 29's and they are working fine(central pacific area).[:)] Patched to 1.40 but patched from save game 1.30. Don't know if this has anything too do with it the effects or not. But mine are ok.



Mr.Frag -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:41:24 PM)

Well, we haven't figured out how to ship the 250,000 staff officers with the game so you could keep track of it all. [:D]



dtravel -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:44:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Well, we haven't figured out how to ship the 250,000 staff officers with the game so you could keep track of it all. [:D]


Nah, just listen to Mogami. According to him, the player is supposed to take the place of all those staff officers. [:'(]



2ndACR -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:48:20 PM)

Heck with the staff. I got a brain.[:D]

Lunga needs 10,000 rolls of toilet paper next week. Check.
PM needs 10,000 500lb bombs for next week. Check
Noumea needs 250,000 rolls of toilet paper, 150,000 pairs of socks, and pvt Smith needs a new helmet. check.
Enterprise needs 300 gallons of strawberry ice cream tomorrow. check.
DD Shaw needs 2500 rounds of 40mm, 180 rounds 5", 4 21inch torpedos, and 30 rolls of TP. check.

Repeat above for every ship in the game and every base, plane, LCU.

Now that is hardcore.

"What do you mean you shipped 25,000 cans of beans to Lunga and forgot the can opener!!!!!!".



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:55:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
(Heck, even in your post, you say "if adequate engineers are on hand".)

The gripe I have is that sustained air strikes don't do enough against land units. In my game, I pounded the Japanese 18th division (in Akyab) DAILY, for a YEAR, and they STILL show 20,000 guys eating rice and chillin' out. (Has done wonders for my pilot exp, though...[8D]) Just my opinion.


Of course engineers on hand makes all the difference, but the allies bombed Rabaul for over 6 months straight and NEVER closed the bases ability to launch aircraft. Not because they failed to damage the bases, but because it was easy to repair damaged runways. The real goal of airfield raids was to destroy grounded aircraft and munitions stores. In all my years of reading WWII history, I’ve never read an account of air operations where the stated goal was to close down the bases operational abilities.

Carrier raids in support of landings could temporarily close the base but that was due to the sustained nature of heavy air over the base making it impossible for engineers to repair damage. If the carriers were to leave I bet fighters could have been launched within hours, but of course wherever carriers were committed we stayed, so there are no historical accounts to point to.

You have to remember this is WWII we’re talking about. Ground support was pioneered by the USMC during this war and was for the most part very ineffective until late in the war when napalm and other area affect troop killing weapons were invented. I think the game far overestimates the ability of airpower to kill deployed troops in the game.

Most historians overestimate the value of airpower against troops due to the excited stories told to them by veterans. The true value of WWII airpower against troops was the suppression effects caused by fear of potential damage rather than actual damage caused. As an example read this article http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html that discusses allied airpower effectiveness during the Normandy campaign.

Here we have total air dominance over the battlefield with dozens and dozens of fighter bombers roaming the skies over the battlefield every hour of the day at will. There is account after account of how the airpower destroyed entire German panzer divisions to draw from, but an actual study done at the time shows only about 10% of the panzers destroyed were hit by air weapons.

The Mortain example shows very few panzers were actually hit by air weapons (20-25%), yet every single historical account I have ever read credits allied airpower with stopping the German attack.

So yes I think WitP far overestimates the ability of airpower to actually damage troops. Disruption and suppression should be the main effect, but for now we see typical results of hundreds dying in every air raid. Tone it down but leave disruption the same. I won’t even go into how bad naval bombardments are.

Jim


Absofrigginlutely!!!! Yes, there is rational thought in these forums every once in awhile.



mlees -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 10:58:24 PM)

quote:

Disruption and suppression should be the main effect, but for now we see typical results of hundreds dying in every air raid.

Um, I don't get the same combat results you seem to... maybe it's just my "bad dice" curse coming to haunt me in electronic version...

