Ships too Fragile in AE???

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: castor troy




win the war means what? Taking the West Coast? [:D]

HISTORY

Win the war for Japan meant that the Allies offered terms.

this actually supports my point, don't you think? Japan has a very tall hill to climb, to lessen the slope to an totally even playing field isn't correct either.

HISTORY

In 1940, the Japanese cabinet estimated that they had a 40% chance of bringing the allies to the negotiating table. (This was before Yamamoto put his foot into it by deciding to hit Pearl Harbor.)

The USN had a similar estimate of the situation.

GAME

I'm discovering that the stock game engine, working as designed, goes off the rails in 1943. It appears to have a near-zero chance of producing what both sides regarded as the most likely outcome.

[vonSchnitter]

Sorry Chaps,

but the "Historical Accuracy" issue still puzzeles me.

The game engine started as "UV" - clearly an operational level game - and was expanded to WitP, covering several theaters and a much longer time frame.
But WitP still was an operational level game - even in the grand campaign mode.
What is more, WitP assumed the allies or rather the US came up with the right tactical, strategical, technical or simply logistical solutions to win. Sometimes drawing heavily on state side production - or morale - assets.
And this is the story of the war in the pacific. Very simple.

As far as the "simulation" of isolated operations go, WitP is still not bad.

However in the long run, a simple sounding question arises: How much leverage should be granted to the Jap player to determine his own fate - and by the same token, how much deveation from historic events should be allowed ?

To make things simple: The USN adopted the "Finger four" formation (with the "Thatch weave" as a part ) while the IJN kept the "Vic".

There is no doubt, the finger four is way superior.
How to represent the - tactical - differend doctrines in the game ?
The Japs get a trigger for "Finger Four Training" ? Or the allies get a bonus ?
Stuff like that. And yes, the official Navy did not like it (early in the war), however the japs never got there, because of the doctrinal/training issues involved.

As far as I am concerned, WitP deals with this sort of issue pretty well in terms of bonuses or maluses, considering the constraints of an operational game.

Before you choose to take sides, please take a little time to consider.

Cheers

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Most on this board, who want "weapons of war accurately modelled" don't want anything changed even when the game didn't end up going along historical lines (such as IJ having a different leader for a start).

Did you survey most on this board or is this another assumption?

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I mean, from your perspective, weapons of war aren't accurately modeled if those weapons aren't the same, and in the same numbers, right?

I'm sure the developers/the help will nail it and make the already great game even more super.

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
You don't have an issue with him having so many experienced pilots either, then?

Absolutely not. I do have issue with training of pilots on land and expecting those same pilots to navigate 400-500 miles of open ocean , find the fleet , hurl themselves into a wall of radar assisted USN Cap and flak and expecting results. This isn't Coral Sea my friend, this is 1944.

[Charbroiled]

There is absolutely no way that a "historical accurate" game can be made of the Pacific War....at least not with the WITP engine. To make a complete "historical accurate" game, you would have to include:

politics
non-coorperation of military branches
disgruntled work forces
leaders ego
mysteries of life
murphy's law
sabotage
world opinion
the horrors of war
etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, WITP is a game....not a simulation, but just a game. And for a game to be interesting, it has to have some sort of balance. Sure, the weapons involved can be modeled to reflect their real life uses, but these values will only reflect how the developers see things...and as you can see throughout the forum, there are many diverse opinions of what those values should be.

So, enjoy the game for what it is worth.

[mdiehl]

What planes did the Japanese use ? What Doctrines did they use ? and What Pilot Quality did they use ?

Of the 260-ish Japanese air crews lost, some 50 were pilots with more than 2000 hours of flying time. There's no evidence that the experienced minority of the Japanese pilot pool did any better against the Big Blue Blanket than the inexperienced majority. Evidence suggests that the quality of USN training, superior command and control, and a better plane (the F6F) made Japanese pilot quality a moot point. Much of that does I think have to do with the USNs ability to concentrate interceptions on Japanese raids at distances 60+ miles from US fleets, and Japanese inability to coordinate raids in excess of a few score planes.

My point being that if you had taken the Japanese big 6 CVs and their aircrews from Dec 7/8 1941, time warped them to the Battle of the Phillippine Sea, the Japanese results would not have been substantially better than their historical results. The only innovation that the Japanese introduced that had a prayer of working were the kamikazes.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance.

No, that is were the difference in opinion is.


If the AE Team want to claim that AE is based on Historical Possibilities ONLY, and not based on Fictive factors like Game Balance, Bonuses or similar, then it is also a recognition of the fact that the game is based on Historical Possibilities and NOT based on Historical Actually Results. Historicle results requires same situation as historicle, but if a Jap player only manage historicle results... then he is a poor player.

