ORIGINAL: Bombur
this to be the most frustrating part of it. I don't profess to be an expert in each and every area of World War II, though I have studied it to some modest extent over the years. But here's the thing. With the web up and running, even if someone doesn't have resource material at home to study there's a wealth of information available to anyone with the interest, and knack for finding stuff. And I've got to tell you that in those cases where I'm not sure one way or the other I usually bother to check on it, to see if someone who's spouting off about one thing or another really has his ducks in a row. And you know what? A lot of the complaints I've run across happen to be right on. Not all of them, but many.
-From your point, what would have been the most important points to be fixed, based on your knowledge and what you have researched? And what are the complaints you think are based only in opinions/impressions?
I haven't fixated on this subject (indeed, I left this board for the best part of a year to "get away from it" so to speak) so my list will be short. Just a few things off the top of my head, and keep in mind I'm only touching on a few items as I go along, not trying to be greatly detailed in my presentation, and really have no desire to "get into it" all that deeply, for as far as I'm concerned this is all old hat.
1) The air model is still too strong, planes too effective in general, especially the larger bombers with re to their service. And I wonder why. Now I don't know, but the designers did listen to some of the complaints in this area as expressed in relation to
UV. For instance, they corrected the way fatigue was overmodeled, especially for planes flying CAP or jumping off a ship in a port. Okay, so we know they're listening, and they're not above admitting the first model in these areas was whacky. Right? And I figure, if they can affect that change, then why not also put in a little rule (coded) that makes it harder (more supplies, more ground support) to service a four-engine bomber than a single-engine fighter? Maybe that would have been more difficult, but its effect on the simulation would have been greatly beneficial, probably much more beneficial than the change to fatigue. (Though certainly both were begging to be fixed.) Bettys and Nells of course and as always are just dynamite, we'd expect that. The "staging" mechanic still allows outrageous abuse of the model.
"Let's see, why not stage in some bombers over there at Rabaul and let them raid Port Moresby a couple times tomorrow?"
"Okay!"
(This bad rule will be even more pronounced, without a doubt, when the Allies start rolling with all the B-17s that are around--and why are there so many of those?)
Oh yes, and let's not forget . . . we still have a bonus for Zeros . . . what would a Grigsby game be without one of those? [;)]
2) The naval model still sucks. How? Just about everywhere and in all ways. There's no difference to the program between a port hex and a sea hex with regard to how it handles engagements--from what I can see. Just one example: I know for a fact that it's possible to raid a port with enemy ships at anchor, protected by a lone DD, and have over half one's force (all crusiers) refuse or neglect to fire a shot, and with 95% of all shots that were fired directed at that poor DD. (The excuse here is that those cruisers didn't have enough night experience, but that doesn't wash. Not in a port, with anchored targets "defended" by just one DD--oh yeah, and an ML. Sorry. No sale. And you could not tell anyone but a child that some of those cruisers "were off at another part of the hex" when we're talking about a port here--but then as I say, the program doesn't make the distinction between ports and sea hexes
per se.) Bombardments are still too strong by a large degree, ships can still re-arm themselves too easily in measly ports, there is still no concept of task groups or even actual ship crews, no thought at all toward training ships together as integral fighting groups (even though I'm strictly an Allied player, I've got to say the Japanese take a terribly unjust hit on that one--or to put it another way the Americans get a break), the strike cooordination rule/penalty/call it what you will is something apparently just dreamed up by someone, the CAP rules make no sense (which affects the air system over on the land-based side as well), ports are too easy to build up and maintain . . . hell, they
still haven't fixed the friggin' problem with ships refueling at sea correctly, surely you've seen that one, as it's been with us since my first encounter with
UV. The submarine/ASW stuff is ca-ca from the get-go, and don't even get me going on the Allied sub doctrine rule--how did
that get in there? Yet another bad dream? A nightmare? It appears to be the case that the CD routines are still not correct, and if I'm not mistaken these units seem to have greater success at night than in the day--not sure about that, but from my limited play thus far that looks to be the case . . . which of course would not be correct. In any event one can still just plop any number of mobile CDs into some godforsaken hex, say, Lunga, and have all two gazillion of them up and working immediately! How dumb is that? Mines have been toned down to the point where I know for sure Japanese bombardment TFs can (and do) regularly sail into port waters with as many as (now) over 1700 (that's seventeen hundred!) mines without exploding one of them. It's also quite possible for a Japanese cruiser to hit one and sail blithely away at twenty knots or so--one just did right under my nose. Now I'd guess that's just possible in real life, but my point is mines, for whatever the rationale employed, have been rendered impotent by any reasonable standard. I'm
not saying Japanese or Allied ships cannot hit mines. They can. Just not very often.
