The Midway Conundrum

[Admiral DadMan]

The scenario you all are thinking of is 16: "Yamamoto's Prophecy" which starts 1 Jun 42, and incorporates results from Coral Sea and Midway.

Try playing it at 70% ship committment.

[mogami]

Originally posted by ADavidB
What you are suggesting with the withdrawal of forces is similar to what Pacwar did with British ships. So it ought to be feasible here ( assuming that major code changes are still being planned for UV some time in the future ).

I'm assuming that the British ship withdrawals will reappear WitP.

Dave Baranyi

Hi, They will. only it will not be automatic. You be be ordered to send a ship or ships off map by a date. If you fail you lose VP and the next ship of that type scheduled to arrive is moved back to when the ship you kept would have re-entered. (something along these lines )

[ADavidB]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, They will. only it will not be automatic. You be be ordered to send a ship or ships off map by a date. If you fail you lose VP and the next ship of that type scheduled to arrive is moved back to when the ship you kept would have re-entered. (something along these lines )

Hmmm - that's an interesting twist. Short term pain for long term gain, sort of thing.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[gus]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, They will. only it will not be automatic. You be be ordered to send a ship or ships off map by a date. If you fail you lose VP and the next ship of that type scheduled to arrive is moved back to when the ship you kept would have re-entered. (something along these lines )

This sounds like a great system to handle withdrawls. It leaves the decision in the hands of the player as it should be! So if a given ship is part of an ongoing operation and is recalled it doesn't simply disappear off the face of the map.

Hopefully this can be retrofitted to UV!

-g

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Not really much point, UV is a *what if?* game. If you terminate the *what if?* aspect, you might as well just read the book, as it will not change.

*What if?* no one wants to show up at Midway in '42? You can't force people into a huge blunder just because you want them to make it.

The premise here is we are free to implement our own battle plans and they may not happen to include the Coral Sea or Midway because *WE* choose a different strategy.

Frankly, if I feel my assets are better spent charging for Townsville starting from turn 1 of the May 1st '42 scenario 17 just because I determine that going for it means I know that your pilots are useless and can't hit my transports and I have a good chance at winning with my starting troops against your starting troops, who are you to tell me not to? Perhaps I feel that attacking Townville on the 8th with everything I can throw on transports and all my navy is a valid battle plan just as someone thought Midway is a valid battle plan.

Adding a external factor that steals my ships in the middle of my well thought out plans is just silly. It's bad enough having to deal with the whims of ships that may never show up without having the game take them back AFTER I finally get them.

Well, all you're saying is that you're happy with scenario 17. So am I.

What I am suggesting is design of a new scenario with innovative features that build the uncertainty of Midway into the flow of the campaign. Nothing silly about it. It is the historical situation.

By May 1, 1942, the Midway operation was locked in. Events in the South Pacific had to be held in suspense after mid June until that battle was resolved. Scenario 17 does not recreate this.

Remember that UV puts you in command of the South Pacific area, not the entire Pacific theater. When you agonize over release of ships from Pearl or Japan or your slow aircraft replacement rates, you are acutely aware of your subordinate position. Dealing with lack of resources while the "main event" is played out hundreds of miles to the north-northeast of your command area is all part of what you have to put up with. The drain of men and materiel to support the Midway effort is one more in the long series of frustrations that you face.

I don't know if such a scenario can be designed, but I certainly would like to see it. I was hoping that it would be part of the original package. It doesn't seem too much to ask from a game that is nearly a gigabyte in raw size - and from such a talented design team (okay, I'm an unconscionable suck-up when I think it might help get me what I want).

[Drex]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Not really much point, UV is a *what if?* game. If you terminate the *what if?* aspect, you might as well just read the book, as it will not change.

*What if?* no one wants to show up at Midway in '42? You can't force people into a huge blunder just because you want them to make it.

The premise here is we are free to implement our own battle plans and they may not happen to include the Coral Sea or Midway because *WE* choose a different strategy.

Frankly, if I feel my assets are better spent charging for Townsville starting from turn 1 of the May 1st '42 scenario 17 just because I determine that going for it means I know that your pilots are useless and can't hit my transports and I have a good chance at winning with my starting troops against your starting troops, who are you to tell me not to? Perhaps I feel that attacking Townville on the 8th with everything I can throw on transports and all my navy is a valid battle plan just as someone thought Midway is a valid battle plan.

Adding a external factor that steals my ships in the middle of my well thought out plans is just silly. It's bad enough having to deal with the whims of ships that may never show up without having the game take them back AFTER I finally get them.

Hear, Hear!

