The Full Monty

[mogami]

Hi, Speaking again about how long 1 turn takes.

Back in 4 or 5 BC (Before computers) I was invited to play in a team game if SPI's Pacific War. The largest game I had yet seen.
We began in July. By the following Jan we had covered less time then I have so far in this test in 1 week. And we had a great time doing it. That game used weekly turns divided into pulses so for air and naval combat you were actually doing 2.3 days per pulse. The land combat was much slower since you only had 1 per week)
We had to plot our moves on index cards. Each TF, Each airfield, each stack of land units had an index card. (Our turn 1 required several weeks to set up)

Several times during this period Cat or Kids or other disasters required the whole map to set up again.

How Long did one turn of "Wellingtons Victory" or "Campaign for North Africa" take?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Speaking again about how long 1 turn takes.

Back in 4 or 5 BC (Before computers) I was invited to play in a team game if SPI's Pacific War. The largest game I had yet seen.
We began in July. By the following Jan we had covered less time then I have so far in this test in 1 week. And we had a great time doing it. That game used weekly turns divided into pulses so for air and naval combat you were actually doing 2.3 days per pulse. The land combat was much slower since you only had 1 per week)
We had to plot our moves on index cards. Each TF, Each airfield, each stack of land units had an index card. (Our turn 1 required several weeks to set up)

Several times during this period Cat or Kids or other disasters required the whole map to set up again.

How Long did one turn of "Wellingtons Victory" or "Campaign for North Africa" take?

Wellingtons Victory I never even tried to do the whole battle
that would be insanity. CNA however, I got it down to 3.5 hours
for one turn as Axis. But then I am a fanatic.

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Wellingtons Victory I never even tried to do the whole battle
that would be insanity. CNA however, I got it down to 3.5 hours
for one turn as Axis. But then I am a fanatic.

Hi, I seem to recall spending several hours just moving and fighting skirmishers in WV.
CNA OMG we played that for over a year and never finished. (I had an Italian pilot with 30 air victories)

The very best thing about computer games compared to board games aside from the quicker play is you do not actually have to be in the presence of your opponent. I've never got into a fist fight while playing a computer game.

During a game of SPI War in Europe (War the East and War in the West combined) I killed a stack of German armor in Russia and the German player burst into tears.

"Obvious blunder, I claim the obvious blunder redo rule" he started screaming.

When I ignored him he jumped onto my back while I was moving another stack and knocked the map to pieces.

I had to run around the room backing into the wall to get him off me and then we fought it out.

[ADavidB]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Speaking again about how long 1 turn takes.

Back in 4 or 5 BC (Before computers) I was invited to play in a team game if SPI's Pacific War. The largest game I had yet seen.
We began in July. By the following Jan we had covered less time then I have so far in this test in 1 week. And we had a great time doing it. That game used weekly turns divided into pulses so for air and naval combat you were actually doing 2.3 days per pulse. The land combat was much slower since you only had 1 per week)
We had to plot our moves on index cards. Each TF, Each airfield, each stack of land units had an index card. (Our turn 1 required several weeks to set up)

Several times during this period Cat or Kids or other disasters required the whole map to set up again.

How Long did one turn of "Wellingtons Victory" or "Campaign for North Africa" take?

I still have my edition of Pacific War in the box, somewhere in the basement. I set it up a couple of times, just to marvel at the size of the maps alone. There was something fascinating about the shear size of the layout that just doesn't come through on a computer screen. But I'd never go back to trying to play monster games on boards anymore.

Dave Baranyi

[Fred98]

Cap Mandrake said: “we will need some memory prompts”

I posted an idea here about 10 months ago – that each save game file includes a text file so I can write notes. Each save game file needs a separate text file because I am likely to be playing 3 or 4 PBEM games at the same time. And of course the opponent has no access to my text file nor me to his.


U2 said: “My average UV turn is 5-10 minutes”

Mine is still 30 mins – and I am not even interested in the minute detail.


Herbieh said “seems to have slipped under a lot of peoples radar is the fact that this fabulous game will have heaps of mini, or even same sized UV games in it!”


Yes that is true and it is the only part of the game that I will attempt. Unfortunately the scale has gone from 50k hex scale to a 80k hex scale. This for me will reduce the fun somewhat.

