Admiral's Edition General Thread

[Mike Solli]

Thanks T.

[spence]

Also, while Allied sigint/code breaking did provide a lot of information throughout the war, it doesn't seem like we routinely had detailed OOB/schedule information. Midway and Coral Sea seem to me like the exceptions here instead of the rule, and in Midway's case, the sheer size of the operation would have made it hard to keep totally secret.

Read the TROMs for IJN ships at combinedfleet.com. Your perception is quite off the mark. Allied submarines were routinely detailed to ambush speicific Japanese ships or ship types sailing from point A to point B. The lousy torpedos saved the Japanese from serious problems for the first year but after that things got pretty bad. In particular lots of Japanese submarines and convoys were ambushed in this way. USS Archerfish knew a Japanese CV (if not its name) was coming, about where, about what time, and with what escort. Archerfish still had to be well handled because it would only get one shot but the intel was excellent.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And that's EXACTLY what we're doing. It's "what did", not "what if" (good term there, Shark).

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

From my perspective this is an open issue. Meaning we have not closed it on the design team.

My preference (which doesn't mean much) would be to end the game on 15 Aug 45. IIRC I got voted down by acclamation, but I still haven't changed my mind. The historical scenario should start and end on the historical date. Now that being said, I have not seen all the plans as to when it is proposed to end the game and what additional units will be added. So we will continue to cogitate on this issue and see what comes of that.

I've dragged these early March comments over from the Naval Thread because together they indicate something of a conundrum: How does the AE team reconcile the goal of "staying true to history" ("what did" happen as Terminus/Shark would put it) with the even more fundamental reality that people play WitP largely (maybe even entirely) with the goal of trying to alter history?

WitP AE will undoubtedly have a near-perfect 12/7/41 OOB for every major power represented in the game, but once that button is pushed and we arrive at the morning of 12/8, history is over, and a new path has been set. The classic in-game example is the naming of Essex Class carriers. There simply would not have been a Yorktown or Lexington in that group if the namesake carriers hadn't been sunk. So if AE uses those names (or the "Lexington II" equivalent ), you are tacitly following a "historical path" that will usually have no basis in the "reality" of each new WitP AE game (i.e. those carriers might very well NOT be sunk).

Joe wants the Historical Campaign to end on 8/15/45 because that's what actually happened. But the reality is there IS no "historical campaign". Unless two players follow a script, there will never be a single WitP grand campaign that is factually correct in every sense. Be aware that much of "What Did" happen is the direct result of a chain of circumstances that may have no relationship whatsoever with the path followed by individual WitP games. By contrast, an embrace of "What If" would lead to the "Fantasy WitP" dreaded by one and all. The balancing act chosen by the team seems to be more of a judicious application of "What Could" have happened, as exemplified in the "by acclamation" decision to extend the campaign end date. Personally I think that's the right choice, and it will make WitP-AE a more entertaining and well rounded game.

But I am curious. Is the design conundrum recognized by the team? And if so, is the tendency toward "what could" a tacit groping for consensus or a recognized internal goal?

[Dili]

I think for modders and those that want to continue it should be open ended. Btw will it be possible for a mod to start a scenario in 1940?

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: spence

Also, while Allied sigint/code breaking did provide a lot of information throughout the war, it doesn't seem like we routinely had detailed OOB/schedule information. Midway and Coral Sea seem to me like the exceptions here instead of the rule, and in Midway's case, the sheer size of the operation would have made it hard to keep totally secret.

Read the TROMs for IJN ships at combinedfleet.com. Your perception is quite off the mark. Allied submarines were routinely detailed to ambush speicific Japanese ships or ship types sailing from point A to point B. The lousy torpedos saved the Japanese from serious problems for the first year but after that things got pretty bad. In particular lots of Japanese submarines and convoys were ambushed in this way. USS Archerfish knew a Japanese CV (if not its name) was coming, about where, about what time, and with what escort. Archerfish still had to be well handled because it would only get one shot but the intel was excellent.

I knew that some IJN ship movements were known about from sub sightings or coast spotters, and that other subs, TFs or land-based air were alerted to their presence and probable routes for intercepts based on that type of data, but that's not sigint.

I did not realize that warship routing and transit was also routinely coming from electronic eavesdropping, except for the IJN subs regularly reporting their locations; I had heard that before. Thanks for correcting my error, Spence. I'll have to check out the TROMS. Any specific examples you can think of?

[John Lansford]

After Coral Sea, SUBPAC tried to vector submarines along Shokaku's path back to Japan in time to intercept her based on decoded sigint.  They knew what route she was taking and which ports she was going to stop at, but since her speed was unaffected by her damage she was a hard target to catch and no subs managed an attack.
 
Yamato was intercepted several times during the war and IIRC torpedoed twice, both times inflicting enough damge to put her in the repair yard for a few months.  Those intercepts were based on sigint as well.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think for modders and those that want to continue it should be open ended. Btw will it be possible for a mod to start a scenario in 1940?