On MY average 80-100 aircraft bomb raid (continuing my Akyab example above), the combat report says I get anywhere from 20 to 110 guys. Now you have to cut that in half for FOW, and even then most of them are just "disrupted", not DEAD. And this is flying at 5000 feet versus NO CAP.

"reading WWII history, I’ve never read an account of air operations where the stated goal was to close down the bases operational abilities"... Umm, I think the early stages (and attacks on airdromes by the Germans) of the Battle of Britain was just that...

"Most historians overestimate the value of airpower against troops due to the excited stories told to them by veterans. The true value of WWII airpower against troops was the suppression effects caused by fear of potential damage rather than actual damage caused. As an example read this article http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html that discusses allied airpower effectiveness during the Normandy campaign.

Here we have total air dominance over the battlefield with dozens and dozens of fighter bombers roaming the skies over the battlefield every hour of the day at will. There is account after account of how the airpower destroyed entire German panzer divisions to draw from, but an actual study done at the time shows only about 10% of the panzers destroyed were hit by air weapons."

The article seems to indicate that the most positive (for the Allies) affect that Allied air had on the Germans was destruction of road and bridge infrastructure, but this is not possible in this game. I have to settle for direct strikes on the unit itself.
Again, I don't seem to do damage that can't be repaired in a couple days time, even after many months of bombing the same unit (in a remote base like Akyab, where they never pulled supply in by sea, only overland over jungle trails.)

"The Mortain example shows very few panzers were actually hit by air weapons (20-25%), yet every single historical account I have ever read credits allied airpower with stopping the German attack."
Was this the opening bombardment of Operation Cobra? (Sorry, my memory fails me...)It's my impression that the carpet bombing of the front line German units in Cobra got pulverized, as much by shell shock as by actual hits... (or is this an urban myth too?) This is not possible in WiTP as is.

"You have to remember this is WWII we’re talking about. Ground support was pioneered by the USMC during this war and was for the most part very ineffective until late in the war when napalm and other area affect troop killing weapons were invented."

For the U.S., that is correct, but the IJA was into ground support in China in the late thirties. Their small bombers couldn't carry enough payload to devastate mass formations, yet the phsycological impact on the Chinese still had a large (negative) impact on the combat effectivness of the troops. More than I get with my strikes...[:(]

All I can say is we seem to disagree on the pontential for air to damage ground units historically. Cest la vie..

I say that I don't get enough results, you say you get too much for your tastes.. a wash, I guess, for now. (I am willing to live with changing things if I'm outvoted...)



Charbroiled -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 11:03:34 PM)

IMO - A lot of the complaints seem to be historical vs. non-historical. I say "So What!"...it is a game.

As I said in a previous post, if the setting for this game was on a fictional planet, with fictional combat units, there wouldn't be as many complaints because there would not be anything to compare to historically.

Also, there is no way to replicate historical occurances. Even if we timewarped back to December 6, 1941 and refought WWII, the overall outcome would might be the same, but the battles would not.

I read complaints because the British aren't efficient...historically they weren't. I fact, they had to deal with a uprising of the population of India.

In China, it is mentioned in a few books I have read that Roosevelt contimplated assasinating Chiang Kai-shek because of the lack of progress and cooperation he was receiving.

I say, fix the bugs, play the game, and don't worry about comparisions to history. As long as the game isn't too unbalanced and provided entertainment, then it is good!



Bradley7735 -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 11:08:54 PM)

Jim, you hit the nail on the head.

If you read about the Mariana's campaign, you'll notice that CV airpower hit the Guam airfields about 6 times per day and 2-3 times per night. But, every morning, Japanese aircraft were landing and taking off. The bases had been bombed for at least two days prior to the Japanese navy showing up and the island airfields were perfectly capable of shuttling CV aircraft around during the battle.

The US even used time delay fuses so that their bombs would damage the runways long after the planes left. (and deter Japanese engineers from repairing the strips). This didn't help to shut down the airfields either.

