Realistic Results: what are these things, what aren't they?

[Tristanjohn]

Following is a report from my recent PBEM play. The scenario is #14 "Hard Road Ahead" and I command the Allied side of the board.

What I'll do is present pertinent data to include the AAR, let you examine this material, then invite anyone with interest respond with his analysis of how this represents "reality" or something less than that within the context of the game and the subject it wants to simulate.

Please try to be succinct. This works and why. That doesn't work and why. In and out.

BACKGROUND: This is the fourth day of the landings at Florida and Guadacanal isalnds. The amphibious force in Lunga Roads arrived on D-Day +1.

What the AAR doesn't report is important. For the third day in a row Allied transports off Guadacanal have been shelled without mercy by a stack of Japanese CD units rushed to defend that island in anticipation of the invasion. These CD units fire twice each day, at night and during day light hours, hitting both troops and ships in the process.

The only return fire allowed to the invaders is, presumably, from the transport TFs themsmelves.

Two strong surface-combat TFs, one with a BB, both with three CAs (the TF w/o the BB also has a CL in its van) and a DD screen of ten along with a DMS.

I've checked the ammo loads for these ships following the action after each fire fight with the CDs and nothing moves in that regard, therefore I assume the system's mechanics will not allow these ships to provide support to the transports.

I've also had both TFs go over to bombardment mission with no greater result than to register a "port hit" or two and the odd troop casualty to the Japanese defenders.

Following is a list of the Allied vessels hit by CD fire over the three-day (six-impulse) periiod. Damage noted is given in the order of system/flotation/fire.

_______________________________
AK

Libra -- 44/19/18
Formalhast -- 43/16/12
Bellatrix -- 40/6/10
Beleleague -- 12/0/1

AP

Esperance Bay -- 71/30/23
Neville -- 69/31/11
Fuller -- 54/29/12
Crescent City -- 50/28/14
Ormiston -- 49/15/19
Zellin -- 48/26/8
George F. Elliott -- 31/3/4
Hunter Liggett -- 18/0/2
McCawley -- 16/4/3
President Jackson -- 16/0/2

APD

(Two APDs sustained considerable damage from CD fire but I neglected to note this. I'll try to remember to retrieve it from ingame later.)

DD

Blue -- 99/79/5
Benham -- 34/11/11

Here's the AAR:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/13/42

Weather: Clear

Sub attack at 33,36


Japanese Ships

CA Aoba
CA Chokai
CA Kinugasa


Allied Ships

SS S-47


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 35,38


Japanese Ships

CL Yubari
CA Chokai
DD Asakaze


Allied Ships

SS S-40


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39


Japanese Ships

CA Chokai
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Yubari
DD Mutsuki
DD Asakaze
DD Yunagi


Allied Ships

PT 48, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
PT 45
PT 60


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39


Japanese Ships

CA Chokai
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Yubari
DD Mutsuki
DD Asakaze
DD Yunagi


Allied Ships

PG Moa, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
PG Tui, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39


Japanese Ships

CA Chokai
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Yubari
DD Mutsuki
DD Asakaze
DD Yunagi


Allied Ships

SC 520, Shell hits 4, and is sunk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39


Japanese Ships

CA Chokai, Shell hits 13, on fire
CA Aoba, Shell hits 19, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 4
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 7
CA Kako, Shell hits 3
CL Tenryu, Shell hits 4
CL Yubari, Shell hits 3
DD Mutsuki, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asakaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Yunagi, Shell hits 9, and is sunk


Allied Ships

CA Minneapolis, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1
CA Vincennes, Shell hits 9, on fire
DD Blue, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
DD Patterson, Shell hits 1
DD Ellet, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
DD Worden, Shell hits 2
DD Dale
DMS Zane


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39


Japanese Ships

CA Chokai, Shell hits 1, on fire
CA Aoba, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Yubari
DD Mutsuki, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asakaze, on fire


Allied Ships

PT 45, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT 60, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 38,39


Japanese Ships

CA Chokai, on fire
CA Aoba, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 1
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Yubari
DD Mutsuki, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asakaze, on fire, heavy damage


Allied Ships

PG Swan, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
PG Warrego, Shell hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
PG Kiwi, Shell hits 7, and is sunk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40


Japanese ground losses:

