I mean really, come on. If India was being over run, would Britain really land more base forces? Don't think so.
I'm going to copy what I posted above:
1 - Troops, ships and planes to "magically" appear in Karachi and be trapped there, yet they can't be "magically" removed.
2 - US Forces that went to India to fight in the Asian front "vanish" from the game when in reality they would have been redeployed elsewhere in the Pacific.
That is what I am complaining about. It's lazy programming, regardless of the intent. As you say:
"If India was being over run, would Britain really land more base forces? Don't think so"
But the programming did that for three weeks while PzB had Karachi totally isolated.
I'll grant you your argument about the Brit forces, but the US and Australian forces that are due to arrive in the future shouldn't be left in limbo. It's bad game design.
PzB has captured Karachi, and now all ships, planes and troops that were scheduled to arrive at Karachi are listed as arriving at "Unknown".
Dave Baranyi
If Karachi was you forward base in the Pacific, and you just lost it to Japan, what do you think the British would have have done?
Even the US couldn't have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq if we didn't first secure forward bases in the middle east. The US forces spent a year before the Iraq building up supplies, equipment, forces before going to war. If the US lost it's forward bases, operations would have come to a complete halt.
Gee, I always thought wargaming was about playing "what if's"?[8|]
PzB has captured Karachi, and now all ships, planes and troops that were scheduled to arrive at Karachi are listed as arriving at "Unknown".
Dave Baranyi
If Karachi was you forward base in the Pacific, and you just lost it to Japan, what do you think the British would have have done?
Even the US couldn't have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq if we didn't first secure forward bases in the middle east. The US forces spent a year before the Iraq building up supplies, equipment, forces before going to war. If the US lost it's forward bases, operations would have come to a complete halt.
Gee, I always thought wargaming was about playing "what if's"?[8|]
So you are saying that:
"1 - Troops, ships and planes to "magically" appear in Karachi and be trapped there, yet they can't be "magically" removed.
2 - US Forces that went to India to fight in the Asian front "vanish" from the game when in reality they would have been redeployed elsewhere in the Pacific. "
The loss of your entry hex(s) reduces your reinforcements to nil. This has been the way wargames have been designed for 40 years or more. You're not supposed to allow the enemy to take it ... noob.
The loss of your entry hex(s) reduces your reinforcements to nil. This has been the way wargames have been designed for 40 years or more. You're not supposed to allow the enemy to take it ... noob.
You know, you've actually helped me see the light. You're right, the board war games that I played in the late 60s did have rules like these, and similar movement rules.
They made no sense then and they make no sense today, but I now understand the reactions to my pointing out that the "emperor has no clothes".
Oh well, we could have had a historical simulation. Instead we have a computerized version of Tactics II. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
In any event, all of this certainly reinforces my contention that a Japanese player should go all out to invade India - I can't see a better way for a Japanese player to win the game.
Well who knows what would have happened if the British lost India... they might have said f*** this we are out of this war... and then you need those US troops meanth for India to take... uhmm... Ireland before the Germans do... so they would be out of the game anyway [:D]
Meaning.. you can play the ´what if´ game all ya want... but really.. if ya loose that much why do ya even expect something positive to come out of it?.. like getting your troop reinforcement somewhere else closer to the front while your opponent who´s doing well has to defend his gains AND move troops around to counter your ´magically´ appearing reinforcements somewhere else. He´d be better of not trying so well then.
Our business in the field of fight, Is not to question, but to prove our might.
Meaning.. you can play the ´what if´ game all ya want... but really.. if ya loose that much why do ya even expect something positive to come out of it?.. like getting your troop reinforcement somewhere else closer to the front while your opponent who´s doing well has to defend his gains AND move troops around to counter your ´magically´ appearing reinforcements somewhere else. He´d be better of not trying so well then.
The US planes, troops and ships that were scheduled to go to India came from the US, not Mars. Therefore they ought to arrive in the US at some point in the future.
When a base is totally cut off from the outside it should not receive supplies or reinforcements. (That's one of the standard rules of war games for the "past 40 years".)
If "normal" war game rules were in place for Karachi, I wouldn't have received any more supplies, fuel or reinforcements once PzB cut me off. That would have shortened his siege by a couple of weeks - think about it...
When a base is totally cut off from the outside it should not receive supplies or reinforcements. (That's one of the standard rules of war games for the "past 40 years".)
If "normal" war game rules were in place for Karachi, I wouldn't have received any more supplies, fuel or reinforcements once PzB cut me off. That would have shortened his siege by a couple of weeks - think about it...
Dave, that may be true -- but would you have been happier if the game had denied you supply during the siege?
If I were czar, I might have designed a "two new British divisions" rule for India, like that for North America and Indochina. Once Karachi falls, maybe I'd have had British reinforcements arrive in Perth or some such, after a considerable delay. But those choices wouldn't have been completely justifiable historically either. That's the trouble with map edges. Given the existence of a map edge, I think the current choice is reasonable. Once you've got a map edge, inevitably you've got to design an artificial rule to accommodate that edge. The nice thing about WITP is that the map edge is no longer Truk or Noumea, as was the case in UV.
There are games without map edges, of course: HOI2, GGWaW. I'm actually quite a fan of GGWaW. But there's a tradeoff: to make a global game, you sacrifice the stunning detail and complexity of WITP.
2 - US Forces that went to India to fight in the Asian front "vanish" from the game when in reality they would have been redeployed elsewhere in the Pacific.
