Fair and Balanced...

[tsimmonds]

Yes, I once had to surrender a game of Minesweeper Tycoon, er UV, because as IJ I had lost all of my fast MSW, and had only 3 slow ones remaining. It didn't take a Yamamoto to figure out where that one was heading, what with every allied sub laying mines all over the map.

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, at the very least, have them respawn as the most modern variety, not just replace the original.

[fairplay]

Fair and balanced??[&:][&:][&:][&:] Chess is balanced, both sides have the same stuff but it is not fair. White has an advantage because it is chosing the opening (Pearl Harbour). War is always unfair and unbalanced . Each side is looking for its advantage and tries to fool the other. This is what makes simulations like WITP so interesting and people start flame wars in forums like this[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You don't want the historically built but omitted ships?

I answered that question earlier in the thread. See my earlier posts for my reasoning.

[Feinder]

Fair and balanced?? Chess is balanced, both sides have the same stuff but it is not fair. White has an advantage because it is chosing the opening (Pearl Harbour). War is always unfair and unbalanced . Each side is looking for its advantage and tries to fool the other. This is what makes simulations like WITP so interesting and people start flame wars in forums like this

This coming from a guy whose login is "Fairplay?"

[:)]

Just poking.

-F-

[fairplay]

When I decided to choose that login I forgot a question mark[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[esteban]

Personally, I think that the respawn rules are abused. I would rather have the "Hornet II", Lexington II, Yorktown II and Wasp II in the game as is, rather than have the CV respawn rules. If you end up with the Wasp and the Wasp II both cruising around the Pacific late in the game, then consider that your good luck.

But I think the idea that the Americans would have been able to scrape together 2-3 more fleet carriers that were not built historically, and in 1943/1944 seems a little rich to me.

Same thing with the CA replacement rules. Put in the "Houston II", "Astoria II" and so on. But a game where the American player can burn up 15 CAs without too much of a long term consequence is a bit ridiculous.

[treespider]

In the process of reading Shattered Sword...

What are people's opinion of the Deathstar in game...from what I'm reading the author's seem to have the opinion that KB should have always been kept together. Whereas with the game I've seen complaints about the AI's and players use of the Deathstar.

Should the Japanese be "forced" to divide KB at some point?

[el cid again]

Well, at the very least, have them respawn as the most modern variety, not just replace the original.

It is not up to us. I think they do, but if they don't, this is not important enough (given the big issues out there) to fix the code for. Actually, respawning is a good rule - it is better than creating every small vessel for all time - and the storage and management of all that data.

[el cid again]

Personally, I think that the respawn rules are abused. I would rather have the "Hornet II", Lexington II, Yorktown II and Wasp II in the game as is, rather than have the CV respawn rules. If you end up with the Wasp and the Wasp II both cruising around the Pacific late in the game, then consider that your good luck.

But I think the idea that the Americans would have been able to scrape together 2-3 more fleet carriers that were not built historically, and in 1943/1944 seems a little rich to me.

Same thing with the CA replacement rules. Put in the "Houston II", "Astoria II" and so on. But a game where the American player can burn up 15 CAs without too much of a long term consequence is a bit ridiculous.

The Americans have MANY ships NEVER sent to the Pacific. IF a requirement for more arises, they hardly need to wait for them to be built. They transfer them. They could even rename them - as a propaganda move (which is more or less what happened anyway).
Or as a deception (make em think they never sank it - use the same call signs etc). And they planned many ships never completed - ships that were slowed and eventually cancelled. A different war would have resulted in more builds too.

I see the complaint "I don't get all my historical carriers" as legitimate. And I will fix that. I see "the Americans could not send more ships to the Pacific if required" as essentially untrue - particularly after a significant delay - which respawn involves. It may not be literally that they built a new ship from scratch in that time - but they came up with one by accelerating construction, transfer, etc. And if we were not doing well we would have done such things.

[el cid again]

from what I'm reading the author's seem to have the opinion that KB should have always been kept together. Whereas with the game I've seen complaints about the AI's and players use of the Deathstar.

Should the Japanese be "forced" to divide KB at some point?

