Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Game design and 'fudge' factors

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Game design and 'fudge' factors Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 6:10:47 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
Some more ramblings from the peanut gallery -

A number of threads are currently going on about problems with the current models - namely Tom Hunter's Naval Gunnery thread and Ron's Air units not flying. I'm not here to suggest they are perfect or even correct but the threads have gotten me to think about game design...and I have some questions.

As one looks at combat in ever increasing detail how does the designer factor in the vagaries of war?

When I refer to vagaries, I mean things like reports not getting back to the people in charge to make decisions or individual initiative and heroism. Some specific examples that have been repeatedly cited by myself and others are Tone's search plane, the Indianapolis getting torpedoed, etc. One of my favorite instances occurred during the Battle of Stalingrad. IIRC a German sergeant was single handedly responsible for ensuring that several thousand horses were not captured by the Soviets. This action 'may' have been responsible for Paulus' pocket lasting a few weeks longer than it should have.

My point is that as game design starts to examine the details of units down to individual guns on planes and ships and it approaches the micro tactical how does the designer factor in 'luck' or "happenstance' or other 'fudge" factors that make up a weapons effectiveness such as training and doctrine? And to what extent should these be modeled?

If the designer wants to model the attributes of a land unit by saying that it has 3 .50 caliber machinegun, shouldn't the designer also try to model how that weapon was utilized by the unit? Shouldn't the designer also then model the ammunition supply for that specifc gun? And if the designer is going to do that shouldn't he also model how that ammunition is packaged and shipped? And if he does that does he not now have to model the personnel responsible for shipping it? Should he also have to model contract negotiations with dock workers and there individual productivity? Does he have to model weapon reliability? Does he have to model spare parts/and or replacements for the weapon and there availablity? At what point is any of this 'fudged" and if any of it is 'fudged' should the designer decide to look at the individual gun in the first place?





_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Post #: 1
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 6:25:03 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
Well - the systems work more or less...

but the problem with it is we get no informations.
Like the "only 1 out of 5 planes start"-problem... the logic says, we have prepared 2 Weeks, every engine works, no problems... the pilots are rested, fuel and ammo is here... our recons/radars detect the carrier task force, around 120 miles outside... and what do we do ? Nothing. Just sit and wait. That sounds strange.

For the ammo/parts micromanagements... well, why not ? make a good interface, with cannabalizing of parts (damaged/destroyed planes) and everything is fine.
Give us more freedom, not less. But give us also more informations. My 10 destroyers (with radar) achieve surprize against 4 pt´s and lost 2 against zero pt´s ? well, disturbing but it could happen. Just give me some details. Even more for carrier battles...

And mostly for land combatthis is true The results are strange, but with no informations it is laughable... and i fear for EF II...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 2
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 7:02:56 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Well, I would attempt to get the basics down and working smoothly, then tweak it for variances and what ifs later. Many claim the end results are good, but really, I've seen a preponderance of improbable to near impossible outcomes.

One thing I'm starting to think. FOW. This can be utilized two ways. It can be used to add uncertainty and variance to a wargame, or it can be used as the catch all phrase to explain away all sorts of problems. Convenient if the latter.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 3
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 7:48:44 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
One problem is that the level of detail is schizophrenic. You can send an airstrike out at 100 feet with orders to strafe a particular port---but you can't even give a naval airstrike a "priority". When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 4
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 8:00:51 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One problem is that the level of detail is schizophrenic. You can send an airstrike out at 100 feet with orders to strafe a particular port---but you can't even give a naval airstrike a "priority". When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd.


Oh no!! With 5 or 6 enemy flat tops in the area, I PREFER my 45 dive bombers and 60 torpedo planes go after those 6 PC's !!!!!
(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

_____________________________




(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 5
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 9:15:19 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
treespider,

I think it was Clauswitz who coined the coined the term 'friction' for what you are describing - the simplest things become incredibly difficult becuase you try to do them all correctly at the same time. The designers have tried to simluate these things with the various 'die rolls' and checks that have to be made for various things to happen.

Check out the navweapons site that Tom Hunter referenced in the naval gunnery thread and look at the Surigao Strait writeup. Every battleship fired way less rounds than their 'normal' rate of fire, and that would drive a lot of people nuts in this game. The writeup is great because it go into detail on the variety of reasons why this was so.