Finally, I suspect, but do not know for sure, that both bombardment TFs and CV TFs have been made to be harder to "see." If so, that's lame as can be.
And so on.
And no, I am not interested in someone explaining all this stuff away by telling me "That's okay, by 1943 you, as the Allies, will have the same advantages." Or whatever. That illogic does
not "balance" anything in my book.
3) The land-combat model didn't impress me in
UV; it totally disenchants me when applied to the larger areas of
terra firma which exist in
WitP. (Actually, I find the conflict in China to be ingrossing. I don't know much about the history of that theater, just casual reads from time to time. It does depress to discover from all accounts from players who are more experienced with this than I am in the game that the Japanese can pretty much sweep the board there, though. That alone would tell me the land-combat model isn't worth squat, though I figured that out for myself for other reasons.)
Let's see, what's left. We've quickly covered land, sea and air, running it backward.
How about logistics?
I guess the problem here is: how detailed does one want to be? Well, as it drives everything else then how
un-detailed can one
afford to be? Detailed or no, the generic nature of "supply" certainly exacerbates (actually outright allows) abuses in all other areas, such as bombardment TFs getting resupplied so easily, for instance, and B-17s ruling everything within their flight radius, for instance2, etc.
But that's just supplies on the one hand. On the other, it seems, from the reports circulating, that there's too much of it for the Japanese, and too easily come by almost everywhere on the board. (Which is saying a mouthful with respect to the Allies as they, or America at least, had gigantic stockpiles of it, back in America, again, and so it's only a question of getting it where it needs to be on time.)
Re Japanese supply: I don't know this for a fact, that's merely what I've read, but from so many players who do seem to have their acts together that I'm sure it's true. Just for example, wherever you find resources you find supplies being generated. What's that? What is the point of having "resources" in the first place if they do not need to be first transported to "factories" in order to be of any use? Also, from a study of the IJN OOB it would seem as if all Japanese shipping might be dedicated to the needs of the military, with no thought at all having to import large amounts of food and other things in order to keep the civilians not just happy but alive! If that's not right, please correct me, but that's what it looks like to me. Someone will say, "But yes, the Americans don't have to be "fed" either." Well yes, but for a good reason. America was self-suffiicient except for luxury items, which
were in short supply during the war but hardly affected the issue in any critical sense. Meanwhile, Japan was anything but self-sufficient. Japan needed to import all sorts of basic stuff. Like even rice.
See? Big difference. Yet as I read it there's been no accomodation made in that area. Japan does, however, have ready access to "easy" supply points all over the map, for the reason stated above. So it's a double
good deal for the Japanese. Why? Is that just more "balance" at work? Another "bonus"? What's going on?
As for complaints/opinions not founded in fact: the forums abound with this stuff. It's all over the place. You can't walk an inch without bumping into it. Whenever you read a rejoinder such as "Well, I just think it all balances out in the end" you know right away you're dealing with someone who lives in some kind of fairy-tale land. Is that necessarily wrong? Not at all. Different strokes and all that. But it hardly offers anything useful to . . . the discussion.
So, like I said, that's all off the top of my head. As soon as I post this much more will occur to me no doubt.
What do you think? I'd like to hear your ideas.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to say that
WitP is an enormously fun game to play. I'm spending way too much time with it. It's just not a very realistic simulation.