IMHO, (its only an opinion) UV would have been better if the scale was a 5k hex and the map was twice the size with twice the coastal detail but still covering the same area of the earth. I am still trying to create a scenario involving the re-supply of a small island with lots of patrol boats to try to stop the large enemy shipping. When I succeed we must have a game.


Mogami spoke about a table-top game. IMHO we must take advantage of computer technology to make better wargames. My dream game is a PC monitor the size of a table top and set into a table. Then we can stand around and play. And then we get the social contact.

[Snigbert]

Yes that is true and it is the only part of the game that I will attempt. Unfortunately the scale has gone from 50k hex scale to a 80k hex scale. This for me will reduce the fun somewhat.


My understanding is that it is 50k hex scale, where did you hear 80k?

[Zakhal]

Hes talking about kilometres. 50 miles is 80 km. Though im not sure if they kept it at 60 miles per hex, double the size of UV which was the original plan.

[Cap Mandrake]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I seem to recall spending several hours just moving and fighting skirmishers in WV.
CNA OMG we played that for over a year and never finished. (I had an Italian pilot with 30 air victories)

The very best thing about computer games compared to board games aside from the quicker play is you do not actually have to be in the presence of your opponent. I've never got into a fist fight while playing a computer game.

During a game of SPI War in Europe (War the East and War in the West combined) I killed a stack of German armor in Russia and the German player burst into tears.

"Obvious blunder, I claim the obvious blunder redo rule" he started screaming.

When I ignored him he jumped onto my back while I was moving another stack and knocked the map to pieces.

I had to run around the room backing into the wall to get him off me and then we fought it out.

Hehe Hilarious story. "Obvious blunder redo rule"...that is classic. Even Grant is alleged to have cried after his losses in the Wilderness Campaign

[CommC]

I think we can have a game on the scale and detail of WITP and still make it playable if we play close attention to the user interface. To wit, I would propose some changes, apologies if these have already been posted, I haven't done a thorough search of the previous posts.

In general, what we need on the WITP map is more of the key information quicker and easier (than it is now in UV and what it appears to be in the screen shots of the alpha WITP version). I suggest that 2x3 make the icons bigger and put more information on them such as supply state, combat strength, damage etc. When we put the mouse cursor over a unit, base or TF, we need the pop up screen to offer more info in a condensed form so we can quickly see the basics such as those I stated above...

On the icon we should put:

For land units:
Unit type: infantry, armor, etc use standard military symbols
Unit size, battalion, division, etc use the standard military symbology, xxx, III, etc
Unit stance, defense, dug in, etc as a letter code
Combat strength relative to other units in the scenario
Supply state, which could be a color-coded dot green to red

For bases:
Base size
Supply state
Damage level


For TFs:
TF size
TF type
Combat strength
Percent damage (as a color coded dot)
Show current assign route when mouse cursor is over the icon (or be able to turn on all routes)

In a single hex, the icons for the airbase, port and base and any units present should each have their separate icon in a stack where each can be selected in turn by clicking on the stack.

The rest of the detailed info could still be there in the screens as are now available in UV, but we should access these screens via a right mouse click and selecting from the a pop-up menu. I like the info bar at the bottom of the map, but for example, the bar shows a set of icons for the aircraft on a selected airbase but we need strength/damage indicators on those icons so we don't have to click on every one of them to get the info we need.

I don't want WITP to be TOAW, but I offer the TOAW icon system as an example of how we could get more key info to the player in the least amount of mouse click effort.

[Mike Scholl]

.....me in your Alpha Test Report is the seeming lack of trouble
you have in finding plenty of shipping to carry out landings in all
directions. How much shipping is the game giving you?

We know Japan owned only about 60% of the shipping she
needed to meet her pre-war requirements---the rest was moved
in "foriegn bottoms" of which 3/4ths were lost to he when the
war started.

We know that the Army and the Navy requisitioned over half
of the available shipping for use when the war began---which
led directly to Japanese production being lower in the first 3
quarters of 1942 than it had been in 1941. And put the entire
population of the Home Islands on barely adequate rationing
from the very beginning of the conflict.

We know that historically the Japanese launched their attack
in phases so that the same shipping, support, and often troops,
could be re-used in the later ones.

Yet in your example, you seem to have all the shipping you
could ever want, and no mention of production loss at home from
the loss of Manchurian, Korean, and Chinese imports. Is this
all just a reflection of the "test" nature of the alpha play? Are
there ANY restrictions/problems in your access to shipping in the
version you are reporting on? Or is all this going to be added
when the "beta" version comes out?