Men lost 48

Port hits 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 36,38


Japanese Ships

CL Tenryu
CA Furutaka


Allied Ships

SS S-39


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 34,36


Japanese Ships

CA Kinugasa, Torpedo hits 1


Allied Ships

SS S-42


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Sepi at 38,38



Allied aircraft

F4F-4 Wildcat x 11
SBD Dauntless x 97
TBD Devastator x 15
TBF Avenger x 20



no losses


Japanese Ships

CA Aoba, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Mutsuki, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Sepi at 38,38



Allied aircraft

F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
SBD Dauntless x 93
TBD Devastator x 15
TBF Avenger x 21



no losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Lunga


Japanese Bombardment attack


Attacking force 2418 troops, 78 guns, 0 vehicles


Defending force 22819 troops, 216 guns, 44 vehicles




Allied ground losses:

Men lost 16


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Lunga


Allied Shock attack


Attacking force 13139 troops, 188 guns, 18 vehicles


Defending force 7397 troops, 108 guns, 0 vehicles


Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)


Allied forces CAPTURE Lunga base !!!



Japanese ground losses:

Men lost 3993
Guns lost 59


Allied ground losses:

Men lost 399


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[gus]

Hey T,

These results look pretty normal to me. I imagine you are concerned mostly with the CD results so lets focus on that. CD defense units are simply quite accurate against any ships approaching their shores both in game and IRL and this is to be exected as the approaches are all locked in as target reference points prior to the arrival of any enemy vessels. If you do not want to subject your transports to CD fire you have two choices at Lunga,

1) use bombardment TF's and LBA to reduce the base and therefore the CD batteries, the former is quite effective in this role especially if BB's are part of the TF.

2) Make your landing at Taivu or Tassaforonga and march overland to Lunga.

-g

[Tristanjohn]

Hey T,

These results look pretty normal to me. I imagine you are concerned mostly with the CD results so lets focus on that. CD defense units are simply quite accurate against any ships approaching their shores both in game and IRL and this is to be exected as the approaches are all locked in as target reference points prior to the arrival of any enemy vessels. If you do not want to subject your transports to CD fire you have two choices at Lunga,

1) use bombardment TF's and LBA to reduce the base and therefore the CD batteries, the former is quite effective in this role especially if BB's are part of the TF.

2) Make your landing at Taivu or Tassaforonga and march overland to Lunga.

Thanks for your input, Gus. (Or should I say "Bill"?:))

USN Bombardment TFs don't, as a rule, prove to be as effective as their IJN counterparts. This is another model mistake--putting a lot of fire fast on target is something the USN excelled at during the war, even in the early going. (Well, their 6-inch stuff hit mostly water as it turned out, but that was with fast CLs and DDs bucking this way and that, and even so they put of lot of that 6-inch stuff out there. When it came to blasting shore installations at no time did the USN take a back seat to anyone, and by the end of the war it was frightening.)

I always send B-17s to bomb the land units at Lunga--this is almost always with z-e-r-o effect but I make the overture.

Landing at the other beaches on Guadacanal and then marching overland to contest Lunga is not a good option. It's slow and unnecessarily attrites the troops. I do, however, always close these two bolt holes with paramarines transported in PBYs just prior to going ashore off Lunga Point.

Japanese naval air assets can swing into action, if they so choose, around the lower Solomons on 15 August. Time is critical.

The key objectives to the operation are: 1) Tulagi (A) secure the 3-level port and haven it offers to leaky ships, (B) build the port to level 4 ASAP, (C) put enough fuel in there to keep friendly surface assets in the area operational, (D) develop an airstrip so long-range CAP cover is no longer needed from Lunga; 2) secure Lunga and (A) build a 4-level strip there ASAP so as to provide adequate air cover in defense of the two islands and to serve as CAP for the second invasion echelon, (B) bring the port up to level 4 ASAP.

At base you're mistaken re CD effectiveness during WWII, especially for the Japanese. The UV model, typically, is not close to correctly modeling this. In my opinion it shouldn't even try.

There are other problems re this use of CD units as well. Let's see who spots them first.

[pasternakski]

The inability of surface forces to suppress coastal defense batteries is one of the bigger shortcomings of UV IMHO. It is particularly annoying when you are trying to invade a place that has not had years of preparation time to pour reinforced concrete, protect ammo supplies from air and naval attack, and so on.

I think the problem is that the previous designs on which UV is at least partially based never had to address this in detail. Mixing capital ships into transport TFs has never been my idea of an elegant solution, but it does work to a degree. You can also send your big ships in on bombardment missions without light escorts, so that they can sit out of range of shore-based artillery and blaze away (this is silly and ahistorical too, of course, and invites submarine and air attack).

