Is WITP really unrealistic?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Is WITP really unrealistic?

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 >> Is WITP really unrealistic?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:39:19 PM

Knaust

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Rivoli ITALY
Status: offline

IMHO Witp is heavily biased towards the Allies
1. LRBs erase Jap airfields
2. Jap player cannot prepare a base strike without avoiding retaliation attacks of B17s and Liberators
3. Jap player cannot fake his opponent because the Allied player plans second thus seeing the opponent massing in the Jap airfield
4. Jap subs are of no value, they cannot threat sea lanes because they are regularily sunk by Allied DDs
5. Allied subs seem too strong in the starting years of war
6. in early war Allied LCUs are too strong compared to real war: think of Imperial Guards Division that occupied all of Sumatra during period 8-28 March, or Java surrendered to 48th Div on 8 March...try this in Witp!

Post #: 1

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:40:39 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

*puts fingers in ears*

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 2

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:44:21 PM

Knaust

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Rivoli ITALY
Status: offline

please translate

....no fluent English mine

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 3

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:47:23 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Earth to KNAUST. THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC, 1941-1945 WAS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS THE ALLIES. THE JAPANESE WARLORDS WERE DELUDING THEMSELVES THINKING THEY HAD PRAYER OF A CHANCE.

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 4

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:47:38 PM

skrewball

Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline

In other words he was pretending not to hear because this topic has be discussed MANY, MANY, MANY times before. You've made good observations, but this has already been argued.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 5

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:48:26 PM

Knaust

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Rivoli ITALY
Status: offline

ooppss...sorry

(in reply to skrewball)

Post #: 6

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 7:52:19 PM

Knaust

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Rivoli ITALY
Status: offline

well...but why weren't all those flaws patched?

(in reply to skrewball)

Post #: 7

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:16:49 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Puts K-Pot on head...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 8

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:19:21 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

Nope, they aren't flaws depending on who you ask to begin with (see spence's response).

It is interesting to see how the game is 'balanced', I guess you could argue that perhaps Dutch and the limited British forces are modeled improperly (too strong) but then that's a whole other can of worms.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 9

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:19:47 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

*puts fingers in ears*

*sneaks up behind anarchyintheuk and yanks his fingers out of his ears so he can experience what the rest of us are currently trying desperately to avoid*

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 10

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:21:33 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Puts K-Pot on head...

K-pot? You're showing your age again, T.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 11

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:31:41 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

No, I'm showing my reluctance to have a big lump of steel on my head. Glad the Army had changed to Kevlar by the time I got in. I remember once when I was a kid, trying to lift my dad's steel helmet...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 12

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:42:08 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 13

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:48:34 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Shame on you all for picking on a newbie!

WITP works like this, after Dec 7,1941 history goes out the window, it's now up to you! Things don't work the way you think they should, welcome to WAR!

It's just as true today in Iraq has it was in 1941. If you want history, read a book!

Good Luck and Enjoy!

< Message edited by pad152 -- 5/18/2006 8:51:17 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 14

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 8:53:45 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

I used a steel pot in Basic Training.

Kevlar is half the weight. By the way, they're starting to issue a new helmet. I'm pretty sure it's kevlar, but I haven't seen one yet (I'm Guard, you know).

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 15

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 9:26:25 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

*puts fingers in ears*

*sneaks up behind anarchyintheuk and yanks his fingers out of his ears so he can experience what the rest of us are currently trying desperately to avoid*

*lights himself on fire*

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 16

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 9:39:54 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

*pours some gasoline on him from a distance and sings Burn baby, bur, disco infreno*

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 17

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 11:14:47 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Knaust,

I'm sorry but I've got to disagree with you on some of your detailed points. I do think that WiTP unrealistically handicaps both sides unrealistically and can also be quite strongly argued to handicap the Japanese a bit more than the Americans BUT:

1. When 400 B-17s hit a medium-sized Japanese base you better believe that base closed down. The problem lies not so much in the effect of this massive raid but in the game dynamics which allow such massive raids to occur unreasonably early and unreasonably often. It should be noted that 400 Helens will close most Allied bases fairly quickly too. They aren't as effective at it as B-17s but it can be done.

2. Completely realistic. In war many things one side or the other would have liked to do to the other were impossible without great risks being run.

3. Yes the ability to KNOW when ships dock and airplanes arrive at a base is unrealistic for BOTH sides. That the Americans go 2nd does give them greater access to exploiting this issue. The solution is to remove this info entirely unless the base is reconned so that neither side has access to this info.

4. Japanese subs are of value. In 4 months of game time I've lost about 6 subs blockading Midway with many more damaged but have sunk at least a half-dozen transports and heavily damaged over a dozen more. I think this is quite reasonable. I have concentrated a lot of effort into my own ASW campaign and have sunk more than 20 Allied subs. My total losses across the map come to 10.

5. Disagree. One can counter them with appropriate application of tactics. In 4 months of war allied subs were only a serious threat in the first month. They are beginning to reappear again but are more of a nuisance than a major threat and are, again, being sunk in significant numbers.