Nah, the dates aren't changing ... 7 Dec 41 through 31 March 46 ... (IIRC) ...

[DuckofTindalos]

I thought we'd opened the far end. Would make a Downfall scenario (to take the obvious example) hard to make.

[Dili]

Well WITM is looking lot less probable unless we(me and mifune) make a tweak.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

After Coral Sea, SUBPAC tried to vector submarines along Shokaku's path back to Japan in time to intercept her based on decoded sigint.  They knew what route she was taking and which ports she was going to stop at, but since her speed was unaffected by her damage she was a hard target to catch and no subs managed an attack.

Yamato was intercepted several times during the war and IIRC torpedoed twice, both times inflicting enough damge to put her in the repair yard for a few months.  Those intercepts were based on sigint as well.

Exactly which is why (in an ideal world) I would really like an improved SigInt since as it is IMO it's woefully under-represented in WiTP.......

[Oldguard1970]

[font="times new roman"]Possibility of simultaneous order entry??[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]PBEM games could be shorter if each player could simultaneously enter his orders after the combat turn.  Then the game engine would combine the orders and execute the turn.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]If, (and this is a huge and untutored “IF”), the execution code is relatively linear, an adjustment to permit simultaneous order phases might not be out of the question.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Here is the proposal:[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]After turn execution, the game generates a combat report and replay as before.  However, instead of having a .pws file only for the Japanese player, both sides have a pws file.  (I assume it will be the same file with a different name.)  [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The Japanese player sends the combat reports and the allied pws to the allied player.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Each player enters orders for his side.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]The allied player returns his completed move.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The Japanese player saves the allied turn to the game and, having completed his turn, executes the end of turn sequence so a new combat round is conducted. [/font][/ol]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Assumptions:  I am assuming the players only “touch” their own units, assets and bases during their turns.  So, the allied player’s turn options are not related to anything the Japanese player does and vice versa.  Each side is only adjusting a mutually exclusive set of database fields.  If this is so, then the game could “fold” or overwrite the allied player’s turn onto the game database when the Japanese player executes the turn.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Additional Advantage:  If this could be done, it would also eliminate the advantage the allied player gets by seeing the changes in air base symbols and air balance scores after the Japanese move and prior to the allied move.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I do not know anything about the code for the game, and this notion comes from my own ancient coding experience.  If it could be done reasonably, it could accelerate the pace of play.  (Of course, the wife units and GF units will be provoked because players won’t need to return to real life while the opponent moves.)[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Many thanks to all who are so obviously diligently working on AE.[/font]

[Charbroiled]

The Japanese player saves the allied turn to the game and, having completed his turn, executes the end of turn sequence so a new combat round is conducted.

Doubt it can be do with the current WITP engine. You would also have to figure out a way to keep an unscupulous Japanese player from redoing his orders and re-entering the allied turn if he did not like the results from the turn before.

[m10bob]

Just a thought:

Don't know if the game engine would allow this or not, but what if Allied units beginning the game had a cost of "x" "transportation points" to move,(which would limit the withdrawal from the Phillipines, Java, etc),but the reinforcements coming in theatre later would require less of these "transportation points".
While the reinforcement might already say it is attached to SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, maybe it would cost nothing to change the HQ at all, but would require expenditure of transportation points based on distance to travel, and time of entry to the theatre. (In this example, the size of the unit is already compensated by the amount of shipping required to move them).
IMHO this would not only set more of a historical timeline of over seas capability, but would also allow the Allied player to designate where and when he wishes, and allow the Japanese player to conduct his initial attacks with somewhat a certainty "gamey withdrawals" would not occur early on.

On a similar note, I also feel the cost of leaders and replacements would cost an amount of "prestige points", whenever a high ranking dunderhead is replaced by a lower ranking stud.........
This would not prevent the problem and gaminess, but would make it cost the player for doing so.

[Gem35]

Not sure if this has been asked yet but will there be toggles on the options screens for certain new rules being turned on or off like PDU or Jap sub doctrine like witp currently has?
i.e. can u turn off a rule like fleet carriers can carry only 36 torps or bases can only build forts to 6 and the like.

[pmath]

Joe

One thing I would find helpful is more capability in the Commander selections. I don't know to what if any extent you are tweaking commanders, but in the current version it is maddening to try to find the "ideal candidate" without being able to sort based on his skill levels. For example, if I'm searching for a CV commander I might want to sort on air skill rating to find commanders with good values for air, sea and aggressiveness.

More generally, secondary sorts would be really helpful, (above) for example in selecting a ship for a fleet, I might want to sort first by speed, then capacty to select for ships to carry something specific or in selecting which ships to evac from port based on float and sys damage.

This is naval, but it is related, the capability to sort ASW and AA capabilities when selecting ships for fleets would be very helpful.