One problem, if you don't mind my suggesting it, is that you have left multiple TFs of thin-skinned transports and weak escorts sitting stationary within range of enemy shore batteries. I would expect heavy damage to my ships to ensue from that. A certain amount of pre-invasion preparation (read: "Spruance haircut and a whole lot of aircraft-dropped ordnance") was de rigeuer in the Pacific campaign. Maybe you have the cart slightly before the horse here. Soften 'em up a little first, then bring on the Marines to build sand castles on the beach.

One thing that may be exacerbating your problem (I can't be sure, because I don't know the facts) is that your surface combat TFs may be low on ammo. I also think (though I can't verify without going back and testing it) that bombardment TFs starting with that mission assignment perform better than surface TFs that are converted to it later.

One last thing that may be afoot here, too, is lack of intel. I believe that recon helps your performance against enemy bases and associated forces in all ways, although, again, I just can't be sure and certainly can't make a definitive pronouncement on the subject.

In any event, this seems to be a genuine area of concern, I am glad you have pointed it out so effectively, and I hope that the WitP team is working on an improvement that can be retrofitted to UV.

Congratulations on capturing Lunga, by the way. Apparently, despite the shortcomings in the game system, you are able to adapt your approach to the operational arts to achieve positive results within the context of the game.

[gus]

Thanks for your input, Gus. (Or should I say "Bill"?:))

USN Bombardment TFs don't, as a rule, prove to be as effective as their IJN counterparts. This is another model mistake--putting a lot of fire fast on target is something the USN excelled at during the war, even in the early going. (Well, their 6-inch stuff hit mostly water as it turned out, but that was with fast CLs and DDs bucking this way and that, and even so they put of lot of that 6-inch stuff out there. When it came to blasting shore installations at no time did the USN take a back seat to anyone, and by the end of the war it was frightening.)

I haven't noticed this yet, for most of the game the USN doesn't have as many BB's as the IJN so maybe this is what you are experiencing. I will run some tests and see if this is the case or not.

I always send B-17s to bomb the land units at Lunga--this is almost always with z-e-r-o effect but I make the overture.

Don't discount the ability of LBA especially heavy bombers to render LCU's completely combat ineffective, the combat report may not show many KIA's but that unit can be knocked over with a feather in the land combat phase!

Landing at the other beaches on Guadacanal and then marching overland to contest Lunga is not a good option. It's slow and unnecessarily attrites the troops. I do, however, always close these two bolt holes with paramarines transported in PBYs just prior to going ashore off Lunga Point.

Yes it does take time but if you are unwilling to risk your transports in the Lunga hex it is an option. It actually does not take as long as you may think, and as you mentioned it is always a good idea to takes these hexes to cut off the IJA retreat.

Japanese naval air assets can swing into action, if they so choose, around the lower Solomons on 15 August. Time is critical.

The key objectives to the operation are: 1) Tulagi (A) secure the 3-level port and haven it offers to leaky ships, (B) build the port to level 4 ASAP, (C) put enough fuel in there to keep friendly surface assets in the area operational, (D) develop an airstrip so long-range CAP cover is no longer needed from Lunga; 2) secure Lunga and (A) build a 4-level strip there ASAP so as to provide adequate air cover in defense of the two islands and to serve as CAP for the second invasion echelon, (B) bring the port up to level 4 ASAP.

Have you considered simply landing at Irau instead. It is after all a classic application of the 'Indirect Approach', and removes many of the pitfalls of attacking Lunga/Tulagi directly. Plus Sun Tzu, Liddel Hart and Clauswitz would be so proud of you From Irau you can totally dominate Lunga, reduce it and then take it on a shoestring in time. IMO the Allies buy themselves very little by moving into the Solomons early as they are simply not capable of projecting as much power into the area as the Japanese in last 6 months of 1942.

At base you're mistaken re CD effectiveness during WWII, especially for the Japanese. The UV model, typically, is not close to correctly modeling this. In my opinion it shouldn't even try.

This is probably true IRL but is not necessarily a reflection of what they were capable of. CD units can represent anything from emplaced shore batteries to Army arty batteries assigned to task. The former being immobile I am pretty sure that UV models the latter.

There are other problems re this use of CD units as well. Let's see who spots them first.

My only real object to the way CD units are modelled in UV is that when they are transported they are immediately combat effective. They should take a few days to a week to sight in the approaches. This is probably not what you were driving at but needs to be addressed regardless.

All this being said I don't feel that CD's have ever really been a major obstacle to overcome in any of my games so maybe we are beating a dead horse?

