17th army, what the...

[mogami]

Hi, Since all his complaints are about Japanese advantage or poor Allied results I would play the Allied side.

He would have to show that

1. He needed AV turned off
2. He can move units around with ease and still be effective

He only plays Lemurs version so he can't complain about upgrades or production. I wonder does Lemurs version leave the non exist rd factories in Japan? (You know the ones that exist for the AI)

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, So you admit that you moved troops to Lae and they are in no condition to do anything but occupy empty bases. Where is that a problem? Please play me PBEM. Then AAR results we both use will be common and I can show that "exploits" have their draw backs.
I don't think moving Japanese units between HQ is an exploit and I don't think I have said as much. I think you are saying it is an exploit or just too easy. Moving unready troops is not an advantage except for empty bases and who cares?

Moving large, un-prepped Japanese troops in the Japanese conquest phase is too easy and an exploit. Even unprepped troops can take almost any Allied position in the game at that point. I took Java by mid March without a single prep point for any unit! Half my PI Inf troops had 0 Prep for Manila, Clark or Bataan before I took them. I can take Port Morseby with EASE with those very same PI divisions with NO prep at all! Even in the bad shape they are in! It's all way too EASY! The current implementation of the Prep point system, by itself, is simply not good enough to slow down this UNREALISTIC movement scale to a more reasoned, realistic level.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Tophat

I always "prep" my troops.....often i start loading them immediatly,but I always use "prep" if they are going to a specific destination.I do this as a rule so i won't forget to do this when it counts.

1,2,5,10 prep points don't count. That level of "prep" doesn't usually amount to much of a factor in combat. Maybe if the game REQUIRED a minimum of 50 or 75 Prep points before allowing a landing or attack on a major position or something, at least players would be FORCED to slow things down to a more REALISTIC pace of action.

I think there is broad and general consensus that land combat operations are all allowed to proceed at too fast a pace. THis is just one of them. The very reason they had to provide screwwy Allied OOBs with phantom divisions early is as a counter to unhistoric Japanese "friskiness" inthe South Pacific, because the game allows too great a movement ease with LCUs.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

You continually make the WRONG assumption that players play the game the way YOU play it. YOU don't see many of these things in YOUR play so you assume, always INCORRECTLY, they are not a problem. Most don't play YOUR way, many NEVER will. When players eventually prove their results you always fall back on the tired old "exploitation" issue. You were wrong on the prodution/research/upgrade issue, wrong on the surface combat issue, wrong on the auto-victory issue, and you are wrong,

Hi, I don't continually assume that people must play like I do. They can play however they wish. If you know doing something is a problem and yet you do it regardless thats not the games fault. The game provides the tools to have a balanced fun game with plausable results. It also allows "crazy" play if thats what you want with less plausable results.

I don't know why or how you are keeping your score but you are WRONG! I never made any comments about research production or upgrades other then that they exist the way they do for the AI. That is still true. So minus one from your score card. (I guess that means I get the point right?)
The surface combat issue I was not wrong and the changes made reflect my version of the problem not yours. (Minus 2)
I never opposed AV once again pointing out that it exists for AI and that most people will never encounter AV prior to 1945 and that it is the system designed for ending the game is not opposing someone not useing it. (minus 3)

So it appears to me you are wrong....AGAIN

See this is the very problem I am talking about HOW you go about determining what IS and IS NOT a problem! This statement is FUNDEMENTALLY wrong:

"If you know doing something is a problem and yet you do it regardless thats not the games fault."

That is a RIDICULOUS statement to make. EVERYTHING that has to do with ANY problems observed byt he users IS the GAME'S FAULT, either in design, programming, or proper documention. But either way, it IS the GAME's fault 100% of the time.

Face it, Moggo, you and I come from completely DIFFERENT planets and when it comes to problem analysis we are diametrically opposed and ALWAYS will be. I've been doing the software stuff for over 20 years as a profession. YOu've been wrong on almost every major design issue users have defined and the developers have sided against you and with the users each time. And that is because of the WAY you go about determining what is and is not a problem.

[mogami]

Hi, Not against a human you can't. Against the AI it is simple. If you think it is wrong (or too easy) don't do it. Against a human if you do it you will find out why you shouldn't. The losses units take reflect their readiness for that objective. The combat values used reflect the readiness level. Certainly you can dump a huge number of unprepared troops on a base and take it but the loss you suffer will be high. It is not up to the game to decide if it is worth it or not. I think you are saying that neither player should be allowed to load troops unless they are above a certain readiness. Well it makes sense to operate that way but it is not mandatory. The Japanese payer can flog his forces from the start and produce rapid results. Among these results will be the the premature decline of his forces. However it might appear spectacular for a while.
I don't think you give enough time for the game to balance out. At the first sign of trouble there is a post about a problem. How on earth can a designer program a game that some player cannot do silly things with?
Take all the empty bases you want with 0 readiness troops. Make all the attacks you want with 0 readiness troops. The troops I use in Malaya and PI are not ready for those battles. I have them preparing for objectives that I think will be better defended or those that my units will have to defend against prepared enemy forces.