Phil

[kaleun]

One thing I would find helpful is more capability in the Commander selections. I don't know to what if any extent you are tweaking commanders, but in the current version it is maddening to try to find the "ideal candidate" without being able to sort based on his skill levels. For example, if I'm searching for a CV commander I might want to sort on air skill rating to find commanders with good values for air, sea and aggressiveness.

More generally, secondary sorts would be really helpful, (above) for example in selecting a ship for a fleet, I might want to sort first by speed, then capacty to select for ships to carry something specific or in selecting which ships to evac from port based on float and sys damage.

Hear Hear!

[mikemike]

I've noticed that WitP Classic is running my CPU flat out even if it's just sitting there, waiting for my input. Will AE do the same or do you have a chance of toning down the UI's power hunger ? (maybe switching from a polling loop to an event-driven interface)

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And that's EXACTLY what we're doing. It's "what did", not "what if" (good term there, Shark).

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

From my perspective this is an open issue. Meaning we have not closed it on the design team.

My preference (which doesn't mean much) would be to end the game on 15 Aug 45. IIRC I got voted down by acclamation, but I still haven't changed my mind. The historical scenario should start and end on the historical date. Now that being said, I have not seen all the plans as to when it is proposed to end the game and what additional units will be added. So we will continue to cogitate on this issue and see what comes of that.

I've dragged these early March comments over from the Naval Thread because together they indicate something of a conundrum: How does the AE team reconcile the goal of "staying true to history" ("what did" happen as Terminus/Shark would put it) with the even more fundamental reality that people play WitP largely (maybe even entirely) with the goal of trying to alter history?

WitP AE will undoubtedly have a near-perfect 12/7/41 OOB for every major power represented in the game, but once that button is pushed and we arrive at the morning of 12/8, history is over, and a new path has been set. The classic in-game example is the naming of Essex Class carriers. There simply would not have been a Yorktown or Lexington in that group if the namesake carriers hadn't been sunk. So if AE uses those names (or the "Lexington II" equivalent ), you are tacitly following a "historical path" that will usually have no basis in the "reality" of each new WitP AE game (i.e. those carriers might very well NOT be sunk).

Joe wants the Historical Campaign to end on 8/15/45 because that's what actually happened. But the reality is there IS no "historical campaign". Unless two players follow a script, there will never be a single WitP grand campaign that is factually correct in every sense. Be aware that much of "What Did" happen is the direct result of a chain of circumstances that may have no relationship whatsoever with the path followed by individual WitP games. By contrast, an embrace of "What If" would lead to the "Fantasy WitP" dreaded by one and all. The balancing act chosen by the team seems to be more of a judicious application of "What Could" have happened, as exemplified in the "by acclamation" decision to extend the campaign end date. Personally I think that's the right choice, and it will make WitP-AE a more entertaining and well rounded game.

But I am curious. Is the design conundrum recognized by the team? And if so, is the tendency toward "what could" a tacit groping for consensus or a recognized internal goal?

Absolutely the "design conundrum" is recognized by the team. But I would go farther. I got to join the military history program at KU for the 2006 school year and one of the things I learned is an emerging classification of history as a "contingency science". One way to explain this is that everything that happens "depends" on what happened before. So history is a non-repeatable series of branches through the tree of choices. So our "conundrum" is not just an AE team "design" issue - this issue manifests itself due to the nature of history itself.

WITP - in most ways - offers us not a "production system" - not even for the Japanese - but instead more of a fixed order of battle. The LCUs are a reinforcement track as are the air groups. The ships are too though the Japanese can accelerate them. In the area of airplane production Japan has more choices in the game. Fundamentally though Japanese production - in the game - is a decision about the trade off between more planes of given types versus accelerating various ships.

As far as the end date is concerned. Many other large war games use the historical end date as the game end date - certainly many don't but many do - so it is not a new idea to do either. For those games that end on the historical date, the idea is to then measure the progress by either side against history.

As far as WITP or AE forcing a historical script - that has not been the idea and is not the idea. Certainly a look at the AAR will prove that WITP players can be wild and wolly. And AE will not much alter this. We have attempted to make the OOBs more accurate and tone now some (but not all) of the "edges" of some of the systems. But AE will offer at least as many choices for strategy as WITP - not less - certainly not less.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Not sure if this has been asked yet but will there be toggles on the options screens for certain new rules being turned on or off like PDU or Jap sub doctrine like witp currently has?
i.e. can u turn off a rule like fleet carriers can carry only 36 torps or bases can only build forts to 6 and the like.

No.

[sven6345789]

regarding end date
Although 08/15/1945 was the historical end date, there were plans to invade Japan itself (Coronet and Olympic). A good date to end the game would be 04/01/1946, although this would mean a large addup to the allied order of battle (the US 1st Army and 8th Airforce, for example, as is represented in the CHS mod).
But i can also live with a 1945 ending, like in the Victory Games boardgame "Pacific War", which ends in July 1945.