But, the US airstrikes were effective in destroying Japanese planes. So, even a good airstrip was useless, because there weren't any planes to use them.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 11:22:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

I'd love to get Mike to toss out a hardcore version of WitP where supply use is quadrupled, SYS damage rates are dramatically increased for any speed beyond cruise, etc. There are a lot of things relaxed for playability that get abused by players simply because they can.

I dunno. I get annoyed at watching my CV's and BB's collecting 3 SYS damage just sailing from San Fran to Pearl at "mission" speed. This means a week in drydock. Sigh. Different strokes, I guess.

If we play one day turns, and the game was slowed down as you suggest (joke?), people would get too bored too quickly...


People only complain it seems when things slow them down. I would get bored investing a thousand turns in something which is completely unrealistic.

Ever notice how few people, if any, complain about losing ships to BS shore battery fire or because they went on silly naval bombardment missions (because game assumes naval bombardment uses nuclear shellfire) BUT raise bloody hell when their ships suffer system damagedue to ridiculous usage? Everyone hates designer coffee prices, or should, but every Starbucks has a line up.

Think of any system damage in the green as worn machinery. It reduces designed speed mainly. Eg... No Benham clipped along at 38 kts in RL. 33-34 maybe... Why? Everyday wear and tear on machinery, overloading, common sense, fuel economy etc.

What if usage degraded performance, but did not reduce the hit resiliancy of the ship? Lose top speed, fuel efficiency etc but don't lessen the structural integrity of ship from enemy weapons. Anyone ever question why ships can still fire all undamged guns etc when at 99% sys damage? Nope. The way I see it, this (and a myriad of other huge abstractions) gives you incredibly unrealistic ship capability, but people have gone on and on about losing a few % system damage to at sea cruising. Be thankful Nikademus and I did not have much design input.[X(][;)]



mlees -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 11:36:19 PM)

I lurk on the forums at work (at home I PLAY!) when things are slow, and I do see some complaints about just about any and every thing modeled in the game by someone, eventually. [:D]
I accept the game pretty much as is, and try not to let it get me down (and it doesn't)...

As far as the speed of gameplay: When I get home and play, I average about 20 to 30 minutes a turn (1 day turns), and about 2 weeks of game time per (realtime) weeknight. Figure a year of game time for my realtime month invested. If the game was modeled so historically that I (as Allies) could only do three carrier raids in the first game year, 1 or 2 air raids from my major airdromes per game week, and 1 "invasion" a la Guadalcanal in '42, I think I might find it a little too slow. I'm sure things would pick up in '43, but still...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 11:40:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I lurk on the forums at work (at home I PLAY!) when things are slow, and I do see some complaints about just about any and every thing modeled in the game by someone, eventually. [:D]
I accept the game pretty much as is, and try not to let it get me down (and it doesn't)...

As far as the speed of gameplay: When I get home and play, I average about 20 to 30 minutes a turn (1 day turns), and about 2 weeks of game time per (realtime) weeknight. Figure a year of game time for my realtime month invested. If the game was modeled so historically that I (as Allies) could only do three carrier raids in the first game year, 1 or 2 air raids from my major airdromes per game week, and 1 "invasion" a la Guadalcanal in '42, I think I might find it a little too slow. I'm sure things would pick up in '43, but still...


Play PBEM vs a good Jap opponent and it is anything but. So much action you will not feel the need to simply "do something" for doings sake.



mlees -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/17/2004 11:47:23 PM)

I fear that running away from my opponent for a couple months (realtime) would be too taxing on my nerves...[;)]



ChezDaJez -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 12:11:23 AM)

The real effect of all that airpower in Normandy was to deny the Germans the ability to move their armor during daylight. When it did, it got attacked. The fear of attack was greater than the actual damage done. Interdiction was the name of the game.

IRT Rabaul, denying resupply to the base probably acounted for more grouded aircraft than any actual airstrike against the base. Airplanes without gas are just as useless as ones that have been destroyed.