Try landing an unprepared force onto a dug in prepared force on an Atoll. (One easy test is to change the compostion of the Wake invasion force on turn 1. Send the prepared unit with more supporting ships. And then using the same supporting ships send a unit of same size with 0 prep)

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Not against a human you can't. Against the AI it is simple. If you think it is wrong (or too easy) don't do it. Against a human if you do it you will find out why you shouldn't. The losses units take reflect their readiness for that objective. The combat values used reflect the readiness level. Certainly you can dump a huge number of unprepared troops on a base and take it but the loss you suffer will be high. It is not up to the game to decide if it is worth it or not. I think you are saying that neither player should be allowed to load troops unless they are above a certain readiness. Well it makes sense to operate that way but it is not mandatory. The Japanese payer can flog his forces from the start and produce rapid results. Among these results will be the the premature decline of his forces. However it might appear spectacular for a while.
I don't think you give enough time for the game to balance out. At the first sign of trouble there is a post about a problem. How on earth can a designer program a game that some player cannot do silly things with?
Take all the empty bases you want with 0 readiness troops. Make all the attacks you want with 0 readiness troops. The troops I use in Malaya and PI are not ready for those battles. I have them preparing for objectives that I think will be better defended or those that my units will have to defend against prepared enemy forces.

Try landing an unprepared force onto a dug in prepared force on an Atoll. (One easy test is to change the compostion of the Wake invasion force on turn 1. Send the prepared unit with more supporting ships. And then using the same supporting ships send a unit of same size with 0 prep)

Now on that point I can agree. I haven't played long enough to see the effect over year out in advance. However, say taking PM with unprepped PI troops some two to three short weeks after the fall of the PI results in completely decimated, "flogged" troops, or just rampaging on into Summatra and Java with no PREPS in the same fashion results in seriously damaged formations, my main concern, in the year it is going to take Allies to muster their larger counter forces, my "flogged" troops are going to reconstitute. With a/c you have the "flogging" resulting in irreplacable pilots, with LCUs I don't see the same long term detrimental effect? After a six month to a year of sitting in PM those four inf divisions with good supply and HQ units in support and good air cover I imagine those divisions will be in pretty good shape by the time the Allies get around to doing something.

The system is well suited to the Allied offensive. I can see where Allies must proceed very deliberately with high prep and all the other tenants of proper offensive operations. But they are facing large, highly experienced, well fortified troops in oppositions. the Japs are facing small, inexperience, mostly poorly fortified and unprepared opposition and doing so, so quicky, that even without prep they have more than enough time to recover from their initial "flogging".

[Mr.Frag]

Zoomie, I love your logic.

You are basically stating when you remove all the fluff the following:

I can use a old rusty shotgun to kill a bug instead of using a fly swatter.

Mogami is saying:

Duh ... but you could also use a fly swatter and it would be more cost effective.


I think you'll see the logic here ...

You only have so many shotgun shells and if you use them all to deal with the little bugs, what do you plan on using when the bear shows up? Had you saved the shotgun shells for the bear and used the fly swatter instead, you'd be ready for the bear.

As is, lucky bear! You are shooting blanks [:D]

You can point out that it is a bug as much as you want. It is not a bug and it *will* catch up with you sooner or later when those *properly* *prepared* Allied divisions come along and *stomp* your weakened unprepared Japanese divisions.

Tossing around divisions uses fuel and supplies and ships wastefully when all that is needed is a couple of small AP's to bring in an small unit. You have a finite income of fuel and supplies. Once you use them up, they are gone for good. You are playing like there is no tomorrow. There is.

[mogami]

Face it, Moggo, you and I come from completely DIFFERENT planets and when it comes to problem analysis we are diametrically opposed and ALWAYS will be. I've been doing the software stuff for over 20 years as a profession. YOu've been wrong on almost every major design issue users have defined and the developers have sided against you and with the users each time. And that is because of the WAY you go about determining what is and is not a problem.

