RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (Full Version)

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

Message

Yamato hugger -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 9:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: doktorblood Please ... make it stop! You can always stop reading it [:D]

mlees -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 10:06:56 PM)
Well, just wanted to point out that I am pleased with the basic game, even if it is not (and probably was not meant to be) completely hyper-accurate. Bugs are bugs, and need to be squashed, but the game, generally speaking, does what I expected of it rather well. Some players will disagree, and that's fine. They may feel that they were mislead by the game description. But I read the same description, and I came away with a different preconception. shrugs I look at it like a TV commercial. Do you really think that a Kit Kat bar is going to make you so happy in the tummy that you will dance through the streets? I do not. And remarkably, few lawsuits, if any, are won based on that clearly false result of eating one as shown. I appreciate the efforts of the CHS team, and I have that scenerio loaded up and in progress right now (as a player vs AI game). I understand the desire for as much accuracy as possible, given the limits of the game engine, and the limited availability of 60+ year old historical records. This caters to the playerbase that likes to see (or understand) if they "can do better", or to get a feel for the historical decisions and why they were made. I belong to this kind of playerbase. Good job guys!

doktorblood -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 10:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: doktorblood Please ... make it stop! You can always stop reading it [:D] I can't stop looking. Kind of like how I always have to look at my neighbor's hideous dog.

mdiehl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 10:15:10 PM)
quote: I look at it like a TV commercial. Do you really think that a Kit Kat bar is going to make you so happy in the tummy that you will dance through the streets? I do not. And remarkably, few lawsuits, if any, are won based on that clearly false result of eating one as shown. No, but if the commercial describes a candy bar with chocolate, peanuts, caramel and nouget you don't pop it into your mouth expecting "to have your cheeks pierced." If you get the Allies in a WW2 Pac Game you expect in 1941-1942 to be able to oppose a like (or even slightly greater) number of enemy CVs with your own CVs and have a roughly equal chance of winning the engagement (all other things being equal).

Bradley7735 -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 10:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Do you really think that a Kit Kat bar is going to make you so happy in the tummy that you will dance through the streets? That's what they do to me. Mmmmm.... gimmie a break...... gimmie a break. break me off a piece of that kit kat bar!!! [;)] Oh yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. Great game. CHS makes it better. But it was still great to begin with. It'll get better still. bc

rtrapasso -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 10:34:01 PM)
quote: Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything. Read the introduction in the manual. Tell me where to look to see where it says "simulation". Actually, iirc, some of their early advertising copy DID say simulation. They made a semi-big deal about how it had been purchased by some army (NZ?) for simulation/training purposes. Stuff like this is why i originally purchased WITP - and thought it was a serious sim. I don't remember if it was "official" Matrix advertisements, or if they just provided links that said stuff like that. Even now, there are official links to reviews that make the claim "Much more than just a game, War in the Pacific is a powerful simulation of theater warfare in the Pacific during World War Two." They have since (apparently) changed their advertising copy, and i've changed my mind about what it is...

testarossa -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 1:38:11 AM)
What's the difference between simulation, stimulation, and ejaculation? [:D]

Terminus -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 1:40:59 AM)
Trying to get this thread locked down?[;)]

testarossa -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 1:45:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Trying to get this thread locked down?[;)] Well, game simulates something (war in the pacific), while stimulating something (our brain and/or ego). And after that we all come (oops i meant post) here.[:D]

Terminus -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 1:46:03 AM)
[:-][:-][:-] [:D]

ADavidB -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 2:01:10 AM)
quote: They made a semi-big deal about how it had been purchased by some army (NZ?) for simulation/training purposes. IIRC it was UV that was bought by the Aussie Army. Dave Baranyi

Halsey -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 2:35:39 AM)
You are correct AB.[;)] It was UV.