6. This is eminently possible in WiTP and while I WOULD quibble with some of the game mechanisms surrounding the Chinese and governing assumptions of Soviet strength etc I don't agree that Allied units are too tough. They are strong but can be defeated with an appropriate apportionment of forces.

Oh and so far I've played only as the Japanese so I'm hardly inclined to be an "Allied fanboy" as many of the other respondents here are. I think the "Allies are too strong and Japs are too weak" vs "Japs are too strong and allies are too weak" barfights here are pathetic. Instead of examining things objectively they have dug trenches and retreated to them. Barrages of invective with little basis in fact are then occasionally hurled. If everyone would just get together and create a list of OBJECTIVE, observable, reproducible issues which are produced without bias to either side these things could be solved. As it is only flamewars result.

So, there are real issues but I think that most of what you've outlined is either a result of some tactical/operational choices you've made which might be improved upon OR are balanced out by similar issues inflicted on the Allied players. fixing one side without fixing the other will just F things up more.

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 18

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 11:16:40 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Where's that dancing banana when you really need it?

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 19

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 11:19:53 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knaust

IMHO Witp is heavily biased towards the Allies
1. LRBs erase Jap airfields
2. Jap player cannot prepare a base strike without avoiding retaliation attacks of B17s and Liberators
3. Jap player cannot fake his opponent because the Allied player plans second thus seeing the opponent massing in the Jap airfield
4. Jap subs are of no value, they cannot threat sea lanes because they are regularily sunk by Allied DDs
5. Allied subs seem too strong in the starting years of war
6. in early war Allied LCUs are too strong compared to real war: think of Imperial Guards Division that occupied all of Sumatra during period 8-28 March, or Java surrendered to 48th Div on 8 March...try this in Witp!

1. Well, they did just this during the war (one could argue about the Allies getting too many 4-E bombers too early, but at least the production rate of B-17's was reduced in stock) - But hey, just try to close an Allied AF with Ms. Sally or Ms. Betty, it's possible, just amass some hundered of them and watch the results...

2.+3. Correct. But the Japanese ability to move his ground forces first evens this out.

4.+5. The success of subs depends largely on the actions of the players' . Completely different results in different games...

6. Actually Japanese divisions are much stronger in the game (TOE-wise) than historically... (and where is the problem with conquering Sumatra with the Imperial Guards alone?????)

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 20

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 11:21:08 PM

Knaust

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Rivoli ITALY
Status: offline

thx Nemo...
well point 3 could be patched...it is most disappointing for the Jap player

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 21

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 11:23:20 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No, I'm showing my reluctance to have a big lump of steel on my head. Glad the Army had changed to Kevlar by the time I got in. I remember once when I was a kid, trying to lift my dad's steel helmet...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I used a steel pot in Basic Training. Kevlar is half the weight. By the way, they're starting to issue a new helmet. I'm pretty sure it's kevlar, but I haven't seen one yet (I'm Guard, you know).

Come on guys - the old steel pot M1 helmet was great. Kevlar - bah.

You can't cook in it, can you?

Besides, I heard that - that ..."Kevlar thing" is only a 4%improvement in ballistic protection. Can that Kevlar helmet stop .45 ACP at 10 feet like the old M1917 tin hat could?

Real men wear steel helmets

(and they don't use plastic rifles - they use wood and steel .30 cals)

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 22

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/18/2006 11:41:37 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

Is WITP really unrealistic?

You have asked the simple four word question - that hasn't been answered to everyone's satisfaction for over two years...

But the answer is - Yes and No

_____________________________

(in reply to Knaust)

Post #: 23

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/19/2006 12:31:27 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Come on guys - the old steel pot M1 helmet was great. Kevlar - bah.

You can't cook in it, can you?

Besides, I heard that - that ..."Kevlar thing" is only a 4%improvement in ballistic protection. Can that Kevlar helmet stop .45 ACP at 10 feet like the old M1917 tin hat could?

Real men wear steel helmets

(and they don't use plastic rifles - they use wood and steel .30 cals)

And I bet they go to war wearing nothing but that steel pot, their combat boots, web gear and shorts?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 24

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/19/2006 12:47:13 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Come on guys - the old steel pot M1 helmet was great. Kevlar - bah.

You can't cook in it, can you?

Besides, I heard that - that ..."Kevlar thing" is only a 4%improvement in ballistic protection. Can that Kevlar helmet stop .45 ACP at 10 feet like the old M1917 tin hat could?

Real men wear steel helmets

(and they don't use plastic rifles - they use wood and steel .30 cals)

And I bet they go to war wearing nothing but that steel pot, their combat boots, web gear and shorts?

And nothing under the kilt!

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 25

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/19/2006 12:57:01 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Hey, I'll take a 4% improvement over a 0% improvement any day of the week, especially if it means that a piece of shrapnel from some roadside bomb doesn't lodge itself in my frontal lobe.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 26

RE: Is WITP really unrealistic? - 5/19/2006 1:44:03 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

For some a piece of shrapnel in the brain could be considered an improvement on their natural state.

( not referring to you Terminus)

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 27

Page: [1]

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

Page: [1]