[Drex]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Well, all you're saying is that you're happy with scenario 17. So am I.

What I am suggesting is design of a new scenario with innovative features that build the uncertainty of Midway into the flow of the campaign. Nothing silly about it. It is the historical situation.

By May 1, 1942, the Midway operation was locked in. Events in the South Pacific had to be held in suspense after mid June until that battle was resolved. Scenario 17 does not recreate this.

Remember that UV puts you in command of the South Pacific area, not the entire Pacific theater. When you agonize over release of ships from Pearl or Japan or your slow aircraft replacement rates, you are acutely aware of your subordinate position. Dealing with lack of resources while the "main event" is played out hundreds of miles to the north-northeast of your command area is all part of what you have to put up with. The drain of men and materiel to support the Midway effort is one more in the long series of frustrations that you face.

I don't know if such a scenario can be designed, but I certainly would like to see it. I was hoping that it would be part of the original package. It doesn't seem too much to ask from a game that is nearly a gigabyte in raw size - and from such a talented design team (okay, I'm an unconscionable suck-up when I think it might help get me what I want).

i hate to put a damper on things, but when WitP comes out everything in UV will be moot. There will be players who will continue to play -WitP is a large scope game- but I can't believe Matrix will devote the time and resources to add new scenarios. they have to do the Med War!

[spruance]

Interesting range of opinions. Due to the time difference
I'm still catching up with all the postings, but many people have
expressed my original thought which is that there isn't really
a scenario which takes in the Coral Sea and Midway battles,
but starts from May 1 1942.

I like the idea of the computer resolving
the Midway battle to increase uncertainty. I agree that the historical outcome should not be enforced, but it should be
possible. I just think, as someone said, you lose a bit
of the flavour of the Solomons campaign when there are
so many CVs floating around that just weren't there historcally.

But as someone else said, all this will be sorted out in WitP...

[spruance]

There is a modified scenario 17 on the Spooky website
- anyone played this?

Seems to be the very thing I have been harping on about. Scenario 17 with historical Midway result. From the release notes:

"The Japanese will not receive CV`s Akagi, Soryu, Kaga, Hiryu, CA Mikuma, Sub I-164.
The U.S. will not receive DD Hamman or CV Hornet. The non arrival of Hornet, a Yorktown class CV lost at Midway will make up for you having Yorktown in the Game.

The arrival of CV Lexington has been changed to day 75 to reflect her arrival on or about July 25."

Any thoughts on this new senario...?

[Mr.Frag]

I still don't get you guys, you have exactly the same chance at pulling off a Midway anywhere else ON the map within UV? Whats the hold up with a little chunk of rock thats off the map?

Hold your own Midway at Lunga or Gili Gili for all it matters. (which tends to be the realistic happening here). Why do you need an external version of what you are perfectly capable of handling inside the dynamics of the existing game?

A Midway *win* for Japan means Midway would have been invaded, now what do you want to happen? Half supplies for Japan and massive shortages of transports and troops because they are busy holding Midway? What next? Pearl?

Midway by itself means nothing. Quit looking at the HISTORICAL outcome and look at it in reverse. You want a Japan win? What would happen to the whole theater *if* Japan had won decisively? How many divisions would have been tied up? How many US divisions would not be showing up in Noumea, being kept at Pearl? You can't look at a single event in isolation which is what you are proposing here. It means nothing by itself.

This is really why you only have the one option. Play the Midway *loss* scenario or play without it. Too many things make no sense with a Midway *win* in our game.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by spruance
There is a modified scenario 17 on the Spooky website
- anyone played this?

Seems to be the very thing I have been harping on about. Scenario 17 with historical Midway result. From the release notes:

"The Japanese will not receive CV`s Akagi, Soryu, Kaga, Hiryu, CA Mikuma, Sub I-164.
The U.S. will not receive DD Hamman or CV Hornet. The non arrival of Hornet, a Yorktown class CV lost at Midway will make up for you having Yorktown in the Game.

The arrival of CV Lexington has been changed to day 75 to reflect her arrival on or about July 25."

Any thoughts on this new senario...?

Some points:

1. If you're playing with Historical Midway outcome, then why aren't you also including the outcome of the Coral Sea battle as well?
2. There IS an historical scenario (16) that reflects the Coral Sea and Midway outcomes and begins on 1 Jun 42.
3. The notes must be wrong. It was Yorktown herself that was lost at Midway.
4. CV USS Lexington and CVL IJN Shoho should also not be available as they were sunk at Coral Sea
   [/list=1]

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by spruance
There is a modified scenario 17 on the Spooky website
- anyone played this?

