quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

I don't know what he meant, that's why I asked. [;)] I was just intrigued by the "which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim" statement. Can't quite see how the Allied player "having to form a strategy independent of history" accomplishes that either. I must be having a bad day - better not do any more work then. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

You two are having a great time quoting out of context with no atribution as who your quoting.[8|]

Hard to believe your as confused as you seem....

I guess you have never played wargames that have Victory conditions based on losses, and specific events within a _Historical_ timeframe, as example, the US has to take Sapain by a certain date to bring the now Nerfed B-29`s into play, as well as the Nukes. Failure to do so could result in a Japanese Victory on points.

or...if the Japanes player overuns India or a great part of it, he gets a huge point lead....not so hard is it..?


That`s what he means...seems pretty clear to me, and I suspect pretty clear to you guys as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
...which takes away the chance to explore "what if" scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

BTW...Tankeracer ; the " Japanese Victory Scribbled on Paper" is a pretty Cheap Shot.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Saying his reasons are stupid, unfounded, unprecedented, etc are cheap shots, but I don't see how a simple joke (when there are lots of jokes made on this forum) is bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

All I want(ed) from WitP was a "reasonable evaluation of the units, and engine that creates reasonable results." Unfortunately, it has DE-volved so that neither are true. The OB is utter non-sense, and the engine does not produce historical results under similar circumstances.

While the "atrributes" of Zeros and B-29s are certainly subjective within WitP, I should be able to pit 100 Zeros vs. 100 B-29s, and the engine should resolve a "reasonable result". It is certainly true that after the first turn, the war changes. That is exactly the point of wargaming, is to create a simulation, and see if you can do better than your historical counterparts.

But the "what if" factor should really only reflect "what if I deploy/use my units differently". The units themselves, should operate as reasonable historical reflection.

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

The amount of IJN shipping available in WitP to haul around invasions that make June 6th look like child's play. It took 6 weeks for Japan to land their troops in the Philipines. Now it takes 1 day. Oh, and did we miss the scouting reports where there are simultanious mega-invasions at Khota Bharu (took 2 weeks to complete historically), Rabaul, Canton Island, Lunga, Noumea, Kendari and Tarakan. In about 3 weeks, those same troops will be gleefully boarding their transports, and heading to Chadpur.

Um, no.

The lack of sea-lift was a very real problem for Japan historically. With 440 APs to start, and an average of what, about 2k per AP, you're talking about a lift capacity of 880,000. Since I don't know the proportion of large AP to small AP, we'll cut that number to 800,000. An "average" division is about 15k to transport. We'll go high, and call it 20k. That's a lift capacity of 40 Divisions to start. Not that Japan even has that (what is it, including all the the NLF and Gd Btns/Bdes, comes to about 10 Divs?). But the ability to insta-land 10 divisions is ludicrous. The fact that Pearl, Noumea, NZ, Oz, India are even considered for invasion (and holding) by WitP players, substantially bears out the flaw.

Could Japan have landed troops in Oz? Sure. A couple of SNLF or a MAYBE a full Division? Sure. But not the mega-landings possible in WitP. The 4 Divsion beach-heads that we see regularly in WitP, are completely implausible.

The naval WARSHIP ob is accurate. But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

The amount of IJN shipping available in WitP to haul around invasions that make June 6th look like child's play. It took 6 weeks for Japan to land their troops in the Philipines. Now it takes 1 day. Oh, and did we miss the scouting reports where there are simultanious mega-invasions at Khota Bharu (took 2 weeks to complete historically), Rabaul, Canton Island, Lunga, Noumea, Kendari and Tarakan. In about 3 weeks, those same troops will be gleefully boarding their transports, and heading to Chadpur.

Um, no.

The lack of sea-lift was a very real problem for Japan historically. With 440 APs to start, and an average of what, about 2k per AP, you're talking about a lift capacity of 880,000. Since I don't know the proportion of large AP to small AP, we'll cut that number to 800,000. An "average" division is about 15k to transport. We'll go high, and call it 20k. That's a lift capacity of 40 Divisions to start. Not that Japan even has that (what is it, including all the the NLF and Gd Btns/Bdes, comes to about 10 Divs?). But the ability to insta-land 10 divisions is ludicrous. The fact that Pearl, Noumea, NZ, Oz, India are even considered for invasion (and holding) by WitP players, substantially bears out the flaw.

Could Japan have landed troops in Oz? Sure. A couple of SNLF or a MAYBE a full Division? Sure. But not the mega-landings possible in WitP. The 4 Divsion beach-heads that we see regularly in WitP, are completely implausible.

The naval WARSHIP ob is accurate. But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

-F-

Oh is THAT why we see all that? So was the extra shipping with us from day one? And what was the intention (if known) of adding all that extra lift capacity? - Truly mistified...[X(]

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Excellent post on the single player flaws in the _evolved_ version of WITP and what it has become.i.e. a Game where wherein historical tactics/ deployment of units for the most give ahistorical , if not plan silly results.

Combining " enhancements" i,e. dumbing down the Game engine with the Bug fix Patches was a fatal mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

P.S. There will never be any type of SDK for WitP. Apparently even the virtually unusable scenario/database editor was only reluctantly included.

The best we can hope for is the code getting released under NDA to a volunteer from the community at some point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Good grief, you're taking this awfully personally.

Try to be objective, this isn't worth getting your blood pressure up.

I wouldn't call it INTENT. I don't believe that the Devs said, "Hey let's screw the Allies! Let's give Japan a billion transports!". I am quite sure they had no idea of the impact on PBEM.

About of 70% of the Japanese sea-lift ability in WitP was never available to transport troops. It was needed to haul rice or supplies. (* separate discussion about the supply/production model of WitP not NEEDING those transports to function *)

The simple fact is that the AI is stupid enough that it will impale itself very quickly, and thus NEEDS the abundance of shipping and the invasion bonus to boot. We (also the Devs) learned as much from UV, and certainly the same problem plagues WitP. But in allowing the AI huge amounts of shipping, because it will lose it doing stupid things, seriously affects a PBEM game.

I don't think the Devs "intended" anything. I think they worked very hard, and did a damn fine job. I think they created a helluva OB. Too good infact. There actually WERE steamships out there called the American Maru or whatever. The problem is that, they were never available for the duties they perform WitP, and should thus not be included in the OB.

-F-

quote:

But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

That's exactly what I'm saying.

To keep things within "do-able", there would be a

#15 - Grand campaign vs. the AI (contains things like the abundance of shipping, to help prop up the AI).
#15 - Grand campaign for PBEM (contains things like fewer transports for Japan, and less volume of Allied level-bombers; to start).

Still, it's not that easy. Fundamentally, the productio/supply model, which is the heart of the game, is wonky. If players had to actually use 70% of their shipping to haul supplies to the Home Islands or whatver, you wouldn't need a reduced shipping OB.

So do you work farther up the chain, and "fix" the production model? What is "fixed"?

If you fiddle with production/supply model, there are certainly far reaching issues that you suddenly create that you can't have possibley thought of, simply because it is such a fundamental part of the game.

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III
But in the interest of closure, since you speak with some authority on what Matrix will/will not do ( I assume you are not in their employ but know the Code ? ) please tell why it is not in their interest to enable easy modding of the Game.

quote:

please tell why it is not in their interest to enable easy modding of the Game