Hi, Why do you keep saying this? It is not a battle between Me the design team and the posters. There is more of me in WITP then there will ever be of you but this does not mean I decide what goes into WITP or what changes.
Unless you are somehow impling that only your opinion matters. I think you often make statements like "the majortiy of players ahgree with me" that are not based in fact. (The majority of players have never heard of you and they don't listen to me)

To make it easy for you.

I have never been wrong on a single design issue. I don't make design changes or decide what changes or how so I can't be wrong about them. And since you do not either you can't be right. There has never been a single change made to WITP that bothered me.

That you seem to enjoy posting where I am wrong is clear but at least do it right and don't invent cases.

I have never posted a single "Don't change that" If you read the surface thread again and read it to understand my posts you will clearly see a person trying to understand the problem. Before a problem can be addressed it has to be defined. And saying it is "wrong" is not defining it. Before you arrived into that thread much progress had been made. Nothing you posted helped solve the problem in the slightest way so whatever victory might be claimed by another is an open question but nothing was changed because of YOU.

I do not enjoy fighting over BS issues on the forums. I don't like persons who do not know what they are talking about making posts and then refusing to provide help in fixing their alledged problems.
It is clear you don't know what you are talking about because you keep presenting this "Mogami versu Zoomie (or public at large) " aspect to improving or fixing the game.
1. Mogami does not decide what is changed.
2. Mogami does not decide how players use the product

If I say how I use the product and what results it gives me and a player does not care to incorperate it that is not my problem or concern.

I don't give a hoot what crappy results you get from your crappy play. Just don't keep saying that your results are more valid then mine. Understand? And when you want to change something you are not convincing me but the designers. Just as when I wish something changed I don't need to try to convince you. There is no score between Mogami and Zoomie because there is no contest. Neither of us matter. You keep posting that I am wrong and you are scoring points if the game is changed. I do not now, have not in the past oppose any change to the program. I only post so I can understand the problem. Insure readers of the forum understand the problem. I do not post polls or say "vote for me"
That in problem analysis we are diametrically opposed and ALWAYS will be is your choice not mine. You appear to me to enjoy it and think you are somehow scoring points. I do not believe you have ever understood my point of view. I don't think you even attampt to do so but read everything I post just to find your little "Mogami is wrong" nuggets. Well you've always been wrong. Because your starting point is wrong.
This is an open forum. Every member is allowed to post their point of view. The designers make the call and if they change something it is only because players request it, they can do it. and they agree with it.
ALl of the things I posted, questioned suggested occured in the private forum so you have no clue to what I oppose or agree with.

When I say "I don't get those results" That is me saying "I don't get those results" It is not me saying you don't get the results. I explain how I get mine. And then I try to understand what we are doing different and I always get "Mogami why are you defending the game" or "Mogami why are you oppsoed to change" Only someone looking for a fight would see it that way. It is simply I am trying to understand and get a poster to more carefully define the process involved that is yielding the results they question.

Why? Because I am a tester. Plain and simple. No matter what I have to go look and present findings to the designers/programmers. To do this I have to know exactly what is being discussed and you have never yet in any example you quote as one of your victories provided anything I could use except your score card. Post your opinion. Leave my name out of it it is not between you and I.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Face it, Moggo, you and I come from completely DIFFERENT planets and when it comes to problem analysis we are diametrically opposed and ALWAYS will be. I've been doing the software stuff for over 20 years as a profession. YOu've been wrong on almost every major design issue users have defined and the developers have sided against you and with the users each time. And that is because of the WAY you go about determining what is and is not a problem.

Hi, Why do you keep saying this? It is not a battle between Me the design team and the posters. There is more of me in WITP then there will ever be of you but this does not mean I decide what goes into WITP or what changes.
Unless you are somehow impling that only your opinion matters. I think you often make statements like "the majortiy of players ahgree with me" that are not based in fact. (The majority of players have never heard of you and they don't listen to me)

To make it easy for you.

I have never been wrong on a single design issue. I don't make design changes or decide what changes or how so I can't be wrong about them. And since you do not either you can't be right. There has never been a single change made to WITP that bothered me.

That you seem to enjoy posting where I am wrong is clear but at least do it right and don't invent cases.

I have never posted a single "Don't change that" If you read the surface thread again and read it to understand my posts you will clearly see a person trying to understand the problem. Before a problem can be addressed it has to be defined. And saying it is "wrong" is not defining it. Before you arrived into that thread much progress had been made. Nothing you posted helped solve the problem in the slightest way so whatever victory might be claimed by another is an open question but nothing was changed because of YOU.