After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

I have asked the AE team in many posts if Game and Player Balance plays ANY factor, and the answer have been NO, it does not.
Historical Possibilities and realistic Moddeling of units is the ONLY factor, not Player Balance, Not Commercial Interests or other Fictive Factors.
If this is true (and if it is not, then they can correct their anwser now) .. so if this is true, then we will see a Week Japan in 1941, with the possibiletys of becomming strong by 1944, because, and of course... ANY country can manage huge improvmants if enugth resourses is put into it over a period of 2 years. This also applays for stonage nations like Japan. 2 Years of Improvments will enable you to get improvments.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance. There are a litany of complaints that could be made. Some would say the Japanese are too powerful in 1942 while others would contend that the Allies are too powerful in late 1944 and 1945. For every gripe that the Corsair is too powerful they is the counter gripe that the Betty is too powerful. While the Uber USN CAP provision that Japan mentions is obviously a flaw that, as has already been pointed out, has been corrected, the are some serious flaws in the production system for the Japanese that give them far too much to work with in the last year or so of the war. I think AE will greatly improve many of the problems we saw in WITP. Will it fix all of them? Obviously not but I think it will be a huge step forward.

Personally I have a problem when any JFB gripes about the game being biased against the Japanese. In my game and many others we see the Japanese put carriers to sea in 1944 that never made it off the ways in RL. We see huge numbers of third generation fighters produced flown by expert pilots trained by bombing peasants in China. All I can say is this: how would the JFB's feel if the Allied player could accelerate his Essex CV's so they all appear in the first four months of 1944 or and throw a few Midway Class in there too. What about giving the Allies R&D capabilities so all the US CV's have F8F and F4U-4's on them by 1945. Oh and instead of P-38's and P-51's, the USAAF will be flying P-80's. Oh and all the B-24 factories will be converted to B-29's. My point is the Japanese have plenty of advantages already and really shouldn't complain about the few advantages given to the Allies

No question!!! In between bombing runs on crops to prepare for the USN airmen look for the post from a jfb asking for sophisticated radar and ASW assets on Japanese vessels. [8|] It's coming count on it. [;)]

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: Japan
After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

Three to four times? Really? The Japanese were pretty lucky to go as long as they did without a major setback. Just imagine what would have happened if one of 11 Squadron's Blenheims had put a couple of bombs through Akagi's flight deck on 9 April 1942, or if rain squalls hadn't covered the Zuikaku on 7 May 1942, or any number of other freak occurrences that helped them out.

Ultimately, Japan was punching way above its weight class against the two greatest industrial powers in the Western World. Consider that despite heavy bombing raids, a serious submarine offensive and corresponding counteroffensive that sapped many resources, a huge strategic bombing program, and fighting in three oceans, the British managed to build 131,549 aeroplanes to Japan's 76,320; five battleships to Japan's two; thirty-two cruisers to Japan's nine; 240 destroyers to Japan's 63, and that Britain was orders of magnitude weaker than the USA!

If the Japanese player can act in an ahistorical fashion because he has the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't the advantage of the Allied player be even greater in doing so? By comparison, the latter's resources were far greater, their mistakes were numerous, and yet by later war they had ground the Japanese into a powder.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Japan

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance.

No, that is were the difference in opinion is.


If the AE Team want to claim that AE is based on Historical Possibilities ONLY, and not based on Fictive factors like Game Balance, Bonuses or similar, then it is also a recognition of the fact that the game is based on Historical Possibilities and NOT based on Historical Actually Results. Historicle results requires same situation as historicle, but if a Jap player only manage historicle results... then he is a poor player.

After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

I have asked the AE team in many posts if Game and Player Balance plays ANY factor, and the answer have been NO, it does not.
Historical Possibilities and realistic Moddeling of units is the ONLY factor, not Player Balance, Not Commercial Interests or other Fictive Factors.
If this is true (and if it is not, then they can correct their anwser now) .. so if this is true, then we will see a Week Japan in 1941, with the possibiletys of becomming strong by 1944, because, and of course... ANY country can manage huge improvmants if enugth resourses is put into it over a period of 2 years. This also applays for stonage nations like Japan. 2 Years of Improvments will enable you to get improvments.

My god Japan. If you don't like the AE is starting to look like (aka a WitP++) just don't buy it and go get a life. You won't make anyone change his mind, especially not the developers, so why would you waste any more time complaining and trying to convince people about how wrong they are as you just CAN'T do anything about it?!

