A Day in the Life of a Disputer

[Canoerebel]

Gents,

I'm embroiled deep into '43 in my PBEM game and I'm having alot of fun. The game is tense and challenging and vast in scope. At times the game can be vexing (due to abnormalities or bugs) or tedious (lord have mercy at the micromanagement).

Part of the growing pains of a new and vast and complicated game is identifying and then addressing bugs and abnormalities. The burden of proof is rightfully on the person suggesting that something is out of whack and should be fixed. That is there should be credible evidence that a problem exists before changes are made.

Since my opponent and I have gone further into the game than most, we've perhaps had more of a chance to encounter, note, and publicize problems. Being in this position is not particularly pleasant. Here's a flow chart of how things tend to go for a "complainer." Just to humor me, assume that a player has identified a genuine anomaly that needs to be addressed - say, that Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers.

Disputer: Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers. In the real war, the Americans lost 47 destroyers in the Pacific. Three were lost to submarines. None of those three were serving as escorts or in ASW TFs. That's right, Japanese subs claimed ZERO DDs serving as escorts and in ASW TFs. In my game I've lost seventeen ASW DDs in four weeks to Japanese subs. Something needs to be fixed.

Skeptic One: Seventeen destroyers in four weeks? That sounds about right to me.

Skeptic Two: Well, sub doctrine is off so what do you expect?

Disputer: Um, since sub doctrine is off, doesn't that mean that a higher percentage of Japanese subs would be targeting merchant ships, leaving even fewer to flail unsuccessfully against destroyers?

Skeptic Three: You're just biased.

Skeptic Four: You're an idiot.

Skeptic Five: You're wrong. (I've developed a dislike for you. Therefore, I'm going to gainsay anything you say no matter how reasonable and justified).

Skeptic Two: Do you have skillful captains in command of your destroyers?

Skeptic Four: What is the training level of your crews?

Skeptic One: What about their nighttime experience?

Skeptic Six: Perhaps you've used your destroyers improperly.

Skeptic Seven: Your opponent is a very gifted player. He's far more intelligent than the entire Japanese Naval Staff and therefore I would expect him to better employ Japanese submarines.

Skeptic Eight: Quit whining.

Skeptic Nine: Your opponent says you keep sending your DDs to this one particular hex. He has 132 subs parked there.

Disputer: Um, I don't send my destroyers to one particular hex. They're in various escort and ASW TFs all over the map.

Skeptic Nine: Do you have data to back that up? Let me see it.

Skeptic Ten: Yes, I'd like to see detailed information for every American destroyer - date arrived, every hex in which they've passed through, Japanese subs confirmed or suspected in each such hex, salinity of the water in said hex, weather for that particular moment.

Skeptic Eleven: Your complaints are upsetting those who worked long and hard on the game. Please desist your whining.

Skeptic Twelve: You're wrong. In my game no detroyers have been sunk by Japanese subs and it is already December 9, 1941. Something's wrong with Japanese subs.

Skeptic Thirteen: Since we're getting complaints both ways it must mean there's no problem.

Skeptic Fourteen: I'm not seeing this. In my game against the AI it's already January 1, 1944 and I haven't lost a single Allied ship of any kind anywhere on the map. I've only lost thirteen aircraft. On the other hand, I've sunk 5,987 ships and my opponent has lost 125,865 aircraft. I've already occupied Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Osaka. The game looks pretty balanced to me.

Hijacker One: Speaking of Osaka, the Cubs have a third baseman who played in the Little League World Series against a team from Taiwan a few years ago.

Skeptic Six: Even if this is a problem, which I seriously doubt, it should just be handled by a House Rule.

Skeptic Four: The game is already hard enough on the Japanese. If you make it any harder I won't play.

Disputer: We've played another four months and I've lost seventeen more ASW destroyers to enemy submarines.

Skeptic Fifteen: I'm not sure I understand your point.

Disputer: [repeats point]

Skeptic Seven: Okay, we get it. You think there's a problem with Japanese subs. Will you quit repeating yourself endlessly? What a whiner. Sheesh.

Skeptic Sixteen: I don't doubt you are seeing skewed results in your game, but I'm not seeing it in my own games.

Hijacker Two: The rations of Japanese crews included lots of starches (rice). Same with German crews (potatoes). I wonder if German destroyers were the most powerful afloat?

[Shark7]

Wow, this looks familiar... [:D]

[d0mbo]

Thread comprimated into one post. This saves bandwith
 
Btw. Japanese subs aren't overpowered vs. DD's. Stop whining! [:D]

[Canoerebel]

 
 

[USSAmerica]

[:D]  Very well put, Dan.

[Chickenboy]

Hey, I recognize myself! I'm skeptic 1-9, inclusive! Hi mom! [:D]

ETA: Original post edited. I'm skeptic 1-14, inclusive. Hi Dad! [:D]

[Canoerebel]

Update:  I've added a few more skeptics and another hijacker to the original post.

[Grollub]

Original post; [&o][&o][:D]

[Feinder]

Too funny!



-F-

[d0mbo]

[:D]

[John 3rd]

Your argument is at once well written, persuasive, and absolutely true Counselor.  Well done in compressing it all into one posting.
 
I love the spirit of debate and discussion within the Forum but it can become, as you illustrate, tendentious (Sp?).
 
Since I have been out of the loop Dan where do you feel the game has major issues?  I know you have written about Artillery.  Do you feel that SS are a serious problem as well (or is that just your example)?  What else has an issue?
 

