POLL: How many losses have you taken?

[Michael Peck]

I ask this question because in every PBEM game I've been in (Scenarios 17 and 19), the losses are far, far higher than historically. In May '42, the Americans and Japanese can easily lose a half-dozen cruisers and numerous transports, leaving the gaping question of how many ships everyone will have left by December '43.

This isn't just academic interest. Campaign scenarios in many games break down because players always behave more aggressively than their historical counterparts. If you've lost more ships by August '42 than were lost in real life by August '43, do you discover you've blown your PBEM game 300 turns later? Does hyper-aggressiveness by the US or Japanese at the beginning of the game tend to unbalance it in the long run?

I know many believe that you should be left alone to reap the penalties for your play style. But I'm still curious what happens when you have the same number of ships lost at twice the historical rate. Perhaps someone mathematically inclined can compute some averages.

Michael

[XPav]

Well, the root cause of the problem is that Admiral Nimitz ain't about to show up and relieve a PBEM player of his duty. ("You! You're relieved! Hands off the mouse and keyboard! Report to KP!)

Couple this with the complete lack of empathy on player's parts towards their electronic sailors, soldiers, and airmen, and you end up with a uncaring, aggressive, unaccountable commander!

Same thing with first person shooters. Machine guns don't really work as well in multiplayer games for the main reason that players really don't mind if they get killed, and as a result, don't keep their heads down.

Its a psychological thing... and I don't see a way to fix this in gameplay.

[Michael Peck]

Originally posted by XPav
Well, the root cause of the problem is that Admiral Nimitz ain't about to show up and relieve a PBEM player of his duty. ("You! You're relieved! Hands off the mouse and keyboard! Report to KP!)

Couple this with the complete lack of empathy on player's parts towards their electronic sailors, soldiers, and airmen, and you end up with a uncaring, aggressive, unaccountable commander!

Same thing with first person shooters. Machine guns don't really work as well in multiplayer games for the main reason that players really don't mind if they get killed, and as a result, don't keep their heads down.

Its a psychological thing... and I don't see a way to fix this in gameplay.

Actually, there are many ways to make gameplay more historical. For example, victory points for sunk ships can be weighted so that losing three carriers in June '42 is more costly than losing them in June '43, when there are more carriers around. There are various kinds of command and control limits that curb kamikaze surface ship tactics.

I've found the PBEM games I've been playing to be so intensive that they're barely historical (I'm as guilty of this as my opponents).

Michael

[Didz]

Heavy losses over short timescales could also have a negative effect on the morale of the remaining forces.

e.g.

All the surviving ships in a TF that suffers heavy losses in a single day could have major morale problems for weeks afterwards.

All the planes in a squadron or at an airbase likewise.

And on a wider scale a fleet that is regularly suffering heavy losses could find its overall morale dropping rapidly.

Also perhaps in line with the 'never reinforce failure' principle commanders who are regularly suffering high losses could find their expected reinforcements being rerouted to more successful fronts.

That ought to calm the pace down a bit. One could have a little meter on the screen

Green means that your losses are within acceptable parameters.

Orange means that your superiors are becoming concerned.

Red means your under investigation and had better start thinking up good reasons for your actions so that the government can explain the steady flow of coffins your sending home.

[Michael Peck]

That's an elegant idea, Didz.

[Michael Peck]

That's an elegant idea, Didz.

[ADavidB]

Extending some of the comments above, this is similar to what happened in computer r.p.g.s in the late 80's and onwards - the creators of the games started to add factors that "punished" the kill-crazy and rewarded the more thoughtful. This holds true in many successful games today - disregarding the "Doom"-style games that are only "shoot 'em up" based.

For example, too many losses in too short a period could result in a US commander being yanked and the game lost on the US side. On the other hand, excessive timidity on the part of a Japanese commander could equally result in a "re-assignment" to the Kuriles and again a game loss.

But one would need to be careful not to unbalance the game the wrong way - 1942 was a very different time and place from "here and now". One only has to read the various accounts from the folks who were there at places like Guadalcanal to realize that they were often much more willing to sacrifice themselves ( on both sides ) then we can even imagine today.

Dave Baranyi

[Rob Roberson]

Way to many ships and planes..but Im hyperagressive. I think where you see me paying for it the most is in my AAR for this forum. I have thousands of troops sitting in Noumea, and I cant move them because my profane losses in transports when I forced my way into Gili very early in the game.

[XPav]

Rob, you've brought up another point -- the reinforcement schedule is mostly fixed. When it comes to smaller ships, this doesn't seem to make much sense.

Some option to request more transports (and other types of smaller ships?) in exchange for a loss of points would seem to make sense in this case.

However, what would you name the ships? Look! Here comes American Legion II!

<one assault on Rabaul later>

Look! Here comes American Legion III!