-g

[Tristanjohn]

I haven't noticed this yet, for most of the game the USN doesn't have as many BB's as the IJN so maybe this is what you are experiencing. I will run some tests and see if this is the case or not.

What happened in the AAR is the usual case. Same deal the turn before.

I imagine this is a direct result of the low experience ratings all USN ships start the game with. If so, this is an excellent example of a model function which is not up to its work, and for various reasons. UV is just riddled with this stuff.

Don't discount the ability of LBA especially heavy bombers to render LCU's completely combat ineffective, the combat report may not show many KIA's but that unit can be knocked over with a feather in the land combat phase!

I discount nothing, I always try to use whatever assets I have that might help me achieve whatever goal's before me.

Yes it does take time but if you are unwilling to risk your transports in the Lunga hex it is an option. It actually does not take as long as you may think, and as you mentioned it is always a good idea to takes these hexes to cut off the IJA retreat.

It takes too long, Gus. Go try it.

Have you considered simply landing at Irau instead. It is after all a classic application of the 'Indirect Approach', and removes many of the pitfalls of attacking Lunga/Tulagi directly. Plus Sun Tzu, Liddel Hart and Clauswitz would be so proud of you From Irau you can totally dominate Lunga, reduce it and then take it on a shoestring in time. IMO the Allies buy themselves very little by moving into the Solomons early as they are simply not capable of projecting as much power into the area as the Japanese in last 6 months of 1942.

Irau's a good staging base but that's about all. If you can get away without developing it all the better. In two of my game's I've done just this (in conjunction with the Solomons invasion, not in lieu of it), in this one I have not yet decided.

This is probably true IRL but is not necessarily a reflection of what they were capable of.

That makes no sense. We have a very good sample of what shore batteries were capable of in WWII. Not very much is the answer, least of all in the Pacific when manned by the Japanese.

CD dates back to WWI and before that. By WWII ships and large-rifle technology had progressed to the point where these kinds of fixed emplacements were only good for target practice--usually knocked out within the first three salvos or so.

Of course that doesn't explain why the Japanese proved singularly ineffective at hitting much of anything in the first place.

The great irony, of course, was that the only effective defense in evidence at Wake was the very good use of shore batteries by the Marines in the first landing attempt.

CD units can represent anything from emplaced shore batteries to Army arty batteries assigned to task. The former being immobile I am pretty sure that UV models the latter.

It models both . . . badly.

My only real object to the way CD units are modelled in UV is that when they are transported they are immediately combat effective. They should take a few days to a week to sight in the approaches. This is probably not what you were driving at but needs to be addressed regardless.

Bingo!

More poor modeling.

I tell you, not a lot of thought was put into this project, and nowhere near enough (or good enough) testing of the game was done prior to (and now subsequent to) release.

Garbage in, garbage out.

All this being said I don't feel that CD's have ever really been a major obstacle to overcome in any of my games so maybe we are beating a dead horse?

Take another gander at the damage those CD units did to the Allied transports.

Anyway, it's just one more example of how the model is off. A feature which probably shouldn't be in the game to begin with is modeled poorly for the reason (apparently) no one understood its real-world place in the greater scheme of things. A false premise was made that CDs were effective. Only they weren't. The result must be (as it is) inaccurate/ahistoric.

[mogami]

Hi Many CD were very effective. No enemy ever tried to land under them.
Having a surface TF in the hex with the transport TF is not good enough.
You have to have counter fire ships in the transport TF's. If the CD fires a 6 inch you want a CA in the transport TF. More is better.
I question any claims that airstrikes or Naval gunfire ever fully silenced CD prior to any invasion. Anywhere. If the Japanese did not shoot at landing craft or transports it was because they did not want to.

[mogami]

Hi, I think most of us realize UV/WITP have a major problem. The problem is most of the people who will play them know what happened.
They know where and when events took place and they know why one side or the other won each battle.

There is no compelling reason in Scenarios 14 or 16 for the USA to rush to Lunga. They can wait a bit and be more organized then history.
The USA does not need to move an entire Marine Div to Lunga to capture the place. They never need to send a single AP there before the airfield is up and running. They can instead simply fast transport a Rgt and a few engineers. Send in another FT with supply and then a baseforce. After this a few fighter squadrons.