Consider BB's Washington and South Dakota at Guadalcanal. South Dakota suffered an electrical failure not due to enemy fire and signaled she was combat ineffective. Washington pounded Kirishima (I think it was) but at one point ceased fire for several minutes. Why? Her new radar was mounted in such a way that it could not cover a large arc behind the ship. South Dakota's troubles had left it uncertain where she was - causing Washington's captain to wonder 'is it really an IJN BB we're pounding or a friendly? '

These vagaries of war are huge, and a system that even partly succeeds at modeling them is way better than none at all.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 3/12/2006 9:21:02 PM >

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 6
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 9:16:56 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Oh no!! With 5 or 6 enemy flat tops in the area, I PREFER my 45 dive bombers and 60 torpedo planes go after those 6 PC's !!!!!
(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


Like the Swordfish that attacked a US Coast Guard cutter instead of Bismark...

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 7
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 9:17:33 PM   
acmejeff


Posts: 53
Joined: 3/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast!

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 8
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 10:09:38 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Oh no!! With 5 or 6 enemy flat tops in the area, I PREFER my 45 dive bombers and 60 torpedo planes go after those 6 PC's !!!!!
(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


Like the Swordfish that attacked a US Coast Guard cutter instead of Bismark...



Yeah, I know, I was just waiting for you to show...My point is (and always has been) that not ALL of my pilots are nervous, anxious, ignorant buffoons who can't tell a cannon from a cantaloupe, (just some of them!)

Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!

"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."

< Message edited by m10bob -- 3/12/2006 10:18:31 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 9
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 10:12:34 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

quote:

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast!


Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......

< Message edited by m10bob -- 3/12/2006 10:14:51 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to acmejeff)
Post #: 10
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 10:45:04 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

quote:

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast!


Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......


Ahh but just wait till your run across Skull island somewhere south of Sumatra!


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 11
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 10:50:28 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

quote:

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast!


Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......


I've always thought Gilligan's Island was off Florida.


_____________________________



(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 12
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 10:58:15 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

quote:

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)


I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast!


Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......


I've always thought Gilligan's Island was off Florida.



Well, bstarr...That's why you've never found it !!

_____________________________




(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 13
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/12/2006 11:00:39 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

Ahh but just wait till your run across Skull island somewhere south of Sumatra!


Before long, we'll have them thinking "breadfruit" is a real thing!

_____________________________




(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 14
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 12:05:38 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
You're referring to the 'software quality' of the units--the likelihood of someone doing the 'right thing'. It can be modelled in terms of the performance degradation from proving ground figures. It generally went down faster than the percentage casualties. How much faster depended on the demographics of the unit. Poor units were particularly reliant on their best leaders and lost performance much more quickly than elite units. Call it the FUF.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 15
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 12:54:21 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

You're referring to the 'software quality' of the units--the likelihood of someone doing the 'right thing'. It can be modelled in terms of the performance degradation from proving ground figures. It generally went down faster than the percentage casualties. How much faster depended on the demographics of the unit. Poor units were particularly reliant on their best leaders and lost performance much more quickly than elite units. Call it the FUF.


FUF as a matter of fact can be measured accurately, but is generally encountered only after it reaches the FUBAR plateau, at which time it becomes FUBAB.

_____________________________




(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 16
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 3:16:39 AM   
Fornadan


Posts: 86
Joined: 1/22/2005
Status: offline
What this game really need is something like this...

NAVAL ACCIDENT PHASE

BB Mutsu sinks...

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 17
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 4:05:50 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yeah, I know, I was just waiting for you to show...

I feel warm all over!


quote:


My point is (and always has been) that not ALL of my pilots are nervous, anxious, ignorant buffoons who can't tell a cannon from a cantaloupe, (just some of them!)


I know - but everybody is a C&CBuf sometimes. After all, it was the same swordfish squadron that nailed Bismark later on.

quote:


Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!

"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."


Mike does have a good point. In my games, carriers do act that way (hitting the right targets - like carriers) the vast majority of the time. In terms of what you are saying, I think it boils down to 'should those orders (or priorities since the game doesn't allow you to give the orders explicitly) always be perfectly obeyed?' If so, you lose that 'friction' element. If you don't want it, that's good. If you want the flavor of slightly uncontrolled reality in there to simulate WWII, then sometimes things will go askew...

Of course, if it's happening too much, then what is the right amount? I do not know the answer that question, and I'm sure it would be hotly debated anyway.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 18
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 8:37:27 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yeah, I know, I was just waiting for you to show...