My, there are small scenarios so you can enjoy a fair fight from time to time. But, hey: great news, the War in the Pacific wasn't fair, nor balanced. Few wars in history ever were. Don't expect me to feel sorry about that, my family paid the IJA its fair share. If you are waiting for some supersize-me game for the average JFB, well AE isn't, and you won't have any impact on that. So just wait for a nice fantasy/alternative history mod, or create one yourself, but damn it, Vanilla WitP is about re-enacting a given conflict as best as we can, not about giving life to your wet dreams! Man, war isn't about moving little pawns on a map, it's about getting the Navy and the Army cooperate on silly operations while they just can't figure who's going to control the whole thing, while closely watching the fuel reserves getting to a scary level, and praying for a truce before everyone starts to realize how much of a joke your industry really is. Right now the Japanese player has naturally so many advantages I can't even think of thanks to game mechanics, I wonder what the debate is all about.

And I forgot: I usually play Japanese, btw, so yes I am complaining about my own "side".

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

ORIGINAL: Japan
After all, if you get results who just remind about the historic ones, then you must have screwed totally up as Japan because
With all the knowledge we have, who they did not have, any Jap player must be able to get at least 3-4 times as good results as they got historical, and that is were the point is.

Three to four times? Really? The Japanese were pretty lucky to go as long as they did without a major setback. Just imagine what would have happened if one of 11 Squadron's Blenheims had put a couple of bombs through Akagi's flight deck on 9 April 1942, or if rain squalls hadn't covered the Zuikaku on 7 May 1942, or any number of other freak occurrences that helped them out.

Ultimately, Japan was punching way above its weight class against the two greatest industrial powers in the Western World. Consider that despite heavy bombing raids, a serious submarine offensive and corresponding counteroffensive that sapped many resources, a huge strategic bombing program, and fighting in three oceans, the British managed to build 131,549 aeroplanes to Japan's 76,320; five battleships to Japan's two; thirty-two cruisers to Japan's nine; 240 destroyers to Japan's 63, and that Britain was orders of magnitude weaker than the USA!

If the Japanese player can act in an ahistorical fashion because he has the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't the advantage of the Allied player be even greater in doing so? By comparison, the latter's resources were far greater, their mistakes were numerous, and yet by later war they had ground the Japanese into a powder.

What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

I don't think anybody is saying that Britain alone could beat Japan easily in AE - are they?

Merely that Japan is the gross underdog, and it was.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

I don't think anybody is saying that Britain alone could beat Japan easily in AE - are they?

Merely that Japan is the gross underdog, and it was.

Correct.

[Japan]

well..

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

I don't think anybody is saying that Britain alone could beat Japan easily in AE - are they?

Merely that Japan is the gross underdog, and it was.

No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented. If it didn't get to the front, it's worthless for the purposes of this game. Now if you want to make a fictitious game where somehow IJ beats all the odds and is attacking where those allied extra forces are, okay, but not if we're talking IJ being on the historic defensive as she so often was during WITP, which means those forces had to move to IJ territories or they were worthless in fighting IJ.

To regale Japan's assumption that IJ would need 3x to 4x the good results to exceed the historic record, I think for what IJ faced he is correct, but if IJ had that level of success, then it would had more likely prompted the allies to throw more things that were used against the germans, against IJ instead.

The allies could have had 100X the production it had, but if it didn't get to the front where they were fighting, it didn't matter. I'm not saying they had difficulty with transport, but only that they were facing a very big foe in the germans, and couldn't afford to throw their entire production against either IJ or germany. Why if Britain and the USA were all so strong against them, then why did the USA throw the USSR into the scene when things were very bad for IJ? I mean it's not like they couldn't throw their entire weight into that theatre then, and yet they're still worried about IJ Chinese forces? If you can get everything you have, into that theatre, and expect multiplied success, then why have need of the USSR? They just didn't want to throw their full weight into the Pacific, that's why, so if you can't or won't throw your full weight there, all that extra strength isn't being used and therefore is irrelevant and just makes more security for guarding against german partisans in europe, at least for the purposes of this game.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Japan

...ANY country can manage huge improvmants if enugth resourses is put into it over a period of 2 years. This also applays for stonage nations like Japan...

Japan did not have the ability to radically change in such a short period of time. For one, they lacked the resources and industry to support such a dramatic change, but more importantly... the were 'culturally' unable to do it.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression; I was just trying to show how totally inadequate Japan's production was in comparison even to Great Britain, the weakest and most overstretched of the "Big Three" allied powers.

My point wasn't that the British alone could crush the Japanese by sheer weight of numbers (certainly in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft quality, the British were inferior to the Japanese until 1944, and I rather suspect that the 1942 KB could have taken the 1945 BPF), but that the Japanese could literally never hope to build enough to be competitive with the allies. They lacked the resources, the heavy industry, and probably no other high command in WWII was as rife with internecine feuding. That last one isn't even really modelled in the game, which is probably the biggest advantage the Japanese player has over his historical counterpart. His navy's never going to lie to his LCUs about what ships they've lost.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented. If it didn't get to the front, it's worthless for the purposes of this game. Now if you want to make a fictitious game where somehow IJ beats all the odds and is attacking where those allied extra forces are, okay, but not if we're talking IJ being on the historic defensive as she so often was during WITP, which means those forces had to move to IJ territories or they were worthless in fighting IJ.