Mike Scholl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 5:41:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger The following is cut from WitP offical site: quote: � War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945� � is a completely new strategy game, based on the award winning �Uncommon Valor� game engine. The scale is 60 miles per hex and losses are individual vehicles, aircraft, guns and squads. Since half the planet Earth is covered by the titanic Pacific struggle, the game is massive in scope, covering thousands of ships tens of thousands of aircraft. Virtually every ship, air group and battalion sized or larger troop formation is covered in exacting detail. Massive, yet simple to play, as the computer tracks all the factors and the interface allows the player to concern himself with only the degree of detail he prefers. Phases are one day, composed of two 12-hour impulses. A turn is composed of 1 to 7 phases, at the player�s discretion. He may also choose continuous play and may interrupt that by pressing a key. War in the Pacific has detail never before achieved in a game of this scale before. Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything. Read the introduction in the manual. Tell me where to look to see where it says "simulation". Read the cover of the manual: "GAME MANUAL". Mike, it is a GAME!!!! It will NEVER be anything other than a GAME!!! It was never ment to be anything else! I dont know where you get the mis-guided notion that it is or ever will be anything else. I give up, Hugger..., you are right! It's a GAME! In spite of "massive in scope, covering thousands of ships tens of thousands of aircraft. Virtually every ship, air group and battalion sized or larger troop formation is covered in exacting detail"; it is really just "CANDYLAND" writ large. Happy?

bradfordkay -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 7:24:12 AM)
"If you get the Allies in a WW2 Pac Game you expect in 1941-1942 to be able to oppose a like (or even slightly greater) number of enemy CVs with your own CVs and have a roughly equal chance of winning the engagement (all other things being equal)." I've managed to find out that in WITP I do have just such a chance. I've lost some CV battles and won some, just as I would expect to. I've had to be careful because in '41-42 there is rarely a chance for the US carriers to meet a relatively equal number of Japanese carriers (considering the tendency for the KB to stick together, but with patience I have been able to pounce when the KB is split up for multiple operations. This is just as I would expect in any simulation of the Pacific theatre. I'm not saying that WITP doesn't have warts, but it's still my favorite GAME, which I want to behave in a semi-historical manner. This is why I am playing the CHS...

rtrapasso -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 4:32:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey You are correct AB.[;)] It was UV. Similar claims were made for WITP. I already owned UV, and discovered WITP advertising and the "simulation purchased by xxx military". Silly me, being impressed by this advertising copy purchased it partly on the basis. (BTW, if i thought it was like UV, i would not have purchased it, since i couldn't get UV to work on my computer for more than a couple of minutes without crashing.) Of course, the claim could have been just that - a claim. I have no way of verifying it, and perhaps the UV purchase claim got slopped over into WITP copy. However, i thought i also found in one of the WITP reviews that WITP had been purchased by Aus or NZ military. I'll see if i can find it later...

Kereguelen -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 5:36:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl If you get the Allies in a WW2 Pac Game you expect in 1941-1942 to be able to oppose a like (or even slightly greater) number of enemy CVs with your own CVs and have a roughly equal chance of winning the engagement (all other things being equal). But exactly this seems to be the case in WITP when smaller carrier forces are involved. In all carrier engagements involving 2 vs. 2 carriers I've had in own PBEM in the first half of 1942, the results were 1-2 carriers lost for both sides. It only becomes problematic when large numbers of fighters flying CAP are involved, that is when KB acts together as the death-star. The game engine still seems (while some improvements were made in patches) to be unable, to adequately handle air combats where large numbers of planes are involved. Works, of course, for both sides: Just throw all you have on your enemy and overhelm him with numbers. And I still don't understand the reason behind the carrier strike coordination rules. Don't understand why in WITP the Japanese (using flags and not having enough radios for their planes) have less problems with strike coordination than the Allies. Because of their successful strikes against ports like PH and Darwin? Not really related to carrier battles, it seems. IMHO it would be a much better game if the same penalties would apply for both sides, enforcing the use of smaller carrier TF's as it was historically done in WW2 (even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's).

Terminus -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 5:40:09 PM)
It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs.