I feel warm all over!


quote:


My point is (and always has been) that not ALL of my pilots are nervous, anxious, ignorant buffoons who can't tell a cannon from a cantaloupe, (just some of them!)


I know - but everybody is a C&CBuf sometimes. After all, it was the same swordfish squadron that nailed Bismark later on.

quote:


Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!

"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."


Mike does have a good point. In my games, carriers do act that way (hitting the right targets - like carriers) the vast majority of the time. In terms of what you are saying, I think it boils down to 'should those orders (or priorities since the game doesn't allow you to give the orders explicitly) always be perfectly obeyed?' If so, you lose that 'friction' element. If you don't want it, that's good. If you want the flavor of slightly uncontrolled reality in there to simulate WWII, then sometimes things will go askew...

Of course, if it's happening too much, then what is the right amount? I do not know the answer that question, and I'm sure it would be hotly debated anyway.


I'm pretty sure it would have to do with the year the war was inr as to the better chance of making good tactical identification of targets, (better training in identification of types of ships for the airmen with more time in war experience involved.)
Permanent party duty stations always had follow up training, (whether we could fight the hangovers to pay attention was another matter), but honestly, at ANY point in the war, a carrier pilot especially should have a darned better chance of knowing a carrier *like the one he just flew off of*, than to go after PT boats and AG type vessels.
If a targeting bonus were just given to carrier pilots, it would be more accurate than the piss weak chances of going after carriers now !
(BTW, Ron does not have proprietary license to the term "piss weak"....)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 3/13/2006 8:42:55 AM >


_____________________________




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 12:10:22 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
Shouldn't the S.S.Minnow be a small AP rather than a small AK? I thought it carried more personel than supplies. Maybe an LCVP would actually be a better designation. But the commanders frustration rating should be in the 90s and the the first officer's hilarity rating should be even higher.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 20
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 12:44:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

but the problem with it is we get no informations.
Like the "only 1 out of 5 planes start"-problem... the logic says, we have prepared 2 Weeks, every engine works, no problems... the pilots are rested, fuel and ammo is here... our recons/radars detect the carrier task force, around 120 miles outside... and what do we do ? Nothing. Just sit and wait. That sounds strange.


Nope. It does NOT sound strange. It sounds NORMAL. You are in the jungle. You are using near the state of the art machines not entirely reliable yet. Rats eat the wires. Microscopic living things we have never heard of eat fabrics and other materials. Water condensation changes the electrical resistence of the air or insulation (they use fabric insulation then - no plastic yet). A simple motor vehicle (not nearly as complex as a combat aircraft) is "more trouble than it is worth" to maintain after just 30,000 miles in these conditions (and the design life is 100,000 miles, with many often able to well exceed - even double - that). Then there are the really big factors - human ones. Humans are sick. In a jungle hex you probably catch malaria AND denge fever (both). [EVERY person on Bataan had both. There was only quinine for Malaria - and it only works 70% of the time. If you are exposed - bitten - every day - you are 30% likely to be infected in 1 day, 51% in 2 days, 65% in 3 days, 76% in 4 days, 83% in 5 days, 88% in 6 days, 92% in a week - with only one bite a day - impossible. And there is NO prophalactic for dengue fever, not even today. If you go outside at night, you will get it.] Conditions eat your maps and documents - and even a person with a photographic memory for maps and documents cannot create the effect of these things on the planning table for the whole staff to see. The list is endless.



(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 21
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 12:48:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map",


Actually IRL it IS on the map - it is at Pearl Harbor.


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 22
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 12:51:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......


Oddly, in RHS the identically performing Ki-30 and Ki-32 were combined - so were their code names - resulting in the code name MaryAnn!

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 23
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 3:47:32 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Shouldn't the S.S.Minnow be a small AP rather than a small AK? I thought it carried more personel than supplies. Maybe an LCVP would actually be a better designation. But the commanders frustration rating should be in the 90s and the the first officer's hilarity rating should be even higher.
Rockmedic109..I was trying to be practical and keep it in game terms..Could not just call it a "tramp steamer" in that Mrs Howell might take offense, and I would not call it an LCVP as it had no ramp, just a big hole in the front.(Keep it clean.)
While it did carry more people than cargo, it seems that radio(cargo) played more importance, as it had batteries which never went dead, (I guess.)
Not sure about the commanders rating, too many variables.........

