The Slant

[Mike Scholl]

Here's the basic problem: the Pacific War was a dull, lifeless, boring struggle with heatstroke and malaria in between momentary and fleeting incidents of gruesomely bloody combat. Making all of that into a fun game is tough, especially since the outcome is predetermined. Victory conditions that simply require "do better than history" are always boring and force players into "ahistorical" risk taking and tactics/strategies in order to win. The point of a game is to win. If you don't care about winning then you are looking for a study tool, not a game.

Your "fun game" already exists..., it's called PacWar on these forums. Play it..., you'll have a ball. It's RISK with a better map. Now.., how about letting the rest of us have our "study guide"? We'd like to engage in a simulation that actually had something more than a name and an outline that was real and accurate in historical terms. If you find that "boring" then DON'T play it! The designers have given you a perfectly good editor..., USE IT! Create your "Japan as a Super Power Fantasy Scenario"..., then you and Brady can argue over who get's to play the Japanese side. WITP needs to be as historically accurate as possible so there will be a REAL base for modifications. It's not..., the designers fell down on the job and gave us an abortion. So we have the CHS and RHS projects trying to correct enough nonsense to tide reality fans over with the promise of WITP II out there on the horizon. The "It's only a Game" arguement is getting really old. If it's "only a game" why are you folks so upset about the Allies getting hundreds of extra 4-engined bombers..., and skip bombing your CV's with them? It's only a GAME.....

[Mynok]

I've played Pacwar. Witp is more fun. Nor do I want a "Japan superpower". I *expect* to be outnumbered and outgunned as Japan. What I don't want is to be forced to make the same stupid decisions Japan made. Some here appear to be advocating that Japan must be forced to exactly what she did historically or else it is "unrealistic".

I love what the guys are doing with CHS and RHS. Great work. Lots of things could be done to make this *both* a better game and more realistic. Both those efforts are in that direction.

I'm sorry you paid good money for this "abortion" that happens to be a blast to play for many of us. I hope you get your wish for your "simulation". But don't bitch and complain because we are having fun.

[bradfordkay]

"I just don't like the "do better than history" approach, especially in this particular scenario, where after a certain date, one side is simply hunkering down and getting his arse whooped."

I'm curious. You don't like the "do better than history" approach, and you say that you don't believe that the Japanese have to actually win the war in order to win the game... then what victory conditions are you proposing?

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
But don't bitch and complain because we are having fun.

Do you include "me" in your "we?" I am having fun. The four people I am currently playing against are having fun. Mike, J7B, and the rest are not bitching and complaining at me, at least as far as I can tell.

Or is "we" "you" without "us" and not "I?"

Shoot. Now I just confused us.

[Charles2222]

No, I understood the point (so, so, many times I have heard it), but when those nations didn't go up against each other head-to-head it's a largely invalid point. Even after 5/45 IJ wasn't just fighting the USA. You would think with such a vaunted production superiority, it would have resulted in a far quicker surrender than it did, but alas, there was the factor of Germany to consider for so long.

[Charles2222]

But once a move is made, the ability to be historically accurate is virtually nil.

If you say this one more time, I may just get very, very annnngry.[:D]

[Mynok]

"Some here appear to be advocating that Japan must be forced to exactly what she did historically or else it is "unrealistic". "

In all of the really truly AMAZINGLY inane things that have been posted in this forum over the years, that's one thing I don't recall anyone has ever advocated. "On 23 Mar 43 the Japanese must..."

No, but why can't I choose to improve my "crap production base"? Put economic effort into it? Hmmm? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here, and don't tell me people haven't bitched about it. They have. Often. "Japan can make *way* too much stuff." I've lost count of how many times I've heard that. Should there be limits? Sure, but I should be able to expand my industry if I choose to put the supply etc into it.

What people have claimed is that BOTH sides should have realistic and historical CAPABILITIES. Now, there are historical REALITIES that can't (or shouldn't) be ignored. Like Japan having a crap production base. Or no oil. Or the Army and Navy hating each other to the point they each had their own factories (oh wait, you do get a free pass on that other than AC). The IJN more or less ignoring ASW. There's more I'm sure...but it's late. But most of them you can't impact in WitP either, one way or the other...

Ignoring ASW. An example of a *decision* I should not be forced to make.

How do you measure historical capabilities? If something works better in the game than it did in the two instances it actually occurred historically, is that a buggered engine or not enough statistical data to make a mathematically significant conclusion? Or is it just a result of randomness? Or was history an anomaly? There's no way to tell.

"I'm curious. You don't like the "do better than history" approach, and you say that you don't believe that the Japanese have to actually win the war in order to win the game... then what victory conditions are you proposing?"

A very good question. What we have now is probably as good anything I would have come up with, but it still turns the game into a "sit and get whooped" situation if Japan doesn't make the 43 victory conditions.

Some of you take this stuff way too seriously. [8|]

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
No, but why can't I choose to improve my "crap production base"? Put economic effort into it? Hmmm? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here, and don't tell me people haven't bitched about it. They have. Often. "Japan can make *way* too much stuff." I've lost count of how many times I've heard that. Should there be limits? Sure, but I should be able to expand my industry if I choose to put the supply etc into it.

But Mynok old friend, that's not who you are in WitP. You are a military commander, not head of state with absolute control over economic matters. Even if you were at the Tojo level, there would still be myriad problems facing your attempts to upgrade the Japanese war economy and make it more efficient. Japan was still, at its heart, a feudal society with many factions and odd cultural infighting that made a unified war effort very difficult. I don't even want to start on what the Allied nations faced, but they had huge problems, as well.

You operate from hindsight here, and you see the problem as monolithic, when it is, in view of historical reality, far more complicated than that. This is one of the reasons I have been saying after 1.8, "It ain't broke too bad anymore, let's not try to fix it."