I do not enjoy fighting over BS issues on the forums. I don't like persons who do not know what they are talking about making posts and then refusing to provide help in fixing their alledged problems.
It is clear you don't know what you are talking about because you keep presenting this "Mogami versu Zoomie (or public at large) " aspect to improving or fixing the game.
1. Mogami does not decide what is changed.
2. Mogami does not decide how players use the product

If I say how I use the product and what results it gives me and a player does not care to incorperate it that is not my problem or concern.

I don't give a hoot what crappy results you get from your crappy play. Just don't keep saying that your results are more valid then mine. Understand? And when you want to change something you are not convincing me but the designers. Just as when I wish something changed I don't need to try to convince you. There is no score between Mogami and Zoomie because there is no contest. Neither of us matter. You keep posting that I am wrong and you are scoring points if the game is changed. I do not now, have not in the past oppose any change to the program. I only post so I can understand the problem. Insure readers of the forum understand the problem. I do not post polls or say "vote for me"
That in problem analysis we are diametrically opposed and ALWAYS will be is your choice not mine. You appear to me to enjoy it and think you are somehow scoring points. I do not believe you have ever understood my point of view. I don't think you even attampt to do so but read everything I post just to find your little "Mogami is wrong" nuggets. Well you've always been wrong. Because your starting point is wrong.
This is an open forum. Every member is allowed to post their point of view. The designers make the call and if they change something it is only because players request it, they can do it. and they agree with it.
ALl of the things I posted, questioned suggested occured in the private forum so you have no clue to what I oppose or agree with.

When I say "I don't get those results" That is me saying "I don't get those results" It is not me saying you don't get the results. I explain how I get mine. And then I try to understand what we are doing different and I always get "Mogami why are you defending the game" or "Mogami why are you oppsoed to change" Only someone looking for a fight would see it that way. It is simply I am trying to understand and get a poster to more carefully define the process involved that is yielding the results they question.

Why? Because I am a tester. Plain and simple. No matter what I have to go look and present findings to the designers/programmers. To do this I have to know exactly what is being discussed and you have never yet in any example you quote as one of your victories provided anything I could use except your score card. Post your opinion. Leave my name out of it it is not between you and I.

You get hung up on the implementation details aspect of problem resolution. We have little or no knowledge of those nor do we nor should we really care. We just see results. And you get particularly hung up on these design flaw issues that simply cannot be fixed using a single save game file or even 20 of them. These are things that players observe only over the LONG term play. They are TENDANCIES that can only be reproduced by playing the game for months worth of turns, many times. Just like there appeared to be a TENDANCY for daytime surface combat between unprotected transports and surface combat to be a bit screwy. No one event proved the problem, only dozens of events that showed a tendancy towards bad results in similar conditions. Same with land combat.

There is a general consensus that the whole thing proceeds too rapidly. No one single thing. No one save game file will show it. No one players run through a scenerio will show it. Only some aggregate observation of 100, 200 games thousands of turns, mutiple scenarios taken over MONTHS of real time leads one to observe that trend. It can't be proven by one players save game file. It can't be countered by your personal play history. It is just a GENERAL SENSE, arrived at only by following the forum since game release, and seeing a consistant set of threads claiming that land combat, actually operations in general, seem to progress a bit too fast. I have no idea how to fix that, if the developers come to that same conclusion. That's not my problem, it is yours. But this thread is just another in that vein. Stuff seems to just happen a bit too fast. And that's as specific as I'm going to get, because that;s as precise as I can get with the problem statement.

And again, that is from a observations from almost exclusively players playing in Phase I of the game (the Japanese conquest). We have yet to have a significant body of data from 100's of players reaching Phases II (stalemate phase) and III( Allied re-conquest).

You seem to also let your emotional attachment to the game and your personal time investment in it cloud your judgement from time to time. It makes you extremely defensive at times....

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Zoomie, I love your logic.

You are basically stating when you remove all the fluff the following:

I can use a old rusty shotgun to kill a bug instead of using a fly swatter.

Mogami is saying:

Duh ... but you could also use a fly swatter and it would be more cost effective.


I think you'll see the logic here ...

You only have so many shotgun shells and if you use them all to deal with the little bugs, what do you plan on using when the bear shows up? Had you saved the shotgun shells for the bear and used the fly swatter instead, you'd be ready for the bear.

As is, lucky bear! You are shooting blanks [:D]

You can point out that it is a bug as much as you want. It is not a bug and it *will* catch up with you sooner or later when those *properly* *prepared* Allied divisions come along and *stomp* your weakened unprepared Japanese divisions.

Tossing around divisions uses fuel and supplies and ships wastefully when all that is needed is a couple of small AP's to bring in an small unit. You have a finite income of fuel and supplies. Once you use them up, they are gone for good. You are playing like there is no tomorrow. There is.

