Is there a possibility of being relieved of command?

[Ron Saueracker]

I was just reading some AAR's and the results are somewhat gratifying. It seems that the game reflects strategic theory quite well. Like launching an offensive against overwhelming odds results in a severe bare bum spanking.

My question is this. Are players monitored by the computer and rewarded or removed from command based on their performance? A la Ghormley getting the boot in favour of Halsey, but in this game, the puppy is over or the AI takes over? Having this as an optional setting might limit players from throwing units around like beer caps at a house party.

No offense meant here. I'm just a little more serious about wargames than some I guess.:p Could be useful with ladder games and such.

Boy, am I going to get dumped on!:D

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I was just reading some AAR's and the results are somewhat gratifying. It seems that the game reflects strategic theory quite well. Like launching an offensive against overwhelming odds results in a severe bare bum spanking.

My question is this. Are players monitored by the computer and rewarded or removed from command based on their performance? A la Ghormley getting the boot in favour of Halsey, but in this game, the puppy is over or the AI takes over? Having this as an optional setting might limit players from throwing units around like beer caps at a house party.

No offense meant here. I'm just a little more serious about wargames than some I guess.:p and when initiating a campaign, I'd like some guarantee as to the seriousness of the competition. Could be useful with ladder games and such.

Boy, am I going to get dumped on!:D

No this is an interesting question, and also raises another.....if a army unit falls below a set % of combat effectiveness does it then become unable to contiune with offensive operations? And for that matter defensive? How about the moral for crews of warships? If they fall below a % does the ship then become unable to be used in combat? (I am thinking mutiny here).

[Ron Saueracker]

Exactly. I was thinking how poor performance by a player could affect the outcome, ie. instead of an automatic victory condition, failure initiates an automatic loss.

I don't think I'd would have liked to be on any of those transports. Maybe morale could be modelled in an update if it becomes an issue.

[siRkid]

Ah, you must be talking about me. Well first I don't take offence. Second, I am a very serious war gamer. I've played them for over 30 years now. I'm just willing to pay the price to obtain my goals. Ulysses S. Grant is one of my favorite generals. Looking at the supply pipe line I know I will have plenty of replacement ships. My only concern is the point score. I have to be sure not to let it get too high.

I will admit that the American public would not have stood for such high loses, but I am glad that political restrains have not been modeled into the game.

Rick

[Raverdave]

Well that would sure weed out the "Banzi" crowd ! Hmmm....in point of fact you would have to have a different set of morale values/points for the Japanese to follow historical lines.

[U2]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Well that would sure weed out the "Banzi" crowd ! Hmmm....in point of fact you would have to have a different set of morale values/points for the Japanese to follow historical lines.

Hey guys

I guess that will be the only weak point in this game. Due to the fact that we will only play between 1942-43 gamers will take chances to win the game that would have been crazy in Gary's upcoming Struggle against Japan game. That is a shame but it is impossible to fix without a big remake (to be fired or to low overall morale of troops due to heavy losses during the campaign)

Perhaps Raverdane and Ron are afraid of the "Banzai" crowd:p

Sayonara
Daniel

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by U2




Perhaps Raverdane and Ron are afraid of the "Banzai" crowd:p

Sayonara
Daniel

Hell no! Just makes my job easier:D

[U2]

Originally posted by Raverdave



Hell no! Just makes my job easier:D

You dare to insult my strategic ability!;)
I'll see you in the Pacific soon.

Banzai!!!!!

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by U2


You dare to insult my strategic ability!;)
I'll see you in the Pacific soon.

Banzai!!!!!

I'll be waiting!

[U2]

Originally posted by Raverdave


I'll be waiting!

This was the final insult. I will have my Foreign Ministry send you a decleration of war ,which will include my email adress:D
I am not as sneaky as the Japanese you know.
My forces should be able to move within two weeks.

Banzai!!!!!!!!!!!
Daniel

[Toro]

My question is this. Are players monitored by the computer and rewarded or removed from command based on their performance? A la Ghormley getting the boot in favour of Halsey, but in this game, the puppy is over or the AI takes over? Having this as an optional setting might limit players from throwing units around like beer caps at a house party.

Ron, are you suggesting that the AI actually remove we players from command if we screw up too badly?

Actually, I think I like the idea... Perhaps remove us from command for a set number of turns, let us stew a bit and get our heads back in the real situation. Interesting...

[siRkid]

Well there would be one easy fix. If you are losing let say by 5:1 points then the game ends. This would make you watch how much you lose.

[Ron Saueracker]

Silent Hunter I used to have this aspect. No results, no boat. Kid nailed it on the head. Unconsionable acts. For the allies, wasting lives without regard to risk and forseeable gain; for the Japanese, perhaps cowardice and failure to stem the tide reasonably well (ie, worse than historically). But only as a last line of defense should the AI take over, otherwise a key element, variation, might be lost.

[Rob Roberson]

I think this is a good idea. To bad it isnt modeled in the game. Since we are only playing one portion of the war there is no reason for me to marshal my carriers to fight another day. It would be great if you suffer a navy or land disaster that congress convenes and investigates...you get a letter from Nimitz removing you from command..etc. I can honestly see pbem games where my opponent throws away his forces in piecemeal actions to keep me from winning a game...