And if some here take it too seriously (I try not to), maybe they're a little steamed at people calling them "bitchers," which would make me take it a little more seriously, too.

[bradfordkay]

We're "grumblers", not "bitchers". C'mon, you know better than that...

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

We're "grumblers", not "bitchers". C'mon, you know better than that...

Me, I'm either a "gritcher" or a "bumbler"...

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
But Mynok old friend, that's not who you are in WitP.

If not, then I would contend (pointlessly [8|]) that I shouldn't have to worry about supply, production, et al at all. Probably a good deal of the problem right there: throwing strategic-level control into an operational game. No solutions here, I'm afraid, other than a new engine. It would be interesting to hear (or have linked, if already discussed) when/if/how/why this kinda scope creep happened.

And if some here take it too seriously (I try not to), maybe they're a little steamed at people calling them "bitchers," which would make me take it a little more seriously, too.

[:D] Some of them are. Others just take this game way too seriously. We all do that with things we love, don't we? [:'(]

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
But Mynok old friend, that's not who you are in WitP.

If not, then I would contend (pointlessly [8|]) that I shouldn't have to worry about supply, production, et al at all. Probably a good deal of the problem right there: throwing strategic-level control into an operational game. No solutions here, I'm afraid, other than a new engine. It would be interesting to hear (or have linked, if already discussed) when/if/how/why this kinda scope creep happened.

And if some here take it too seriously (I try not to), maybe they're a little steamed at people calling them "bitchers," which would make me take it a little more seriously, too.

[:D] Some of them are. Others just take this game way too seriously. We all do that with things we love, don't we? [:'(]

Good points, Mynok. I remember in 1964 - yes, I am a geezer - two friends of mine were playing the old Avalon Hill D-Day game. The guy playing the Germans was kicking butt, so the guy playing the Americans started soliciting advice from another one of the guys who was a far more experienced and adept player.

Suddenly, our budding Adolf Hitler flung the card table aside, game and all, and launched himself at General Eisenhower. Fisticuffs ensued. Cooler heads had to prevail. All was well again after a handshake and a couple more beers. New house rule: play yer own game and no advice from the peanut section.

I, too, think that a new game system is needed if this game is to be redone, or at least the current spaghetti has to be unravelled, understood, and remade into respectable pasta.

Seems to me that, somewhere along the line, Grigsby and company got the idea that the game would be better received and sell more copies if the players got to fiddle with all the goodies. At that point, they pretty much lost control of "scope" and "player role," I think. How else can you explain a system in which you are absolutely prohibited from selecting naval air attack targets, yet you have direct control over who captains each and every ship?

And so on. All I can say is, now that leaders seem to be staying put and various of the other "bugs" have been sprayed liberally with Raid, I am enjoying this game more than ever before, warts and all. If it changes again to the degree that the four new PBEM games I have going have to be abandoned, I am never again going to be a happy camper around here.

And you know what a cranky old bitch I can be...

[mogami]

Hi, where do players get the notion they can't select naval targets?
when you are doing your orders the enemy TF you want to select as targets will have another 24 hours of movement before your strikes launch. Thats why you can't pick a specific TF. Players don't have a chance after patrol phase before launch. However if you see a TF headed towards your base count the hexes to the target. Now set your groups to a lesser range. Now they won't fly out past the target you want. You have in effect selected the specific naval target (unless it reverse course and heads the other direction)

As for ship captains that seems a pretty easy Operational level choice. (same as air and land commanders)

what players want is for the game to stop after the search phase. Then they set all their air groups specific targets. Same for naval combat.
This would be a fun game if you didn't mind spending a week to resolve 1 day of action.
(I still like the idea of exporting WITP setups to Carrier Strike to resolve carrier battles or to warship for surface actions and then importing these reults back into WITP. )

[mlees]

(I still like the idea of exporting WITP setups to Carrier Strike to resolve carrier battles or to warship for surface actions and then importing these reults back into WITP. )

I had to chuckle a little bit here...

You want to use a different game engine to generate the combat results. *giggles*

Why? Because the one that came with the game is, unsatisfactory? Not detailed enough? Harder to firgure out?

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Mynok]

And you know what a cranky old bitch I can be...

You misspelled gritch.... [:D]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, where do players get the notion they can't select naval targets?
when you are doing your orders the enemy TF you want to select as targets will have another 24 hours of movement before your strikes launch. Thats why you can't pick a specific TF. Players don't have a chance after patrol phase before launch. However if you see a TF headed towards your base count the hexes to the target. Now set your groups to a lesser range. Now they won't fly out past the target you want. You have in effect selected the specific naval target (unless it reverse course and heads the other direction)

It's posts like this that tell me you're losing it, old paint. You know as well as I do that this just isn't how things are.

As for ship captains that seems a pretty easy Operational level choice. (same as air and land commanders)

Nothing to the point, which was that this level of control is far outside the supposed role you assume as a WitP player. Sure, it's easy.

what players want is for the game to stop after the search phase. Then they set all their air groups specific targets. Same for naval combat.
This would be a fun game if you didn't mind spending a week to resolve 1 day of action.

No, that is not what THIS player wants. I want either my subordinates to assign specific targets for all mission types (and I hate that idea), or I want the ability to do so myself. There is no extension of game play time here. You have an enemy TF spotted. You alert your strike aircraft units that this will be their target. If it disappears, c'est la vie. If the strike is not executed, it is one of the frustrations we have come to expect from this game. If the strike goes in, well and good. End of story.

(I still like the idea of exporting WITP setups to Carrier Strike to resolve carrier battles or to warship for surface actions and then importing these reults back into WITP. )

Lovely. Good luck designing that. Who was it who said very recently that it would take a week to resolve one day of action? How do you reckon that one out, then?