Be that as it may, this game is just like any other game, number crunching. What difference does it make if I use a X amount of resources in three months or drag it out over six months? I'm still using X resources. All players are going to move those PI divsions somewhere, eventually. 3 0 Prep inf divisions taking PM with those original tiny Aussie units there will not suffer significantly more damage than 3 100 prep divisions doing the same. In the end, I'm going have those three divisions where I planned to have them from day one, prepped or not. And they get there with one move. A convoy from Manila to NG. The end result be the same by the time the Allies can fight back.

My whole point is the game mechanics should be gently forcing the Japaneese play more towards teh six month time line than the three month one, if indeed, as you guys say, this is a HISTORICAL SIMULATION, and not a game.

Game has been out about 3 month now. The bulk of players playing PBEM games have barely made it through the Japan conquest phase of the game. That also represnets a lot of the AI players too. So what's the bell curve of major results look like so far? Go look at all those AAR's. If this was, indeed, an HISTORICAL simulation, as all you testers and designers claim it to be, one would expect the results, taken in aggregate, to form a bell curve of results that generally resembled history. But what do we see???? Mainly in PBEM games between smart, experienced gamers. Singapore falls by Jan 20 +- a few days. Bataan and the PI falls some time in early to mid Feb give or take a week or so. SRA is largely complete by most by late March. Most players, even against the very best Allied players manage to cut the Burma road by March. Solomons often by late Feb, no later than March. And most AAR's I read Port Morseby is hopeless to defend against a top notch Japanese player.

Compare that to history? Stuff just seems to move a bit too fast. One will expect a FEW outlandish results, but the mean should be roughly hisotric if this is indeed a HISTORIC SIMULATION. The only AAR's that seem to me to resemble history are those Allied Humans playing the AI!

[Mr.Frag]

There is a general consensus that the whole thing proceeds too rapidly.

By who? You? You're the General? [8|]

Things happen as fast as the player wants them to. Massive stockpiles of goods exist when the game starts. You can make them last 190 days or you can go nuts and burn through them in 30 days.

The economy of Japan is completely governed by Oil import after you burn through the starting stockpile.

Oil = Supplies and Fuel, Oil = replacement planes, grunts and ships, Oil = new planes, grunts and ships

You can play any way you want. Once you break the bank, it is broken. There is no recovery. Those who plan ahead will have enough, those who do not plan ahead will be a cakewalk for the Allies to sweep off the map.

You want to be wasteful in your use of your finite resources, that is entirely your choice. You continue to come back to this silly position of "the game should prevent me for being silly and squandering my resources".

Why? You are the Commander. It is your job, not the games.

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Compare that to history? Stuff just seems to move a bit too fast. One will expect a FEW outlandish results, but the mean should be roughly historic if this is indeed a HISTORIC SIMULATION. The only AAR's that seem to me to resemble history are those Allied Humans playing the AI!

I would not expect that at all. I would expect the IJN player to take it all faster than it historically happened, because they know what Japan didn't. They know where they can attack with less, where they need to attack with more, they know about subs and their effect ( *I&*^&*^* DUTCH subs!), they know when and where units will appear, how good the opposition is, etc. Certainly, the allies can move things around some, but the SRA is largely a known entity at game start.

I am uncertain about the issue of whether it is too fast or too slow. What I am certain about is that a more open-ended, variable OOB would make things more interesting.

[Mr.Frag]

Compare that to history? Stuff just seems to move a bit too fast.

Ah, so you want to play WWII the movie and have it run exactly as it did then.

EVERY single game played in EVERY AAR has involved a minimum of DOUBLE the forces used historically.

Applying your logic: Sorry folks, you can't play the game that way. You are not really in command of your troops.

You expect a historical result with double the assets used? That would simply show the game is *completely* broken.

What difference does it make if I use a X amount of resources in three months or drag it out over six months? I'm still using X resources.

What difference does it make? It makes a huge difference. You have a *FINITE* number of resources. It is not about using the same amount over a longer period of time. It is about using the MINIMUM amount to produce the desired goal MAXIMIZING the amount of FINITE resources you have left over after achieving the goal.