The real problem then and in UV is how to deal with the Japanese reaction. It will not be long before Heavy units of the IJN rundown to knock out the airfield. The USN CV can sit in Luganville and rest and be ready to mop up any damaged Japanese ships following a night surface battle. After a few attempts the Japanese run out of ships and Lunga is secure. The Japanese can not both fast transport troops to Lunga and fight the night actions. (It would be bad for their troop laden FT's to fight night actions. So they cannot begin running down there untill they first drive off the USN. The USN does not need to keep everything at Lunga. Irau is a nice reaction base. It can be had without a fight.
These scenarios are almost "give me's" as far as the Allied player winning.
He places his heavy bombers at Port Moresby and targets the ports of Rabaul and Shortlands. The Japanese have no safe port below Truk.

The Japanese cannot fight in both NG and the Solomon's. They can not really fight in either. This is why the Japanese players prefer scenarios 17 and 19. It appears in these scenarios that they can reduce the scenario at a later point to only fighting one battle at a time.

[gus]

Hey T,

I can see you feel strongly about this so I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. I am sure there is some validity to what you say but it has not been my experience to date.

I do whole heartedly agree that UV does not model things as well as I would like but very few games do and much of the satisfaction one derives from a game depends on how closely one's perception of the events being modelled are reflected in the game. While I enjoy playing UV it is a warts and all experience rather than absolute satisfaction.

As for marching I guess it depends on how patient one is, I have marched to take Lunga, I have marched from PM to take Buna and I have marched from Wau to seize Lae and the surrounding bases. All it takes is the will and the patience to do it.

CD and shore batteries during WWII are a mixed bag, you will always have the folks that site Wake island but that is more a reflection of Japanese arrogance than the prominence of CD units. I have to wholeheartedly disagree your claim regarding the accuracy of naval gunfire against CD as it is overly optimistic. One only has to look at Omaha beach to realize that it is easily contradicted. There are plenty of other examples but proof by contradiction works pretty well when you state a premise as an absolute

You should examine the Irau situation more closely and other islands as well as they are keys that unlock whole island chains and areas. Most players will make the mad dash for the historically significant areas but there are smaller less significant areas from which you can exert extreme pressure on the enemy like a wrestling hold. Saves ships, planes and most importantly lives. it is not the most excitig strategy in the world but it will win you a lot of games!

Remember that UV rewards the patient/opportunistic player more than the chronically aggressive. Players that charge as fast as they can towards the danger usually find themselves quite naturally in dangerous situations wondering 'what went wrong'.

Lastly, it's a game enjoy it for what it is not what you expect it to be it will make life a whole lot simpler.

Now I am going to watch the De la Hoya/Mosley fight, don't have to worry about modelling there!

Cheers

-g

[PzB74]

It's simply impossible to create a 100% perfect model!
You just can't buy a 'secure' system.....'Best practice' or trusted systems is the term most often used.

I think UV is an example of 'best practice' for its genre.
Ofcourse it is possible to improve several aspects of it. This again comes down to a question about time and money.

If the design team that work on WitP should use an extra 3 years trying to solve every single aspect that's not a 100%, they'd still end up short handed - and most likely broke!

Suggestions for improvements is importent, especially during the design phase. Later there will be a lot less resources to spend on such matter. These should be consise and on the point, it doesn't help to philosophize.

One day the code for these games might be released, like it was with Steel Panthers etc. Then enthusiasts might go ahead and try to create an even better version of the game.

Shortcomings should be met by using house rules and your own imagination. If this doesn't satisfy, then you got a problem and should probably try to find something else to spend your time on.

[Tristanjohn]

The inability of surface forces to suppress coastal defense batteries is one of the bigger shortcomings of UV IMHO. It is particularly annoying when you are trying to invade a place that has not had years of preparation time to pour reinforced concrete, protect ammo supplies from air and naval attack, and so on. I think the problem is that the previous designs on which UV is at least partially based never had to address this in detail. Mixing capital ships into transport TFs has never been my idea of an elegant solution, but it does work to a degree. You can also send your big ships in on bombardment missions without light escorts, so that they can sit out of range of shore-based artillery and blaze away (this is silly and ahistorical too, of course, and invites submarine and air attack).

My feeling as well. In a way this greater system is like the Napoleonic shovelware John Tiller's been getting by with for so long. Each successive game is just another patch on the one before it and after awhile the system is burdened with loads of dead weight and conflicting design ideas. That's what so frustrates me with Gary's work--he hasn't really gotten away from his old games, seems content to merely toy with what is now old news. Worse, as he's the only designer doing this sort of work there is no alternative, thus no upward market pressure to persuade him to do otherwise. Finally, the market just isn't as demanding as it was 15 years ago. There are fewer in the hobby who really know the history, fewer still who will demand better. The result is not hard to see, with titles like Fighting Steel completely dumbing down until the point where even diehards as myself take it back for a refund. Then the word from the publishers comes down, "See, wargames just won't sell."

