|
Tristanjohn -> RE: What's really wrong with the game? (4/20/2005 11:01:32 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Banquet
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
quote:
ORIGINAL: afspret
Let me ask this of those who complain about historical accuracy; are ya'll complaining about the outcome of battles or the logistical aspects of the game? I do have some problems with the logistical side of things, but all I care about is the fightin' part.
As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?
The battle of Midway, if modeled "correctly," would 1) usually result in an American win or 2) sometimes result in a Japanese catastrophe. As for Bulge games, I played a lot those over the years, and the worst (least realistic in terms of detail) was the first, Avalon Hill's. And even with that broad-brush effort it was impossible for the Germans to achieve anything close to a victory against careful play. So, I don't know which titles you're referring to, but the ones I played around with had it about right.
You do realize, do you not, that the German attack in the Ardennes in 1994 was a(nother) bad dream Hilter once had?
Maybe afspret was referring to playing the US forces in Bulge?
Of course. What he wrote was:
As far as boardgames go, I didn't always win at Midway or the Bulge. How historically accurate were those outcomes?
The obvious (the only) implication there could be that in both cases he didn't always win as the Allies. All I said is that 1) we'd expect an American victory or a Japanese catastrophe at Midway if it were modeled correctly, and 2) as an old player of Bulge games I never saw a legitimate (read: against good play) victory for the Germans. I went on to imply that should the Germans ever win such a scenario it would be an aberation of sorts, because they had absolutely nothing going for them except the element of surprise, and that didn't last more than a few hours.
quote:
Anyway, what is the basis of your thought that US would usually win Midway? I had always had the opinion that Midway was a case of getting the luck of timing that rarely occurs.
Well, there was an element of luck at Midway, just as there is always an element of luck in all human endeavor, but that luck ran both ways, as so often is the case. Just for instance, the wind was blowing toward the Japanese (as usual) that day, and so the American carriers had to put into that wind and steam away from the enemy in order to launch. This effectively spelled death for more than a few brave USN torpedo bomber pilots.
If I have to go on I will, but you get the drift, right?
In general, the Americans ought to win the battle of Midway for many reasons. First of the all the Japanese plan was idiotic on its face. Second, the Americans knew (well, they had very good reason to believe) what the Japanese were up to in general and correctly guessed for all intents and purposes most of the details as events eventually unfolded. Third, the Japanese tactical handling of the battle was atrocious. That isn't bad luck by the way but bad management. Fourth, even though the wind was (as usual) blowing in favor of the Japanese, the Navy had those brave pilots who were willing to sacrifice their lives (they knew in advance that they were launching at a range which would negate any possibility of their getting back to the fleet, so their only hope was to ditch and then be rescued afterward), and so, as (finally) . . . luck would have it . . . yes, the Devastators arrived just early enough to draw the enemy CAP down to the deck, at which point our Dauntless pilots had a field day, and immediately put three big carriers out of commission. And that was not luck, too, but good plane driving, and ice-cold nerves on the way down to the release point.
That Nagumo's carriers themselves were ill-prepared to receive an attack is, again, just plain bad management. From what I can tell of this guy, based solely on his WWII performances, he seems to have been the Japanese variant of Frank Jack Fletcher, both in terms of character and ability. But what do I know? I do know he eventually committed suicide on Saipan (actually I think he was shot by General Saito's adjutant), and good riddance.
quote:
Bearing in mind the following quotes from Wade McClusky;
'With the clear visibility it was certain that we hadn't passed them unsighted. Allowing for their maximum advance of 25 knots, I was positive they couldn't be in my left semi-circle, that is, between my position and the island of Midway. Then they must be in the right semi-circle, had changed course easterly or westerly, or, most likely reversed course. To allow for a possible westerly change of course, I decided to fly west for 35 miles, then to turn north-west in the precise reverse of the original Japanese course. After making this decision, my next concern was just how far could we go. We had climbed, heavily loaded, to a high altitude. I knew the planes following were probably using more gas than I was. So, with another quick calculation, I decided to stay on course 315 degrees until 1200, then turn north-eastwardly before making a final decision to terminate the hunt and return to the Enterprise.
Call it fate, luck or what you may, because at 1155 I spied a lone Jap cruiser[2] scurrying under full power to the north-east. Concluding that she possibly was a liaison ship between the occupation forces and the striking force, I altered my Group's course to that of the cruiser. At 1205 that decision paid dividends.'
It seems to me that Midway was a result better than America could have dreamed of prior to the battle. Sure, the Japanese had the disadvantage of intel, and of having to contend with dealing with the airstrip at Midway, but overall I'd have thought a game that historically modelled the battle would often have completely ahistoric results.
You can think whatever you want. It's a free world out there.
Re McCluskey's remarks: I'd put these down to modesty more than anything else. What would expect him to say? He might as well have said, "Well, we were basically lost, and then we saw this Japanese warship steaming off to somewhere and decided to follow it because you never know . . . and sure enough, it was headed toward the fleet . . . big surprise! . . . and awaaaaaaaaaaaay we flew!"
So what? The salient point is that the Americans knew where and when and what the Japanese were up to, whereas the Japanese didn't know squat, and then mismanaged their own peculiar battle plan on top of that! What kind of result would you expect from that kind of show? Do you suppose it was just owing to "bad luck" that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo? Well, there was luck at play there, but there were a helluva lot more mistakes made by the French than instances of bad luck which plagued their fortune over that last campaign. If you don't believe me, go read up on it yourself.
|
|
|
|