[mogami]

Hi, You confuse me. On the one hand you say it requires many turns and many games to form a judgement. But then using only your limited experiance and a few other posts point out problems. But then you say the problems are just "feel" but want a change based on this and when the poor tester asks for details you say "it's not my job to provide data"
Of course events in Phase I occur faster. That is no surprise to me. It is the whole idea players who run Japan operate under. That they can move faster, and farther.
You never allow for nature to run it's course. Yes the Japanese can (and could have) moved faster and farther but there are reasons they did not. Some of these are simply hindsight issues. Players think they know what bases will later become important and so they rush to take them. The war will not follow the historic course in phase I.
However around March 42 reality will set in and players will learn some of the reasons Japan moved at t aslower pace. The Allied operations in phase III will also move faster.
Where we appear to differ in opinion is you expres a need for the game to limit speed and I believe that logistics will do it. Over extension will bring with it penalties without the game saying "no that unit is not ready you cannot load it on a transport and move it to where it will become isolated you idiot"

I have 0 emontional attachment to WITP when it comes to any changes. Let me say it one more time.
I only present how the game plays when it is used as designed. It cannot provide a full range of outcomes covering every concievable play style however it MUST generate plausable results when used as designed. All restrictions to limit player style and choices carry over and change the results produced when used as designed.
My only objections occur when players post results from silly play and try to use them as examples of the games failures. No if you do silly things you will not get good results. I maintain that the results produced are plausable given the silly actions that initiated them.
When the games produces results that are questionable under normal conditions I am first in line to find out why and correct it. Before I can tell however I ask a lot of questions.

After I present my case I go on. I don't care what is changed or not changed. I don't post for people looking to find fault in every detail or who or out to score points. I just make sure that anyone who desires the game to function better understands how to use it. I don't give a hoot if that is important to you personally because I am sure there is at least one forum reader who reads my post and says "I didn't know that"

You love phrases like "there is a general concensus" Where?
Read the PBEM AAR. There are examples of the SRA going down faster then history. There are examples of SRA going down slower then history. There are examples of Japanese suffering light loss. Of Japanese suffering extremely heavy loss.
There are very few examples of Japanese having a 4 to 1 ratio in VP in mid 1942.
Even with extreme liberal Japanese turn 1's they still face the historic problems of logistics. Nothing can change that. Logistics will limit the Japanese and there are no rules required in my opinion. If such rules are introduced I will conform to them so what? I doubt they will have much impact on my operations. If they curtail yours, again I don't care.
You seem to interpet other posters presenting their experiance as some kind of challange to you. It's not intended as such. In order to make informed desicions concerning changes to program the designers need to have all the detail they can be given.

If 3 players report a problem and 7 report no problem under the same circumstance that does not mean there is not a problem only that the problem does not occur 100 percent of the time. After that they need to understand why in those 3 games the problem occured.
This hunt is not personal. Stop taking it that way.

You do understand that long before the game was released I began reporting problems?
I have been reporting problems as I find them and as I understand them. Perhaps KID will provide with the number if he cares to.
I have never accepted the results without question. I just don't post my problems on the forum. Where ever a poster reports a problem I check to see if I can duplicate it. If not then I report that and ask the poster for a file. Other testers also go test and when they get the same problem they report it. There is not a goal line stand by the testers to oppose change. We lead the charge. No matter how many problems you post as "feelings" nothing is changed unless the testers can verify it and how it occurs. The fact that you "win" your changes without providing any files or data shows the testers actually go into detail to find out if those feelings are valid. A change in the program means the testers agree with you not they are opposed. It would be impossible to fix or change anything with stubborn emontionally attached testers. We are on your side. We play the same game. Don't make it out to be some personal test of wills. I only object to when it is presented in that manner. You can't win without me. (or other testers) You only win when a tester proves the point. No amount of posts without data with out tests will ever result in a change.
It is every bit as important to know how every set of results are obtained as it is to know that problem results occur.
The only general consenus I am aware of is that the work is not yet done. I have never said it was. I have for the umpteeth time never opposed a single change to WITP. My job it so test such changes, verify how problems are generated. I don't make the rules. I test them. OK?

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You confuse me. On the one hand you say it requires many turns and many games to form a judgement. But then using only your limited experiance and a few other posts point out problems. But then you say the problems are just "feel" but want a change based on this and when the poor tester asks for details you say "it's not my job to provide data"
Of course events in Phase I occur faster. That is no surprise to me. It is the whole idea players who run Japan operate under. That they can move faster, and farther.
You never allow for nature to run it's course. Yes the Japanese can (and could have) moved faster and farther but there are reasons they did not. Some of these are simply hindsight issues. Players think they know what bases will later become important and so they rush to take them. The war will not follow the historic course in phase I.
However around March 42 reality will set in and players will learn some of the reasons Japan moved at t aslower pace. The Allied operations in phase III will also move faster.
Where we appear to differ in opinion is you expres a need for the game to limit speed and I believe that logistics will do it. Over extension will bring with it penalties without the game saying "no that unit is not ready you cannot load it on a transport and move it to where it will become isolated you idiot"