It's foolishness, of course.

One problem, if you don't mind my suggesting it, is that you have left multiple TFs of thin-skinned transports and weak escorts sitting stationary within range of enemy shore batteries. I would expect heavy damage to my ships to ensue from that. A certain amount of pre-invasion preparation (read: "Spruance haircut and a whole lot of aircraft-dropped ordnance") was de rigeuer in the Pacific campaign. Maybe you have the cart slightly before the horse here. Soften 'em up a little first, then bring on the Marines to build sand castles on the beach.

I didn't buy UV to play, merely to get a peek at how WitP was likely going to look. I'm critical because without criticism there's little hope good change will happen, it'll just be Pacific War at the originally intended scale with the same old mistakes, same old misconceptions, same old and by-now-very-tiresome Japanese bias to open the game and all that.

I want something better this time.

One thing that may be exacerbating your problem (I can't be sure, because I don't know the facts) is that your surface combat TFs may be low on ammo. I also think (though I can't verify without going back and testing it) that bombardment TFs starting with that mission assignment perform better than surface TFs that are converted to it later.

Can't be low on ammo. They've only fired once, that in the bombardment phase, one time for each. At least the ones at Lunga. The SC TF at Tulagi was in combat but it hasn't been asked to shoot at anything else.

One last thing that may be afoot here, too, is lack of intel. I believe that recon helps your performance against enemy bases and associated forces in all ways, although, again, I just can't be sure and certainly can't make a definitive pronouncement on the subject.

I doubt if that's it but in any event Lunga was reconnoitered any number of times from 1 August through the 9th. By the 10th the Marines were on the ground.

In any event, this seems to be a genuine area of concern, I am glad you have pointed it out so effectively, and I hope that the WitP team is working on an improvement that can be retrofitted to UV.

Problem is there are many of these areas of concern. I run into them all the time in play, where the action just doesn't make sense any longer. And it's not a programming issue per se but rather just bad design ideas and/or, as you noted, the unfortunate legacy UV owes to the previous titles in the series.

Congratulations on capturing Lunga, by the way. Apparently, despite the shortcomings in the game system, you are able to adapt your approach to the operational arts to achieve positive results within the context of the game.

Sure, as I play it more I gain knowledge of the system quirks and adapt accordingly. That's always the case. I'd much rather have a game I could play that was more intuitive based on my knowledge of the subject.

I've my fingers crossed but I'm sure not holding my breath.

[pasternakski]

I've my fingers crossed but I'm sure not holding my breath.

Now, here we find common ground. Still, I plan to buy and enjoy WitP no matter what warts it comes with. As you have pointed out before, it's the only game in town, so I might as well like it, 'cause the basic system sure isn't going to change.

And I'm not the kind of person who spends much time whistling past the proverbial graveyard, either.

[Tristanjohn]

Now, here we find common ground. Still, I plan to buy and enjoy WitP no matter what warts it comes with. As you have pointed out before, it's the only game in town, so I might as well like it, 'cause the basic system sure isn't going to change.

The unremitting and repetitive point is: you do have a choice but you won't have a choice unless you learn to bitch! We do have the right to do that. We pay for this stuff. Companies will listen, but they need to hear the right message.

The message the company hears on this board is "What we have already is perfectly dandy with us." Is it then so surprising that nothing better forthcomes?

What I will never understand is how people, in round numbers, can, on the one hand, nod their heads and say "Yup, sure would be good if we had change," then balk at demanding that change.

Now please, Pasternakski (is that your surname?), do not take this as a personal attack . . . but that's your basic sheep syndrome at work. Right?

So what gives? Is there anyone home any more?

Hello! in there.

And I'm not the kind of person who spends much time whistling past the proverbial graveyard, either.

Well, "graveyard" impresses me an especially apt term with wargames in mind, guaranteed if the hobby continues to head in its present direction. For ten years now very little of a new or novel nature has been presented. The CMBB stuff would be an example of something original (played it?), but just look at the rest. One knockoff, one rewrite after another. (I just bothered to download the Strategic Command demo this morning. Can anyone tell me where that design--in actuality the entire game, right down to the original bugs and dysfunctionality for all I know, as the demo doesn't go very far into it--comes from? Anyone in the forum old enough to have owned the game I speak to? Do "we" get some sort of discount off full retail by sending in the old dics or manaul cover?

You get the idea.