You are having such a good time (and we, vicariously, thru
your reports) that I almost hate to bring this up. But when does
"reality" rear up and bite all this fun on the behind?

[mogami]

Hi, The Japanese production system took a major hit early on.
I used almost the entire supply in the home Islands (Ships stopped advancing in the production system. Everyday the shipyards produce points and the days to arrival of new ships advance. This halted) You use supply to expand heavy industry and aircraft production and arms etc. This halted.(expansion already paid for took place. However there was no supply to pay for further expansion)

The shipping shortage actually is what produced the phases.
(Don't take "Japanese capture base" reports that show no loss too seriously. Most of these are a single SNLF on 1 AP that just hop from one base to the next. There were only 2 major locations for landings. Malaya and PI. And they both occured in at least 2 stages. Then the Java landings using new LCU but the same ships.
However this response is somewhat loaded. There are a lot more AP then I use for landings. I do not like to use large AP (4.5k) for assaults. They unload too slow and are worth too many points to let them be targets for so long. I confine my landings to the 1.5k AP (with a few 3k thrown in where needed) The 4.5k AP I use to transport units in safer waters between my bases.
So it would be possible to use these ships and lift more combat force to more locations then I did.

I exploited some features and not others (I did not bomb any port except PH on turn 1)

Another thing to consider with ships is if you use all of them, all the time right from the start. You will run out of ships (After 56 days of war over 100 Japanese ships are in repair yards. I send them there when system damage exceeds 10.) If there was no enemy effect at all just using the ships everyday would burn them up. I try to do the most I can using the least possible amount. I kept 1/3 of my subs and 1/3 of my transports in port.
When a damaged ship returns to the yard a replacement is sent out. The IJN however is being pushed hard currently. (I plan a vast reduction in deployed ships following this next operation.

[Mike Scholl]

The way your reports were rolling in, I was beginning to think
there was no "down side" to just "going nuts" right from the
start of the War. Now it sounds like even in the "alpha" version
at least some reality restrictions apply. It's good to know that
Matrix is keeping all the parts of the puzzle in sight while they're
working on this project.

Can't wait to hear where this "bigger than Midway" operation
is going to take you. Like I said..., this may not all be that real---
but it is really a lot of fun to hear about.

[Nikademus]

Players are free to "Go nutz" in the game, but there's no gurantee that a large monkey wrench wont get thrown into one's well oiled machinery if they dont mind their P's and Q's

For example:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/09/41

Night Time Surface Combat, near Vigan at 44,49

Japanese Ships
MSW W.7
MSW W.8
MSW W.9, Shell hits 1, on fire
MSW W.10, Shell hits 1
MSW W.17
MSW W.18
PC Kyo Maru #2
PC Kyo Maru #11
PC Kyo Maru #12
PC Kyo Maru #13
PC Shonan Maru #1
PC Shonan Maru #2
PC Ch 1
PC Ch 2
PC Ch 3
AP Burisuben Maru, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Hawaii Maru
AP Oigawa Maru
AP Sanko Maru, Shell hits 37, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Shinko Maru
AK Takao Maru

Allied Ships
DD John D. Ford
DD Paul Jones
DD Peary, Shell hits 1
DD Pillsbury, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Pope, Shell hits 5, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 64


In my case, my cyber opponent perhaps had it's mind a little too focused on the next stage of the operation which allowed me to cause it some pain with minimal resources and minimal damage in return.

Didn't get that many soldiers though, but it would have thrown a nice scare into a flesh and blood opponent

[Mike Scholl]

....the Allied "after action report" With one freighter sunk and
a second probably going down, losing only 64 troops and no
equipment sounds like the Japanese got off pretty lightly. Were
the ships already unloading and most of the contents ashore?
Otherwise, even if the men escaped, their personal and unit
equipment should have taken a nasty hit---rifles, MG's, mortars,
and such don't swim very well. What was the overall situation?

[Nikademus]

Yes, in this case, most of the troops had already landed. I was late in coming to the idea of launching a brazen attack with only 5 DD's that were sitting in Manila.

Still, it serves as an example that an opponent who stretches himself too far or too ambitiously might suffer for it. Too bad i'd sent Boise and Houston south, might have bagged a few more had i known that invasion TF was so lightly defended

How about this?