I have 0 emontional attachment to WITP when it comes to any changes. Let me say it one more time.
I only present how the game plays when it is used as designed. It cannot provide a full range of outcomes covering every concievable play style however it MUST generate plausable results when used as designed. All restrictions to limit player style and choices carry over and change the results produced when used as designed.
My only objections occur when players post results from silly play and try to use them as examples of the games failures. No if you do silly things you will not get good results. I maintain that the results produced are plausable given the silly actions that initiated them.
When the games produces results that are questionable under normal conditions I am first in line to find out why and correct it. Before I can tell however I ask a lot of questions.

After I present my case I go on. I don't care what is changed or not changed. I don't post for people looking to find fault in every detail or who or out to score points. I just make sure that anyone who desires the game to function better understands how to use it. I don't give a hoot if that is important to you personally because I am sure there is at least one forum reader who reads my post and says "I didn't know that"

You love phrases like "there is a general concensus" Where?
Read the PBEM AAR. There are examples of the SRA going down faster then history. There are examples of SRA going down slower then history. There are examples of Japanese suffering light loss. Of Japanese suffering extremely heavy loss.
There are very few examples of Japanese having a 4 to 1 ratio in VP in mid 1942.
Even with extreme liberal Japanese turn 1's they still face the historic problems of logistics. Nothing can change that. Logistics will limit the Japanese and there are no rules required in my opinion. If such rules are introduced I will conform to them so what? I doubt they will have much impact on my operations. If they curtail yours, again I don't care.
You seem to interpet other posters presenting their experiance as some kind of challange to you. It's not intended as such. In order to make informed desicions concerning changes to program the designers need to have all the detail they can be given.

If 3 players report a problem and 7 report no problem under the same circumstance that does not mean there is not a problem only that the problem does not occur 100 percent of the time. After that they need to understand why in those 3 games the problem occured.
This hunt is not personal. Stop taking it that way.

You do understand that long before the game was released I began reporting problems?
I have been reporting problems as I find them and as I understand them. Perhaps KID will provide with the number if he cares to.
I have never accepted the results without question. I just don't post my problems on the forum. Where ever a poster reports a problem I check to see if I can duplicate it. If not then I report that and ask the poster for a file. Other testers also go test and when they get the same problem they report it. There is not a goal line stand by the testers to oppose change. We lead the charge. No matter how many problems you post as "feelings" nothing is changed unless the testers can verify it and how it occurs. The fact that you "win" your changes without providing any files or data shows the testers actually go into detail to find out if those feelings are valid. A change in the program means the testers agree with you not they are opposed. It would be impossible to fix or change anything with stubborn emontionally attached testers. We are on your side. We play the same game. Don't make it out to be some personal test of wills. I only object to when it is presented in that manner. You can't win without me. (or other testers) You only win when a tester proves the point. No amount of posts without data with out tests will ever result in a change.
It is every bit as important to know how every set of results are obtained as it is to know that problem results occur.
The only general consenus I am aware of is that the work is not yet done. I have never said it was. I have for the umpteeth time never opposed a single change to WITP. My job it so test such changes, verify how problems are generated. I don't make the rules. I test them. OK?

Every comment I've read concerning the pace of action anywhere in the forum concerns the rapidity of action. Bases build to fast. Singapore and Bataan fall too quickly. Solomons are gone before the first SOPAC ground unit even arrives, ships repair too fast, Allied ASW wipes out all Jap subs before April 42, on and on and on...the all have a common thread...stuff proceeds too fast, or at least our experience to date indicates it does. This isn't A PROBLEM. It is a GENERAL PERCEPTION that may have at its root a problem somewhere in the details of the implementation.

I point you to the threads entitled "When did your Singapore fall" "When did your Bataan fall", etc.... for the proof that things seem highly accelerated. They are proceeding rapidly, as Frag states, because people are using DOUBLE or more the forces historically used. Why are they using them? Because the game LETS THEM, without penalty, that's why! Is that wrong? I think it is, you think it is not. End of that story line.

As I've stated, we don't have a large body of information about how all these rapid Japanese advances almost everybody experiences is going to effect play in 1943 and beyond. I guess we will see in the coming year as players get to those stages en-masse.

[Mr.Frag]

Because the game LETS THEM, without penalty, that's why!

Wrong again.

The game *charges* them supply, fuel, wear and tear on ships, and lost experience for troop replacements and poorly skilled pilots that cause them to loose aircraft non-stop.