[dpstafford]

I attribute the massively high casualty rates in PBEM games to overly aggressive action by human players. Part of that is due to the lack of empathy for the losses, but another factor is the time scale. (It is difficult to submit a turn and DO NOTHING for most of us.) And the game accurately punishishes the overly aggressive admirals with heavy losses.

[Didz]

Originally posted by dpstafford
... And the game accurately punishishes the overly aggressive admirals with heavy losses.

I think the real question is whether the game rewards players who use a more balanced strategy at the expense of those players who are overly aggressive.

If it doesn't and the only approach that works in PBEM is the 'gung ho' one then I think there is a problem.

A player who charges in regardless in a PBEM ought to get chewed up and spat out by a player using more appropriate strategies.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Didz
........

A player who charges in regardless in a PBEM ought to get chewed up and spat out by a player using more appropriate strategies.

But what is an appropriate strategy? Who defines it? And how bad will players howl when they can't do something they think they should be able to do? That is why there is an option for Japanese sub doctrine - 'cause there would be tons of folks (even more than in the B-17 arguments) saying how bad the game is because they can't set their subs to go after Allied shipping. I understand your point though - wild *** romping around not caring if you lose a whole squadron of ships is something that should be punished - but how?

Automatic game loss for point/base/ship loss seems a bit arbitrary and would lead to lots of arguments.

It is a tough problem in any game but even moreso in a game where destruction is a major part of the game because you can't earn victory points for being nice in a war game.

The way it is set up now seems pretty good to me (although the only games I've played which have gone on past Dec. '42 are AI games). Mr. Roberson seems to be feeling the pain of being a little too aggressive early in the game by not being able to do much later in the game. Good payoff IMHO. Maybe next time he will be more cautious.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Sonny

... Mr. Roberson seems to be feeling the pain of being a little too aggressive early in the game by not being able to do much later in the game. Good payoff IMHO. Maybe next time he will be more cautious.

That sounds like something a parent would say.

You have kids Sonny, don't you...

[thantis]

I also suffered from a combination of being too aggressive early & learning as I went during the early months of the long campaign. I was able to take Talugi, Lunga, Gili Gili (back from the Japanese), and Lae - but sustained some pretty serious losses (including most of my carrier support - Hornet & Enterprise).

I had to adopt of much more cautious approach until late 1942, early 1943 until many more ships were released from Pearl. I had a few fortunate releases that allowed me to expand operations - but it was certainly a learning experience (since I still had 500 more turns to play).

It does take a lot getting used to such a long game, since we all want to do everything as soon as possible - and **** the long-term consequences. The combination of ship losses & the unknown release sequence from Pearl make every game different....and I learn something new from the game every single day.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
That sounds like something a parent would say.

You have kids Sonny, don't you...

Yep - she'll be 3 in September.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by thantis
.......

It does take a lot getting used to such a long game, since we all want to do everything as soon as possible - and **** the long-term consequences. ......

Kinda the same thing happens at the end of scenarios in wargames. "This is the last turn so who cares if I lose all my ships, I gotta take that port" syndrome.

Really hard to balance things out. But so far UV has done it very well.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Sonny


Kinda the same thing happens at the end of scenarios in wargames. "This is the last turn so who cares if I lose all my ships, I gotta take that port" syndrome.

Really hard to balance things out. But so far UV has done it very well.

I'm facing that now, trying to decide how much in the way of losses I'm willing to suffer taking Truk

Originally posted by Sonny

Yep - she'll be 3 in September.

One'll be 5 in Sept, and my son is 3 1/2. They like to watch the combat animations. I often hear from my lap:

"OHHHHH!!"
"KABOOMIE!"
"Daddy, how come your ships got fire on it?"
"OOOOOHHHH!"
"OUCH!!!"
"That's Gotttaa Hurt!!"
"Get 'em Daddy!!"
"Daddy, can I click 'Done' this time?"

All those 2 and 3am wake ups are starting to pay off now with my own cheering section.

[zed]

The Japanese cannot keep sufficient fuel available for the Surface Combat TFs in Scenario #19, so I usually send them out bombarding places they dont come back from, ie, PM, Luganville, Gili-gili, Cairns. Sometimes they do amazing damage, sometimes they are wrecked before they get there. I console myself by saying, At least they were not destroyed in port, which is what happened to most IJN ships.

[Admiral DadMan]

My EAB and Engr units like a little sprinkling of shellfire once in a while.

They have races to see who can fill the holes in the Airfield fastest.

[11Bravo]

I started off playing aggressively. Then the casualties started mounting. I pressed on, regardless, Hey, its a game I thought. The casualties continued to wrack up. Then it caught up to me. The horror of killing all those electronic soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Now I can't sleep at night without seeing a constant parade of 1's and 0's marching past.