Chez



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 12:21:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I fear that running away from my opponent for a couple months (realtime) would be too taxing on my nerves...[;)]


It's more like bare fisted hide and seek.[:D]



MadmanRick -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 1:38:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

What was the idea of "drastically reducing" the effectiveness of 4 engine bombers?

I had bases such as Rabaul basically suppressed after a long daily day/night bombing campaign lasting damn near a year by B-17s and B-24 and would regularly hit the target but now, after patching to 1.4 I get no hits at all anymore.

I've noticed two and one engine planes getting better results which is bogus.

This is enough for me to delete WiTP, reinstall it and patch it just up to 1.21 and figure that 1.21 is the best I'll ever get with this game. At least then you could count on 4 engine bombers doing damage instead of only 1 and 2 engine bombers.

Historically, a bombing campaign with 4 engine bombers suppressed and neutralized Rabaul which -- before 1.4 -- is about where I had achieved but 1.4 has made that impossible and worse, because I couldn't keep up the level of suppression the bases were building up and all my efforts wiped out.


I'm patched up to 1.4 and I've not noticed ANY drastically different results vis a vis Allied heavy bombers. I am currently playing scenario 15 vs. the Japanese AI, the date is mid-June '42 and my heavies are nailing the Japanese both at Tavoy AND Truk.

Rick



Charles2222 -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 2:35:53 AM)

I made a mistake not reading m10bob's entire post before responding. What happened to the delete post option these things used to have?



Mr.Frag -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 2:44:12 AM)

Just edit your own message and zap the contents



witpqs -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 2:51:20 AM)

I think that Mike Wood edited the original posting on chnages in 1.4. The big reduction was in night bombing:

" 11) The accuracy of NIGHT aerial attacks against cities, ports and airfields has been dramatically reduced. "



Charles2222 -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 3:03:43 AM)

Uh, sure, but that's what I did (deleted the initial message and replaced it with what you see). I thought it kind of lame to delete everything and leave it blank, but then if I could delete the entire post there wouldn't be queries such as "cat got your tongue?"



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 3:44:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I made a mistake not reading m10bob's entire post before responding. What happened to the delete post option these things used to have?


We haf been moderated.[:D]Now, go back to zee camp like a good little POW, Herr Charles.[:)]



Charles2222 -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 4:33:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I made a mistake not reading m10bob's entire post before responding. What happened to the delete post option these things used to have?


We haf been moderated.[:D]Now, go back to zee camp like a good little POW, Herr Charles.[:)]


Ya, vonce zay vould allow you to throw yourself amongst ze barbvires, but now they vil only allow you to be brainvashed (being only able to erase posts as compared to the former deleting them).



Mr.Frag -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 5:27:24 AM)

quote:

Ya, vonce zay vould allow you to throw yourself amongst ze barbvires, but now they vil only allow you to be brainvashed (being only able to erase posts as compared to the former deleting them).


It's a function of the way the forum software works. You can delete posts, but it also kills any replies to that post. Thats why delete's not enabled.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 6:36:47 AM)

[:D][:D][:D][:D]I love these forums.



bradfordkay -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 7:08:16 AM)

" Enterprise needs 300 gallons of strawberry ice cream tomorrow. check. "

Well, in actuality, she had her own ice cream makers. It's 1200 gallons of milk that she wants.



Twotribes -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 2:23:53 PM)

Ships didnt routinely break down due to being just used in WW2. Supply may be to easy, but the damage from sailing is overdone in some cases.



2ndACR -> RE: What Was The Idea ... (12/18/2004 2:28:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Enterprise needs 300 gallons of strawberry ice cream tomorrow. check. "

Well, in actuality, she had her own ice cream makers. It's 1200 gallons of milk that she wants.


Then 1 tanker it is per week. See, now all Pry and the Devs need to do is get together a complete item list of everything every unit in the game could use and get busy.[X(]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7807617