Nothing is free.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

There is a general consensus that the whole thing proceeds too rapidly.

By who? You? You're the General? [8|]

Things happen as fast as the player wants them to. Massive stockpiles of goods exist when the game starts. You can make them last 190 days or you can go nuts and burn through them in 30 days.

The economy of Japan is completely governed by Oil import after you burn through the starting stockpile.

Oil = Supplies and Fuel, Oil = replacement planes, grunts and ships, Oil = new planes, grunts and ships

You can play any way you want. Once you break the bank, it is broken. There is no recovery. Those who plan ahead will have enough, those who do not plan ahead will be a cakewalk for the Allies to sweep off the map.

You want to be wasteful in your use of your finite resources, that is entirely your choice. You continue to come back to this silly position of "the game should prevent me for being silly and squandering my resources".

Why? You are the Commander. It is your job, not the games.

It's just numbers. I take my goals in 30 days or take them in 190 days, I still achieved the same result. I'm sitting 200 days out in both cases, goals reached, and stockpiles gone, Allies still another 200 days from being able to do anything major. In a general sense, I'd just like to see things set up to where players were more inclined by game rules, to take the 190 days than the 30 days than they are now....

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

There is a general consensus that the whole thing proceeds too rapidly.

By who? You? You're the General? [8|]

Things happen as fast as the player wants them to. Massive stockpiles of goods exist when the game starts. You can make them last 190 days or you can go nuts and burn through them in 30 days.

The economy of Japan is completely governed by Oil import after you burn through the starting stockpile.

Oil = Supplies and Fuel, Oil = replacement planes, grunts and ships, Oil = new planes, grunts and ships

You can play any way you want. Once you break the bank, it is broken. There is no recovery. Those who plan ahead will have enough, those who do not plan ahead will be a cakewalk for the Allies to sweep off the map.

You want to be wasteful in your use of your finite resources, that is entirely your choice. You continue to come back to this silly position of "the game should prevent me for being silly and squandering my resources".

Why? You are the Commander. It is your job, not the games.

It's just numbers. I take my goals in 30 days or take them in 190 days, I still achieved the same result. I'm sitting 200 days out in both cases, goals reached, and stockpiles gone, Allies still another 200 days from being able to do anything major. In a general sense, I'd just like to see things set up to where players were more inclined by game rules, to take the 190 days than the 30 days than they are now....

An I've got two hotseat games going right now to put this to the test. One is mid Mar 42 where I went balls to the wall as Japan and finished the entire conquest phase by Mar 16th. The other is in Feb where I am being very catious and pedantic and methodic as Japan, proceeding in an almost precise historical fashion. Will likely not get done with this phase until early June. I well compare the state of Japan in each on June 15th 1942 and report back.

[Mr.Frag]

It's just numbers. I take my goals in 30 days or take them in 190 days, I still achieved the same result. I'm sitting 200 days out in both cases, goals reached, and stockpiles gone, Allies still another 200 days from being able to do anything major. In a general sense, I'd just like to see things set up to where players were more inclined by game rules, to take the 190 days than the 30 days than they are now....

Just because you don't plan for 1943 and only look 30 days in advance does not mean that the game engine is not keeping track of how much supply and fuel you have used up in your rampaging.

You will find that when the time comes, you will be short of everything. That is not a perception, that is the simple fact.

Using 20 ships and a Division of troops to take an empty base will waste a tanker or so worth of fuel and a transport or so worth of supplies. Multiply that by 50 bases ... thats 3.5 million tons supply and almost 1 million tons of fuel.

You can't magically get it back once you waste it. There is no magical supply store you can run to.

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It's just numbers. I take my goals in 30 days or take them in 190 days, I still achieved the same result. I'm sitting 200 days out in both cases, goals reached, and stockpiles gone, Allies still another 200 days from being able to do anything major. In a general sense, I'd just like to see things set up to where players were more inclined by game rules, to take the 190 days than the 30 days than they are now....

Just because you don't plan for 1943 and only look 30 days in advance does not mean that the game engine is not keeping track of how much supply and fuel you have used up in your rampaging.

You will find that when the time comes, you will be short of everything. That is not a perception, that is the simple fact.

Using 20 ships and a Division of troops to take an empty base will waste a tanker or so worth of fuel and a transport or so worth of supplies. Multiply that by 50 bases ... thats 3.5 million tons supply and almost 1 million tons of fuel.

You can't magically get it back once you waste it. There is no magical supply store you can run to.

On the other hand, you have the SRA a couple months early - and that *is* a supply store.