[mogami]

Hi, there is an easy way to model this. Just establish 'house rules' before starting a PBEM game that if the score becomes to lop sided past a certain date the game is over and you start another.

Personally I don't want these limits, an early disaster could force one player into committing more in desperate gamble to even score.
If a player can still fight and he still wants to fight the game should continue. High losses are a part of war-gaming. A possible solution in future games would be LCU's that suffer too many casualties are withdrawn from player and put back into reinforcement pipeline after a period of rebuilding. Ships well your stuck with them but if their crews get too unhappy you will have to consider this in planning. (give them a port visit in a nice friendly port for a few days. Saliors recover morale pretty fast)


My present PBEM game of PacWar has the USN trying to wrest control of the Solomons from my IJN. To date he has lost 3 CV sunk and 3 damaged I have 5 CV/CVL in port damaged but still hold Guadalcanal (Nov42). The area is a vast meatgrinder.

[Ron Saueracker]

I know losses are part of wargaming. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about unnecessary losses. As Kid admitted, he is playing a grossly reckless game; you yourself questioned his seizing of an opportunity to strike by asking, "what opportunity?" Sure, it may be fun, but I would like a choice prior to the campaign. Throwing units around because your pipeline of reinforcements is a cornacopia with no end is no way to approach this seriously, at least as the Allies. Because the game ends in 43, so does the war as others have expressed concern.

I still personally think there should be an automatic loss condition, especially if an auto win is included. What did Kid say his losses in transports alone were in his latest assault, 90 plus, with the resultant losses in LCUs? Hardly heeding Nimitz's directive to Spruance of governing ones actions by the laws of calculated risk. Fletcher never held a sea command after Eastern Solomons, and all he did was endanger the invasion and miss an opportunity to deal the IJN a decisive blow by overly concerning himself with logistical concerns. All I'm saying is that it would force players to perform responsibly, improving the gameplay measurably. Just include this as an option.

Once again, I'm not trashing Kid's play, but it is an AAR and they lend themselves to analysis, positive and negative.

[Rob Roberson]

I tend to agree with you on this. I would of never position my transports out there without air superiority or at least air cover. Particularly if they were heavily laden with troops. Kid took a huge risk and despite the loss in shipping it brought the campaign back into balance from a carrier standpoint. Let's face it, he was lucky. If you cause an autowin due to something like shipping loss, it would tend to take away a player's abilty to gamble like that. Now if he had also lost the carrier battle or failed to bring the enemy carriers into battle, he should of suffered some type of auto loss penalty for the loss of all that shipping. No human commander is going to sacrifice people unnecessarily. I don't know how something like that can be programmed other then maybe number crunching. That being said, I have always believed that in warfare only the bold succeed. Kid was very bold and now he is in a position where he can drive Crocky into the sea.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm assuming he lost a lot of troops while using the transports as bait, and subsequently, cannon fodder. The majority of US troops were on their way to Morocco so I can't see a whole lot being readily available to drive anyone into the sea.

[IChristie]

You may be surprised at the extent to which these features are in the game at insofar as morale effects etc are concerned. For instance examples from my own play:
- LCU landed at L'ville rapidly lost "assault" strength just sitting on the stinkin' beach (like 50% or more in a month)
- Combat intensity definitely petered out after a few days of land attack. In one example the average casualties per side decreased by a factor of 5 in just 5 days. Basically as troops became exhausted the whole offensive just petered out.
- I have seen the same thing happen in air offensives, especially against distant or well defended targets. After about a week, your down to about 25% or fewer planes taking part in raids, more fragmented raids etc. Basically air groups have to be pulled out and rested or they just take themselves out of play.
- I have not noticed the same effect as clearly with ships, but there is no doubt that the results of surface combat started to swing in favour of the US as the AI started fielding fresh ships against my beat up ones.
- The campaigns are quite long and early agressive moves can be difficult to sustain. In my own AAR campaign (which I finished but haven't written up BTW) the strain of keeping the L'ville blockade basically chewed up every available DD and CA in the fleet in just 4 months. By the end there was literally nothing left. The effort could not have been maintained even for another month (at least not against increasing opposition). Kid may find that over the next few months he may miss his missing ships and marines if their loss prevents exploitation of his advantage. Building the airbase on Lunga and sustaining any kind of air offensive will require a lot of supplies - which he may not be able to deliver. Time will tell.

Overall, although UV campaigns are likely to be bloodier than their "real" counterparts the constraints imposed by the game lead to results which strategically are remarkably similar to the history. In fact, I can honestly say that playing UV has given me a much deeper appreciation of why the campaign was fought the way it was. From my perspective that's about the highest praise I could give a game.

[siRkid]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I'm assuming he lost a lot of troops while using the transports as bait, and subsequently, cannon fodder. The majority of US troops were on their way to Morocco so I can't see a whole lot being readily available to drive anyone into the sea.

I did not lose a lot of troops in the landing and I have a firm hold on Guadalcanal (5 months ahead of the historical time line). We will have to see what happens in the long run. I did make another raid on Shortland and once again came out on the short end. I sunk a few DDs and patrol craft, and pounded the base but got a carrier damaged in the process.

Rick