Back to quality product:

I like the people at Matrix. They've always conducted themselves in the best possible way throughout the community. They try very hard to give their customer base the best possible support. And they succeed! (I could tell you the incredible lengths these guys went to to get my son his birthday present to him in a timely manner back in May, but it's rather beside the point and you might not believe me anyway.)

In my book Matrix is tops. A five-star outfit.

Same same for Gary. An all-round gnikcuf genius at designing fun games to play. Couldn't fault him for that. King of the computer-wargame hill.

But please try to understand these people are not your friends.

Now that doesn't mean we all can't be co-mutually "friendly" with one another, but the bald truth is these people are in business and at bottom care most of all and pretty much only about getting our money up front. That is, afterall, how they feed themselves and their families. And I've no problem there--I like to eat, too.

However.

The obverse to this transactional coin is that "we" then most assuredly have the right (I view it more as an obligation) to demand the best possible product for our money.

My problem is I know we're not getting it. Not by half. UV is a perfect example.

[pasternakski]

Well, so much for being conciliatory. "The obverse to this transactional coin"? You know, sometimes your writing just disintegrates into rubbish.

I think you mis-evaluate the situation in many respects. If the product in question were a washing machine that couldn't wash clothes, it might be a different story.

Wargames are more art than machinery. You seem to believe that code is absolutely tractable and results can always be predicted with some precision in terms of game behavior. The plain fact is that this is just not so. The concrete elements, like screens and graphics, are easy, but you have to plug them in and see when you're doing the design work. When you move on to creating subroutines and interstices that are supposed to create "realistic" behavior, you have entered a very uncertain and shifting world. For example, if you write an air combat model, you have to make certain decisions and assumptions going in. Then, you watch it work and fiddle with the various parameters until you start getting results that look like what you generally had in mind.

When you alter one element, you run the risk of completely ratf#cking another element. Often, you don't even recognize these results until somebody on your testing team (if you're lucky) or a customer on your company's Web site forum starts yelling "Bug! Bug!" or "Idiocy! Idiocy!"

Bottom line: it's way tougher than you think. For UV to work as well as it does stands as testimony to the design team's hard, competent work and the testers' and well-meaning posters' analysis and contributions.

And you call me a sheep again, I'm going medieval on your @$$.

[bilbow]

The obverse to this transactional coin is that "we" then most assuredly have the right (I view it more as an obligation) to demand the best possible product for our money.

My problem is I know we're not getting it. Not by half. UV is a perfect example.

Demand? Since when? Nowhere is it written that we have to but this product. If not enough of us think it is a good product then guess what? Matrix/2by3 won't sell enough copies and they won't be in business very long. That is their incentive to create the best possible product. Not your whining. Demand? What arrogance!

[Tristanjohn]

Well, so much for being conciliatory. "The obverse to this transactional coin"? You know, sometimes your writing just disintegrates into rubbish.

Are you still on that English rag of yours?

I think you mis-evaluate the situation in many respects. If the product in question were a washing machine that couldn't wash clothes, it might be a different story.

Wargames are more art than machinery. You seem to believe that code is absolutely tractable and results can always be predicted with some precision in terms of game behavior.

Well can't they?

The plain fact is that this is just not so.

But it is so. Code does what it's told to do. If it behaves badly than the progammer's logic must be bad. But Gary's code doesn't misbehave all the time and this isn't just about bugs. Bugs can uusually be squashed. The problem is his code works correctly in most cases only toward mistaken ends too much of the time. That's the problem.

The concrete elements, like screens and graphics, are easy, but you have to plug them in and see when you're doing the design work. When you move on to creating subroutines and interstices that are supposed to create "realistic" behavior, you have entered a very uncertain and shifting world. For example, if you write an air combat model, you have to make certain decisions and assumptions going in.

You mean like "The Japanese had better fighter planes to start the war"?

Then, you watch it work and fiddle with the various parameters until you start getting results that look like what you generally had in mind.

From what I've heard that's just the system feedback the developers have received and so many gamers who post in these forums have given them: we sure like those results.

When you alter one element, you run the risk of completely ratf#cking another element. Often, you don't even recognize these results until somebody on your testing team (if you're lucky) or a customer on your company's Web site forum starts yelling "Bug! Bug!" or "Idiocy! Idiocy!"

Bottom line: it's way tougher than you think. For UV to work as well as it does stands as testimony to the design team's hard, competent work and the testers' and well-meaning posters' analysis and contributions.

And you call me a sheep again, I'm going medieval on your @$$.