Air attack on TF, near Wake Island at 82,63


Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10


no losses

Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta
CL Yubari
CL Tenryu


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wake Island at 82,63


Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 11
SBD Dauntless x 34


Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 20 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Tenryu, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CL Tatsuta, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Yubari, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hayate

the two badly damaged CL's later sank

[madflava13]

Results are quite historical there! I assume you beefed up the air wing on your own though...

I'm sentimental about Wake Is. after reading numerous books on the battle - Like others I often make it my #1 priority to save as the Allied player. And its always the first thing I invade once I go on the offensive.

[Nikademus]

no, didn't beef up Wake (though i did set the scrappy Wildcats to naval attack)

They've missed up to this point

But the Lexington didnt


The Japanese player is going to have to cover his a$$ around Wake lest he give the USN player some free VP's worth of CL's and DD's

Granted, not hard given the power of the 1st Air Fleet, but at the very least it might tie it down for a bit and keep it from making higgidy piggidy somewhere else.

If the axiom of "hit em where they aint" had merit in UV.......its quadruple so in WitP with the entire Pacific to range across

Ironically in this scenerio the ultimate unexpected happened. The Pearl Harbor strike got scrubbed due to bad weather and the AI chose not to stick around for another shot at the base. I am now in the midst of attempting a relief operation of Wake I.

Foolish i know.....but what the hell, its ALPHA and more importantly, its fun to experiment

[Mike Scholl]

In amongst the rest of this report you've mentioned a number
of successes against the Chinese if I read it right. If that is the
case, I'm a bit confused. I thought the fact that the ground war
in China had ground to a "stalemate" in 1941 was one of the
reasons the Japanese Army was willing to go along with the
Navy's proposal to move south. That they felt cutting the Burma
Road would help convince the Chinese to give up.
From what I read, the game is allowing the Japanese (even
after pulling out men and aircraft from China for the attack on the
Western Powers) to kick the Chinese around fairly handily. They
certainly wouldn't be achieving any suprise in China---and if it
was so easy why hadn't they done it before? Seems as if 2by3
may have some "balancing" to do in this regard---or is there
another explanation I'm not seeing? Just curious.

[Subchaser]

Ground combat at 50,27 (clearing the transport lines)

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 21

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 1800

Ground combat at Jolo

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 715 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 1329 troops, 12 guns, 6 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 6

Ground combat at 51,38

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 12

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 9263
Guns lost 96

Hi Mogami

Some ground combat results you’ve posted are pretty weird. I probably know all possible in-game explanations, cause I see very comparable things in UV now, not so often, of course.

I bet that ground combat issues were already discussed, but can you please, comment it one more time. Why 800:1 kill ratio is still possible? What about artillery effectiveness in WitP, especially those heavy coastal batteries? Any new features in ground combat? Can I reassign unit? I want to use division ‘A’ with army ‘X’, if division ‘A’ is assigned to army ‘Y’ it would be logic to reassign it to army ‘X’, otherwise you would lose in combat efficiency.

Thanks in advance.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
In amongst the rest of this report you've mentioned a number
of successes against the Chinese if I read it right. If that is the
case, I'm a bit confused. I thought the fact that the ground war
in China had ground to a "stalemate" in 1941 was one of the
reasons the Japanese Army was willing to go along with the
Navy's proposal to move south. That they felt cutting the Burma
Road would help convince the Chinese to give up.
From what I read, the game is allowing the Japanese (even
after pulling out men and aircraft from China for the attack on the
Western Powers) to kick the Chinese around fairly handily. They
certainly wouldn't be achieving any suprise in China---and if it
was so easy why hadn't they done it before? Seems as if 2by3
may have some "balancing" to do in this regard---or is there
another explanation I'm not seeing? Just curious.

Tactically and operationally speaking the Japanese army always had the ability to kick around the Chinese army when they put their mind too it. The late war 44 offensive was proof enough of that.

The real question was "To what end would such offensive(s) gain the Japanese?"

China is a BIG place in WitP, and while the Japanese can still gain local superiority at their established 'lines' and supply depots, they cannot (Like PacWar) reasonably expect to reach the rear areas that the Chinese army can retreat too and operate from.

Nor is this the "hop from base to base" feature either. many land paths are available which will force the Japanese to garrison important bases and supply hubs

In the end the Army realized that the Chinese, regardless of the earlier defeats was not going to throw in the towel, leading the Japanese Army to reconsider alternative strategies.