I think the numbers presented were to prove a point, that Japan was outclassed. Japan had an initially advantageous strategic position and benefited from the diversion of resources by the US and the UK to Europe. The outcome however couldn't really be in question, especially once the focus on Europe was no longer necessary. This doesn't change the fact that while Japan had to end up on the defensive, it was extremely fanatical about playing defense and exacted a very significant toll that called into question whether defeating her would be something the US could afford casualty-wise.

either IJ or germany. Why if Britain and the USA were all so strong against them, then why did the USA throw the USSR into the scene when things were very bad for IJ? I mean it's not like they couldn't throw their entire weight into that theatre then, and yet they're still worried about IJ Chinese forces? If you can get everything you have, into that theatre, and expect multiplied success, then why have need of the USSR? They just didn't want to throw their full weight into the Pacific, that's why, so if you can't or won't throw your full weight there, all that extra strength isn't being used and therefore is irrelevant and just makes more security for guarding against german partisans in europe, at least for the purposes of this game.

I think the USSR's involvement had more to do with politics and the attempt to make Japan's position so hopeless that she would surrender. The USSR also had its own interests against Japan and at that point in the war, Stalin could not be denied. The US was prepared to throw its full weight against Japan, but it was hoping for a surrender that would avoid the terrible cost of actually invading the Japanese home islands. US and Allied troops and ships were already moving to the Pacific and some had already moved when the surrender brought on by the atomic bombs made the final invasion unnecessary.

Regards,

- Erik

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
There is absolutely no way that a "historical accurate" game can be made of the Pacific War....at least not with the WITP engine. To make a complete "historical accurate" game, you would have to include:

I would just simply say there is no way that a completely accurate simulation (or game - no difference except for purpose) can be made of anything. This is a simple yet true statement.


So make something "completely accurate" - i.e. 100% accurate - it has to be an exact copy of the thing - and for historical events - this would mean replaying the war 100% - planes flying - men dying etc. We certainly do not know how to do that. So we build simulators. This word means that some things are abstracted more - and some things are abstracted less - but regardless of the priorities of what is abstracted more and what is abstracted less - we are abstracting - we are simulating - we are not regenerating reality - we do not know how to do that (not yet anyway).


WITP and AE are abstractions - they are simulations - they are games - all these words - in our context mean the same thing.

[Dili]

It already happened so we know more things from start that no combatant knowed in late 41. Japan is the country that probably made more mistakes production wise in Pacific War so they can improve some of that at least.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression; I was just trying to show how totally inadequate Japan's production was in comparison even to Great Britain, the weakest and most overstretched of the "Big Three" allied powers.

My point wasn't that the British alone could crush the Japanese by sheer weight of numbers (certainly in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft quality, the British were inferior to the Japanese until 1944, and I rather suspect that the 1942 KB could have taken the 1945 BPF), but that the Japanese could literally never hope to build enough to be competitive with the allies. They lacked the resources, the heavy industry, and probably no other high command in WWII was as rife with internecine feuding. That last one isn't even really modelled in the game, which is probably the biggest advantage the Japanese player has over his historical counterpart. His navy's never going to lie to his LCUs about what ships they've lost.

Everybody always pounces on axis lack of cooperation between the branches of the military, as though the other nations didn't have that problem; rather amusing. Perhaps IJ was the worst, but still. Another thing too, even when you're fighting a war on multiple fronts, such as GB and USA, the higher production can affect more background sort of functions, like the ability, if wanted, to more steadily replace losses on even the lesser front, so even if more than 75% of their production is to europe it does have an effect, just not the entire level of production for the whole nation however.

Yes, I do realize you mentioned more than just GB, but each nation you listed was very seriously divided between multiple fronts and naturally they couldn't have everything everywhere. To some extent, that is true of IJ, as they couldn't have everything everywhere either but at least their's "seems" to be one continuous front even though quite vast (not the serious split of europe and asia that the allies faced however). So if you could say that IJ, for the most part, faced only 25% of the US forces, the USA may had faced no more than 65% of the IJ forces (probably much less). Actually the Brits, especially if the USSR didn't take China, may had seen a lot more IJ forces than the USA had (if you would assume for some reason that China would had been a Brit area, though we always hear how the USA had got the USSR involved to save the USA from having to do that dirty work), but then Olympic would had upped IJ forces against the USA considerably. Given how things did go though, where neither GB nor the uSA was involved with China or Olympic, who faced the greater brunt of IJ? In my mind the Brits faced the greater number of soldiers, while the USA faced the greater number of ships and aircraft.