You "go" anything you want. That's on you.

"Well meaning" doesn't cut it. Knowledge and ability cuts it. Bad advice is still bad advice no matter how "well meaning."

And it isn't "tougher" than I think. Gary's been designing this same game for many years. Issues that were with us then are still with us now, and it isn't because he can't get the math right or we don't have the processing power or the graphics aren't up to snuff or anything similar. It's because he's using the same mistaken premises to base his model on today that he used to begin with, premises that didn't work any better then than they work now with regard to results.

I agree playtesting is an issue, but that's on Gary, too. The people who test his product are people he has chosen to associate himself with. Besides, I've been there as a tester for his product and know for a fact that much of what's wrong today was identically wrong then and for the same reason and he was told about it then, oh, very yes he was told, and still it wasn't changed.

[Tristanjohn]

Demand? Since when?

Since forever. In free markets.

Nowhere is it written that we have to but this product. If not enough of us think it is a good product then guess what? Matrix/2by3 won't sell enough copies and they won't be in business very long. That is their incentive to create the best possible product. Not your whining. Demand? What arrogance!

Your premise is Matrix/2by3 will simply go out of business if this game doesn't sell.

That's a convolution of bad logic.

It would be the same to say Ford would go out of business if we didn't buy their Pintos back in the 70s. Well guess what? We didn't buy Pintos back in the 70s, we bought Honda Civics instead. And guess what again? Ford didn't go out of business. Ford did stop building crummy Pintos, though.

You could use a shot of confidence, Billbow, and a course in Economics 101.

[mogami]

Hi, I'm fairly certain TJ has a thing against Japanese pilots being rated over 30.

WITP Starting Japanese ratings
AI-1/AII-1/BI-1/BII-1 84 A6M2 84 pilots Avg Exp 90 (1x99)
Shokaku and Zuikaku groups are Avg Exp 80

So the claim is these 84 pilots totaly ruin the game.

IJA pilots avg rating is 60 (The highest rated Army pilot I've found so far is 70)

There are 100 land based A6M2 pilots Avg rating 80.

I think this is what upsets TJ.

TJ won't you let us know what you think the ratings should be?



Edit: more info
VF-2 AE 75
VF-3 AE 75
VF-6 AE 77

US Army groups are over all rated higher then IJA groups (many pilots in high 70's where the highest IJA pilot found was a 70

Dutch airgroups higher then IJA. British groups higher then IJA.

Aircraft
The Zero is not better all around compared to any Allied fighter in 41
it is only more manoverable.

A6M2 35/0/22/12 (man/armor/Durability/gun value)
Ki-27 30/0/23/4
Ki-43-1b 35/0/23/4
F4F-3 33/1/29/12
F4F-4 32/1/29/18
P39D 29/1/32/18
P40B 31/1/29/12
P40E 31/1/29/18
Buffalo 30/1/28/8
CW-21b 31/0/26/10
Hawk-75 30/1/28/12

Also the Japanese IJA do not have range enough before Japan captures bases. So the 100 Landbased Zero pilots have to do it all.

The net result is Zeros are harder to get shots at. They do not always shoot down AC they get shots on but any Allied AC that gets a shot is likely to shoot down the Zero. I'm going to track the Zero pilots from Dec 7 41 to May 1 42. I'll do the same with USN CV pilots and Army/RAF/RAAF/RNAF pilots. (going to be a really slow game)

[mogami]

Hi, After further study.
Pilots are generated on turn 1 by random using the numeric value assigned in data base for group experience.

If group assigned 90 starting avg exp pilots will range from 99 to 81
(on some starts I find quite a few Japanese 99's spread between the 12 Airgroups (Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu)(Since Zuikaku and Shokau are 80's their high and lows are 89-71)

There are a few Allied groups with Avg Exp of 50 (PI and West Coast)
I think the PI group should be raised to level equal with other USAAF groups (60-66)

Dutch and other Allies range from 60-65 There are a few Australian groups in 50's

Japanese Army groups are overall 5 points lower then Allied groups.
Japanese Navy Groups are between 10 and 25 points higher. (then Allied and USAAF) They are 13-15 points higher then USN.

[Hornblower]

That seems about right to me, at least in my opinion. Remember the IJN had 4 years of combat experience prior to December 7th, while other then the Flying Tigers and the Eagle Squadron no American unit had combat experience. Historically it was a small number of very good pilots in their A6M's that worked there way down south east Asia that gained and held air superiority. Just as every German tank wasn't a Tiger, every IJN pilot isn't a Sakai.