Seems to be the very thing I have been harping on about. Scenario 17 with historical Midway result. From the release notes:

"The Japanese will not receive CV`s Akagi, Soryu, Kaga, Hiryu, CA Mikuma, Sub I-164.
The U.S. will not receive DD Hamman or CV Hornet. The non arrival of Hornet, a Yorktown class CV lost at Midway will make up for you having Yorktown in the Game.

The arrival of CV Lexington has been changed to day 75 to reflect her arrival on or about July 25."

Any thoughts on this new senario...?

It's not what I'm looking for, because the Midway outcome is known beforehand.

Mr. Frag, the scenario I suggest involves some innovative design work that may be useful for future games, and certainly adds some flavor to UV that is not currently present. I would be a lot happier with your responses if you would quit summarily referring to what I suggest as being "silly" and commanding that I play or not play as you dictate.

[spruance]

It's not what I'm looking for, because the Midway outcome is known beforehand.

I agree but at least scenario 17 can now be played without
the Midway ships being present, a totally ahistorical situation.

I agree that the hindsight thing makes it a bit silly; you know
that Midway is going to cost the IJN 4 carriers and the US 1.

I think your idea of a computer-generated Midway battle
is a great one, for what it's worth.

[spruance]

[*]The notes must be wrong. It was Yorktown herself that was lost at Midway.

Isn't Hornet removed from the game because Yorktown is
needed for the Coral Sea battle?

Not allowing Hornet to enter is effectively allowing Yorktown to fight at Coral Sea and then removing it to fight the Midway battle.

[Nikademus]

Dont understand why all the angst. UV includes a "historical" scenerio (16?) that starts in June and only allows the survivors of Midway and Coral Sea to appear. Closest one gets to "uber carrier" groups is if the ship commitment variables gives the Japanese Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiyo and Junyo, and on the USN side, Hornet, Wasp, Saratoga, and Enterprise all within a very short period of time

If anything causes unbalance it's not the warships but the proliferation of transports.......a specific tweak that was granted by Matrix way back due to player complaints about there not being enough of them for the usual high tempo operations that players like to conduct.

Ask Soulblazer He threw more transports at me than Russians at a German bridgehead during his very first invasion playing the "historical" late 42 scenerio. At that point i had NO carriers because he sank them (the two i had....the boob ) Fortunatly i had ships and airpower....oh and mines......lots o mines

despite all that....there were so many transports it was like a shootout at the OK corral

[Admiral DadMan]

You can't have Midway without Coral Sea because there is somewhat of a causal relationship between the two.

If, as USN you lose both US CV's, Midway's outcome is different. Without Yorktown's SBD's, only one, possibly two IJN carriers get hit.

The US could likely have sustained greater damage in that scenario than just losing one carrier.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
You can't have Midway without Coral Sea because there is somewhat of a causal relationship between the two.

If, as USN you lose both US CV's, Midway's outcome is different. Without Yorktown's SBD's, only one, possibly two IJN carriers get hit.

The US could likely have sustained greater damage in that scenario than just losing one carrier.

Exactly, sir.

[estaban]

Hah!!

Playing without the Japanese "Midway" carriers is a sure road to getting pummeled.

People play scenarios 17 and 19 because they are the best balanced scenarios.

[Fred98]

People play 17 and 19 because they are the longest scenarios.

And some people are naval wargaming nuts. To those people a large number of CVs is a requirement in a wargame.

I am a (non-naval) wargaming nut. A CV is just another weapons system. If the game is not balanced then the Japanese need to begin with a larger points tally.

That is how to restore balance.

Some players are nuclear-weapon wargaming nuts. They too have ideas on how to restore balance.

[Mr.Frag]

pasternakski,

I fail to see where I am implying you are silly but hey, whatever ...

You guys are looking at Midway as JUST a CV battle, what about the rest of it? The Invasion force? The Troops?

If you were suggesting factor them ALL into the outcome, I'd understand what you were shooting for. With ONLY the CV's at steak, I just don't see the point of doing it at all. Do it all and I'd be completely in agreement with that kind of thing. Doing it half-arsed as such with just CV's makes no sense to me. Yes, the USA only risked some CV's, but Japan has a heck of a lot more out there then just some CV's. What is Japan lands the fatal strike instead of the USA? The invasion would have happened as planned. Whats that do to UV's theater? What troops are missing on both sides? What ships? and finally what CV's? You can't just look at the one small part as it is taken out of context and makes no sense.

The CV's would not have been there without the invasion fleet as they would have no reason to be there. If you look at the whole picture, it makes sense. Looking at JUST the CV's is silly.