Kereguelen -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 5:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs. Hi, yes, but I don't understand why the Japanese should have less problems with coordination than the Allies. There seems not to be any historical justification for this. Coordination should improve for both sides due to technological progress (fighter control centres, radio equipment etc.). But even in 1944, the Allies did not use 6 CV TF's regulary (if they did this at all). K

worr -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 6:09:11 PM)
Pilot training

Kereguelen -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/22/2005 6:23:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: worr Pilot training Even IJN pilots were not trained for such large strikes against naval targets as we see them sometimes in the game, at least did they never show this in carrier battles (their quality is already included in the game, XP and Zero bonus).

worr -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/23/2005 12:15:10 AM)
I think that is the point. Their lack of quality is included in the game not only for XP and Zero bonus, but lack of coordination in large strikes. Mind you this is an educated guess, but I think it makes sense. Lower ability means less coordination as the war goes on. Formation flying isn't easy for a new pilot....and coordinated flying in large groups takes some experience. Worr, out

Yamato hugger -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/23/2005 8:25:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen (even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's). No, they were in 1 TF. They had 2 carrier divisions (one under Nagumo, and one under Yamaguchi), but they were in the same TF. There were CVLs in a 2nd TF, but they never got into the battle.

Mike Scholl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/23/2005 2:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs. Hi, yes, but I don't understand why the Japanese should have less problems with coordination than the Allies. There seems not to be any historical justification for this. Coordination should improve for both sides due to technological progress (fighter control centres, radio equipment etc.). But even in 1944, the Allies did not use 6 CV TF's regulary (if they did this at all). K For the US by 1944 the standard "Carrier sub-group" (ie. TF 58.2) had 4 CV/CVL's and their AAA screening vessels. TF 38 or TF 58 would have several of these sub-groups (for a while, the British Pacific Fleet was TF 58.7). At the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese adopted a similar set up, with three CV/CVL sub-groups. And their "coordination" during "The Marianna's Turkey Shoot" was rather poor, with successive waves of "targets" arriving all day. US coordination (thanks to radar and FDC's) made certain that each wave was met by a suitable set of "greeter's.

rtrapasso -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/24/2005 3:52:53 PM)
quote: And I still don't understand the reason behind the carrier strike coordination rules. Don't understand why in WITP the Japanese (using flags and not having enough radios for their planes) have less problems with strike coordination than the Allies. Because of their successful strikes against ports like PH and Darwin? Not really related to carrier battles, it seems. IMHO it would be a much better game if the same penalties would apply for both sides, enforcing the use of smaller carrier TF's as it was historically done in WW2 (even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's). Here, here!! I think the rule originated in comparing apples to oranges: that is, IJN carriers operating in a SINGLE TF were better coordinated (early in the war) than USN carriers operating in SEPARATE TFs. I think the rule would be more accurate if you gained coordination in strikes when operating your CVs in the same TF, no matter what side was doing it. Of course, the chance that ALL your CVs could get sunk in one devastating attack (a la Midway) is increased, along with coordination of airstrikes. It would be a trade off.

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/30/2005 2:54:06 PM)
Oops sorry forgot op security

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/30/2005 3:07:41 PM)
Andy, please edit...those files are now secret...MC could be reading...[;)]

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/30/2005 3:09:10 PM)
and then again.....problems with Japan are pilots, not planes. Those planes aren't of any use if flown by 25/30 experience pilots

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/30/2005 3:12:31 PM)
I agree but a 25 - 30 xp pilot is better than a 90 pilot sitting on the ground without a ride !!!!

Tom Hunter -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/30/2005 3:18:03 PM)
John Ellis gives the following fighter production stats for 1942 Japan: 2935 USA: 10769 UK: 9849 Andy I agree with the poster above, you should not quote his game by name. You could post these figures under a headline that says "figures from one AAR" rather than naming the game. He should also edit his posts out, you will notice I do not use his name in this post or identify the game in any way. In 1943 the figures were: Japan: 7147 USA: 23988 UK: 10727 It does appear that Japan is producing at a 1943 rate in 1942. As I have mentioned before I think that is fine, but don't call it historical. The CHS game appears to give the Allies about 18% of their total production in the first year of the war. Though I agree that pilots are a critical feature for game win/loss I don't think they are relevant if the discussion is about the historical accuracy of production. If we were discussin play balance that would be different.

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/30/2005 3:30:34 PM)
Yes, ok, but you do know that if you want an accurate historical game you would have to change the whole game. Starting from the code... I think, talking about games, balance is more important than historical accurance.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375