The Kiddo Butai was the most powerful naval striking force in the world - to that point in history. It is clearly the best strategy to keep it as much together as damage and other factors will allow. It was clearly a strategic blunder to fight in smaller packages.

As for forcing players to make blunders, one wonders why have players at all? You are going to force Japan to give up what little chance it has to do well by such a policy. It is things like the KB, interior lines, vast distances to supply sources (plus a few things not in the game, like the anti-colonial attitude of many in Asia) that are the short list of Japanese advantages. Allied players should want the challenge of a well managed Japan - it is after all a much smaller power.

[Ron Saueracker]

Any death star issue can be adequately dealt with given a decent air combat model,something lacking at the moment.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Any death star issue can be adequately dealt with given a decent air combat model,something lacking at the moment.

While I don't think the air combat model is as bad as Ron does it is clearly wrong for larger air combats. The problem with KB in the game is by keeping all the CVs together you take advantage of the uber CAP. It's a game system exploit to make your CVs (almost) invulnerable.

Concentration of force is a sound military tactic. But the uber CAP phenomena over rewards this in WitP. The Japanese probably should have tried to keep KB together more but it would never have been as effective as a unified KB is in WitP.

[BLUESBOB]

Fair and balanced? Yes, IMO I think it is. But I also believe that the Allies had to be seriously shortchanged in order to achieve a "fair and balanced" game.

Historically, the game is off in so many aspects it's unbelievable. Japanese ship armor ratings are much higher than they were in real life. In the campaign scenario, there's "little" things...like about a million "missing" Chinese troops, or the "missing" 100,000 supply that should be in Sydney. (That transport TF around the area of Pago Pago had just dropped it off) Or the about 100 Japanese transports that never really existed. The list goes on and on.

Then there are the things you can't really check on...things built into the game model that I can't see or change. Historically, the Allies had about a 1:1 kill ratio against the Zero in the first six months of the war. In the game I have to have 10:1 odds in order to get those results. And even then I have to keep my fingers crossed.

Fair and balanced, sure...historically accurate, no.

[el cid again]

Or the about 100 Japanese transports that never really existed.

In fairness, the Japanese captured hundreds of ships, even warships, and they are missing as well! And there are literally tens of thousands (maybe six figures) of minor craft that Japan used or bought the services of - which are only slightly modeled. [ See the Japanese Merchant Marine and World War II - Parillo]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Fair and balanced?? Chess is balanced, both sides have the same stuff but it is not fair. White has an advantage because it is chosing the opening (Pearl Harbour). War is always unfair and unbalanced . Each side is looking for its advantage and tries to fool the other. This is what makes simulations like WITP so interesting and people start flame wars in forums like this

This coming from a guy whose login is "Fairplay?"

[:)]

Just poking.

-F-

with that finger of yours, eh?[:D]

[el cid again]

Historically, the Allies had about a 1:1 kill ratio against the Zero in the first six months of the war.

Read Bloody Shambles. Read Japan's Greatest Victory, Britain's Greatest Defeat. Japan took on a force double its size by every measure - including aircraft - and never looked back. It had the initiative. Had the Allies killed 1:1 in the air, they would have had half their planes left when Japan reached zero! Didn't happen that way. Most air air statistics are false and optimistic - in all nations - in all wars. You can find a 17:1 claim vs Migs for US in Korea - but it is utterly false - see Chrimson Sky.
It may be nice to believe emotional things, but it isn't accurate.
Most of the time AAA kills more than the vaunted fighter planes do. [USAAF consistently lost more B-29s to AAA than to fighters.] But the AAA rarely gets glory. IF you deploy your ships well and employ your AA properly you can usually defeat an air attack. This was true even for IJN in WWII. See Japanese Destroyer Captain. Hara worried about skip bombing - a clever tactic that virtually always worked. But when it was used on him, it failed, utterly and completely, and he killed the bomber to boot, using weapons unable to train fast enough to be effective - although he used them in a way that training fast was not an issue. I know a lawyer who says "everything is technical." I don't agree with him about law - I think there is principle and I have seen judges ignore technicalities to render justice. But in AAA - "everything is technical."