_____________________________




(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 24
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 6:15:04 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
quote:


Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!
"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."


Mike does have a good point. In my games, carriers do act that way (hitting the right targets - like carriers) the vast majority of the time. In terms of what you are saying, I think it boils down to 'should those orders (or priorities since the game doesn't allow you to give the orders explicitly) always be perfectly obeyed?' If so, you lose that 'friction' element. If you don't want it, that's good. If you want the flavor of slightly uncontrolled reality in there to simulate WWII, then sometimes things will go askew...


The ORDERS should be obeyed, as in "Take off and TRY to attack "X" target. Now they might not find it (as most of Hornet's A/C failed to do at Midway)---but at least they would be trying to attack the "right" target (Midway's B-17's didn't go hairing off to the WSW to attack Tanaka's Transport Force---they went after Kido Butai). The big problem with "naval strike" is you CAN'T give it any orders, you CAN'T specify any priorities, you CAN'T even suggest a direction. I don't expect "perfect" results..., but we ought to be able to avoid "perfectly rediculous" results. As it stands now, a gamey but usable strategy is to send some TF's of garbage along with anything important because the game mechanics will generally go after the easiest prey.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 25
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 6:23:19 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
quote:


Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!
"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."


Mike does have a good point. In my games, carriers do act that way (hitting the right targets - like carriers) the vast majority of the time. In terms of what you are saying, I think it boils down to 'should those orders (or priorities since the game doesn't allow you to give the orders explicitly) always be perfectly obeyed?' If so, you lose that 'friction' element. If you don't want it, that's good. If you want the flavor of slightly uncontrolled reality in there to simulate WWII, then sometimes things will go askew...


The ORDERS should be obeyed, as in "Take off and TRY to attack "X" target. Now they might not find it (as most of Hornet's A/C failed to do at Midway)---but at least they would be trying to attack the "right" target (Midway's B-17's didn't go hairing off to the WSW to attack Tanaka's Transport Force---they went after Kido Butai). The big problem with "naval strike" is you CAN'T give it any orders, you CAN'T specify any priorities, you CAN'T even suggest a direction. I don't expect "perfect" results..., but we ought to be able to avoid "perfectly rediculous" results. As it stands now, a gamey but usable strategy is to send some TF's of garbage along with anything important because the game mechanics will generally go after the easiest prey.


Just "confusing the issue with facts" and pointing out that I "don't" think you want to completely remove possibility of strikes hitting the "wrong target" ... as this description of the Battle of Coral Sea shows, on the 7th of May ... everyone hit the "wrong targets" even though the big carrier forces were clearly stalking each other. But they both missed. And so did both sides land based planes, though the American ones tried to bomb the Allies as well an "aggrevated" miss that can't even happen in our WITP !

The first day of the carrier battle of Coral Sea, 7 May 1942, saw the Americans searching for carriers they knew were present and the Japanese looking for ones they feared might be in the area. The opposing commanders, U.S. Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher and Japanese Vice Admiral Takeo Takagi and Rear Admiral Tadaichi Hara, endeavored to "get in the first blow", a presumed prerequisite to victory (and to survival) in a battle between heavily-armed and lightly-protected aircraft carriers. However, both sides suffered from inadequate work by their scouts and launched massive air strikes against greatly inferior secondary targets, which were duly sunk, leaving the most important enemy forces unhit.

Japanese scouting planes spotted the U.S. oiler Neosho (AO-23) and her escort, the destroyer USS Sims (DD-409), before 8AM, in a southerly position well away from Admiral Fletcher's carriers. Reported as a "carrier and a cruiser", these two ships received two high-level bombing attacks during the morning that, as would become typical of such tactics, missed. However, about noon a large force of dive bombers appeared. As was normal for that type of attack, these did not miss. Sims sank with very heavy casualties and Neosho was reduced to a drifting wreck whose survivors were not rescued for days.

Meanwhile, a scout plane from USS Yorktown (CV-5) found the Japanese Covering Group, the light carrier Shoho and four heavy cruisers, which faulty message coding transformed into "two carriers and four heavy cruisers". Yorktown and USS Lexington (CV-2) sent out a huge strike: fifty-three scout-bombers, twenty-two torpedo planes and eighteen fighters. In well-delivered attacks before noon, these simply overwhelmed the Shoho, which received so many bomb and torpedo hits that she sank in minutes. Her passing was marked by some of the War's most dramatic photography.