[warspite1]

Nice one Canoerebel - v. funny [;)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Disputer: Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers. In the real war, the Americans lost 47 subs in the Pacific. Three were lost to submarines. None of those three were serving as escorts or in ASW TFs. That's right, Japanese subs claimed ZERO DDs serving as escorts and in ASW TFs. In my game I've lost seventeen ASW DDs in four weeks to Japanese subs. Something needs to be fixed.

Did you mean to write "destroyers" there?

Edit to add:

And here too:

Skeptic One: Seventeen subs in four weeks? That sounds about right to me.

[Mynok]

You forgot:

Defender of the Faith: <SIDE X> shouldn't even be able to do <ABILITY Z> because they didn't in the real war.

[LoBaron]

Great post Canorebel. [:D]
&nbsp;
You are&nbsp;right that disputers have a hard time here.
&nbsp;
Beeing mostly a sceptic myself I&nbsp;might have to add my 2c´s for some of the reasons:
&nbsp;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disputer: All my planes got shot down on the last strike!!!
&nbsp;
- insert single combat report here -
&nbsp;
This is ahistorical!!!
Besides my conclusion that the results are bogged because my outdated single engine fighter-bombers should
be able to overcome the overstack CAP of my opponent as - insert famous hero here - did in - insert date here -
the game as a whole is unbalanced, ruining my day, designed by a bunch of AFB/JFB´s who want to suppress the free
world/the old Japanese culture&nbsp;and so add unfair - insert wild guess secret coding here - to enable total Democratic/Imperial
world domination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may be an excuse for us sceptics to be even more sceptical when new issues arise...
&nbsp;
I have lost enough ASW assets to subs and Rob Brennan, my opponent, too that I really think there is a glitch in the
sub attack routines. Maybe when the Allied/Japanese sub doctrine options where put out of the game, the code now
leans too much to the old Japanese sub doctrine, who knows.
As far as I can see there are two things that should be toned down in combination: the frequency of attacks on ASW assets
and the hit&nbsp;percentage of torps against those vessels.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Mark Weston]

Perhaps a lot of the sceptical responses are generated by the tone the Disputer uses as much as the content of his observations.

Another possibility is his tendency to think (or write as though he thinks) that the single data point of his one PBeM game is enough basis for making definitive conclusions about the state of WitP:AE.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Disputer: Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers. In the real war, the Americans lost 47 subs in the Pacific. Three were lost to submarines. None of those three were serving as escorts or in ASW TFs. That's right, Japanese subs claimed ZERO DDs serving as escorts and in ASW TFs. In my game I've lost seventeen ASW DDs in four weeks to Japanese subs. Something needs to be fixed.

Did you mean to write "destroyers" there?

Edit to add:

And here too:

Skeptic One: Seventeen subs in four weeks? That sounds about right to me.

Thanks for pointing this out. I corrected them. (Dang, I edit for a living yet I make more mistakes than anyone on the forum).

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston
Perhaps a lot of the sceptical responses are generated by the tone the Disputer uses as much as the content of his observations.

Another possibility is his tendency to think (or write as though he thinks) that the single data point of his one PBeM game is enough basis for making definitive conclusions about the state of WitP:AE.

Could be.

[jackyo123]

LOL!!!

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Since I have been out of the loop Dan where do you feel the game has major issues?  I know you have written about Artillery.  Do you feel that SS are a serious problem as well (or is that just your example)?  What else has an issue?

You're going to get me in trouble. There'll be accusations I'm repeating myself and beating a dead horse. But here's the major issues as I've seen them through my game, which is at the end of July 1943:

1. Strategic Bombing in China: Impossible to defend/easy for the Japanese to wipe out. This means difficult/impossible for the Chinese to replace losses/recover disrupted units and essentially impossible to utilize fighters in China through at least early '43 (damaged planes don't get repaired and can't be moved meaning that fighters get one or two sorties in and then those planes are stuck in a damaged state at a forward base forever unless you disband them). Fix: House Rule preventing strategic bombing in China until 1944.

2. Massed Artillery: The effect of massed artillery is cataclysmic even on entrenched troops. The developers toned down artillery so that it is reasonable against troops in fortifications of six or more. Many players have imposed rules limiting artillery to one unit per army divisions or two army divisions. We've settled on one per two and it seems to be working okay against units in fortifications.

3. Nuclear Artillery: Artillery wreaks havoc on troops in the open. Even with the one unit per division rule artillery wipes out a wildly inflated number of infantry. Artillery is also far too effective against rear-echelon troops.

4. Nuclear Subs: Submarines are far too effective against ASW platforms, especially DDs. This has been toned down some, but probably not enough. Subs avoided ASW ships, but I've had dozens of ASW-dedicated ships (including DDs, which should rarely if ever happen) sunk in my game.

5. Nuclear ASW: Based upon the most recent patch (or perhaps it was a hot fix), Japanese ASW improved dramatically. I'm seeing far too many submarines sunk or heavily damaged by ASW. The rate is much higher than in the real war.

6. Sweep Coordination: Sweeps are counter-intuitive. You have to jump through 37 hoops to try to get fighters to accompany bombers in any kind of sensible way. Even then it doesn't work. A player should be able to schedule sweeps to fly against the same target in the same turn. Usually - not always, but usually - the fighters should go in first or with the bombers. Of course there will be coordination problems and foul-ups, but in the game the bombers go in first followed by the fighters later. I've had many instances where the enemy fighters were so worn out shooting down Allied bombers that by the time the Allied fighters arrived there were no enemy fighters left to face - they had all landed after wiping out the bombers. Players suggest all kinds of awkward fixes - fly sweeps only for one/several/many turns before using bombers; set bombers to naval strike primary and hit target secondary and then your fighters will go in first; etc. Come on! Just make it intuitve!