Adding to the confusion, if not to the score, Japanese land-based torpedo planes and bombers struck an advanced force of Australian and U.S. Navy cruisers, far to the west of Admiral Fletcher's carriers. Skillful ship-handling prevented any damage. Australia-based U.S. Army B-17s also arrived and dropped their bombs, fortunately without hitting anything.

All this had one beneficial effect: the Japanese ordered their Port Moresby invasion force to turn back to await developments. Late in the day, they also sent out nearly thirty carrier planes to search for Fletcher's ships. Most of these were shot down or lost in night landing attempts, significantly reducing Japanese striking power. The opposing carrier forces, quite close together by the standards of air warfare, prepared to resume battle in the morning.


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 6:40:31 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

Just "confusing the issue with facts" and pointing out that I "don't" think you want to completely remove possibility of strikes hitting the "wrong target" ... as this description of the Battle of Coral Sea shows, on the 7th of May ... everyone hit the "wrong targets" even though the big carrier forces were clearly stalking each other. But they both missed. And so did both sides land based planes, though the American ones tried to bomb the Allies as well an "aggrevated" miss that can't even happen in our WITP !


The question is how often is this occurring in WitP as compared to IRL? I'm not sure anyone knows or could answer that question.

However I would be willing to bet that when it does occur in game, it is always noticed at what is perceived a 'crucial' moment. Whereas the successfully targeted missions are not noticed at all because they were supposed to happen that way.

Maybe someone could setup some tests (alot of work though)


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 27
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 9:28:49 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I'm pretty sure it would have to do with the year the war was inr as to the better chance of making good tactical identification of targets, (better training in identification of types of ships for the airmen with more time in war experience involved.)
Permanent party duty stations always had follow up training, (whether we could fight the hangovers to pay attention was another matter), but honestly, at ANY point in the war, a carrier pilot especially should have a darned better chance of knowing a carrier *like the one he just flew off of*, than to go after PT boats and AG type vessels.
If a targeting bonus were just given to carrier pilots, it would be more accurate than the piss weak chances of going after carriers now !
(BTW, Ron does not have proprietary license to the term "piss weak"....)


Agreed. I wonder if the engine currently does that?

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 28
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 9:46:43 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

The question is how often is this occurring in WitP as compared to IRL? I'm not sure anyone knows or could answer that question.

However I would be willing to bet that when it does occur in game, it is always noticed at what is perceived a 'crucial' moment. Whereas the successfully targeted missions are not noticed at all because they were supposed to happen that way.



This is what I also suspect is happening.

Separately, I think carrier planes should be treated differently than land-based planes for purposes of whether they fly or not when attacking other sea-based targets. LBA might elect not to fly in fear of being slaughtered. CBA knows it would also get slaughtered if it fails to fly.

I do think that CBA should still have chances of attacking the wrong target (thanks for the write-up Joe!), but maybe get a bonus to be more likely to identify carriers correctly (like m10bob says). As Joe points out, they can still get bad scouting or signals data, ID the wrong target on their own (in spite of being from carriers - sorry Mike, it did happen IRL). Bad scouting/signals data can certainly result in the strike going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Like treespider says, how much does that happen?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 29
RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors - 3/13/2006 11:36:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Just "confusing the issue with facts" and pointing out that I "don't" think you want to completely remove possibility of strikes hitting the "wrong target" ... as this description of the Battle of Coral Sea shows, on the 7th of May ... everyone hit the "wrong targets" even though the big carrier forces were clearly stalking each other. But they both missed. And so did both sides land based planes, though the American ones tried to bomb the Allies as well an "aggrevated" miss that can't even happen in our WITP !

The question is how often is this occurring in WitP as compared to IRL? I'm not sure anyone knows or could answer that question.




A whole lot more often than you might think. On June 19, 1968 I sailed into Subic Bay on USS Waddell - behind a near sister ship - HMAS Hobart. Hobart looked like a refugee from a WWII naval battle, having taken three hits from Sparrows (although we were told two at the time). Seems USAF mistook USS Boston, HMAS Hobart and two destroyers for two enemy Mi-6 helicopters! And I have just learned a US PF was sunk - either in this incident or a different one - about the same time. [Either way it is awful]. It is a whole lot easier to screw up than people realize, and from the air it is easy indeed to get confused.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Game design and 'fudge' factors Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.203