Dave Baranyi
I play the Japanese exclusively, so I don't even know what US units arrive in India. I also don't know how they historically got to India, whether from Australia or from the Med. I assume they came from the Med. The way I look at it, with the Indian front gone, those units didn't vanish, they were redeployed to North Africa or the ETO.
As was said in an earlier post, Karachi is one of those bases you just don't want to lose.
I agree with David on a couple of important things:
When a base is under siege, no more reinforcements should be able to arrive.
What about this: Create a 'dead mans button' for such bases. Both of the players have to click it and therefore
agree on the fact that the base should now be considered as isolated!
It was pretty silly that the ca Hawkins arrived while I had a battlefleet bombarding Karachi, it went down faster then you
can spell FUBAR!
Come on now David, Frag is only da messenger right. Kinda reminds me of when Hess' adjutant arrived in Hitlers
HQ to deliver a message that explained his masters trip to Scotland <G> The messenger of ill tidings was brought away in iron rather quickly,
but I guess FUBAR had crossed his mind long before that.... (Meanwhile back in England: So you're the madman from Germany!? Hess: No, I'm his deputy!)
(It should also be noted that David took over the game when 250k Jap soldiers were laying siege to Ahmadabad and Dehli...and the end result was already all but given. So it's not actually right to say that he 'shouldn't have lost it' - I think this is more meant as a discussion of game mechanics.)
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Hey.. i never dissagreed with your point about the cut of and surrounded troops/places/bases whatever...
All i am saying is fine.. you can play what if and assume the US forces would appear somewhere on the west coast... or you can play what if and Britain pulls out completely and you will need to pull forces out of the Pacific to cover other exposed fronts.. or you can play what if and Austyralia says.. hey if Britain pulls out so will we... or you can play what if and the Indian troops on other fronts say forget it we we are out and you need your precious US troops to cover those gaps...
So why from all those what ifs (and yes i went over the top there.. lol) should it be that the what if you choose gets you more troops elsewhere when you do bad on one front? Thats just punishing your opponent for being sucessful.
Our business in the field of fight, Is not to question, but to prove our might.
Dave, that may be true -- but would you have been happier if the game had denied you supply during the siege?
Definitely, because it gave PzB a dozen land units, a handful of air units and a dozen ships including a cruiser that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise. In addition, the supply and fuel kept on "topping off" at 999,999.
Like I said in my AAR - I seriously considered abandoning Karachi early because I was afraid that this would happen. If I had to do it again I would pull my troops out and put them into the "rough" - they would last a lot longer there and I wouldn't have lost all those additional troops, planes and ships. But I was under the misconception that the "entry point" would reappear somewhere else, likely at Colombo. Oh well, live and learn.
This is why I dropped from the fourm and became a lurker.[:(]
OK, you got me, which of the three possibilities is it?[:D]
posters beating up beta testers over game design issues[:@]
Frag's tone[8|]
the lack of contribution from the game designers[:(]
In all seriousness, your absence is a loss. Hope you're enjoying WitP in quiet comfort at home.
Don't pick on Kid. He put up with enough just dealing with the testers forget about dealing with the public. One day when I'm fed up, I'll post his notes on testers and you can really start to understand. [:-]
You want to take shots at me, thats fine. I wear the "kick me" sign currently.
Don't pick on Kid. He put up with enough just dealing with the testers forget about dealing with the public. One day when I'm fed up, I'll post his notes on testers and you can really start to understand. [:-]
You want to take shots at me, thats fine. I wear the "kick me" sign currently.
I wasn't aware I was picking on Kid, or you. [&:]
However, if I were a WitP beta tester, posters beating on beta testers over design issues, together with the lack of participation of the actual game designers, would eventually take a toll. Of course the game designers may be very forthcoming on the private beta testers forum, in which case the second point would be moot, and the effects of the first greatly reduced.
Could have sworn there was a smilie on the end of that ... thats what happens when your doorbell rings in the middle of a post.
As far as 2by3, I have *never* worked with a better bunch, thats why I am still here putting up with folks. If they were not willing to put in 200%, you can be sure I would not.
I read with all the images and smilies off, so I sometimes miss the odd one too. Good to hear that 2by3 are communicative with their beta testers at least. By the way the beta testers are treated at times, it's probably no wonder the designers hardly ever appear here, which is a pity.
Frag is "representing the Company" here and he does a consistantly arrogant job of it. He rationalizes unsupportable design and programming decisions.
There is nothing here that tells me that I should buy any more 2x3 games. And by having Frag "represent the company" Matrix is sending me a message that I shouldn't buy more games from them either. Attitude is everything, and I don't like the attitude I see from 2x3, Matrix and their reps.
Remember, I'm a paying customer. I can and will vote with my wallet.
Dave Baranyi
I'm with Dave on this one... I have no opinion on the design issues, but the second a paying customer voices a legitimate complaint and gets a response like:
What exactly did you expect? That loosing Karachi would have no impact?
Well, it depends what you mean legitimate complaint. Granted, Frag could be a little bit less forthcoming with such an answer, but it sums it up good. Its a design issue. Its been in the rule book since day 1, Back in July when the game was released. It wasn't an issue then, why should it be one now?
We did have complaints over it with regards to units arriving in Malaya and the DEI back in the first month we got the game. But seriously, taking the largest port gives the Japanese a chance to win. Why, just because you got soundly beaten and lost your biggest port, 10 months after the game's release should it become an issue?
Most players here, at least from what I am reading, seem to like the rule. It gives Japan motive to go into India, and gives them the opporotunity to win. It also puts a motiviation on the Allied side to fight in India, and to concentrate elsewhere than the South Pacific.
That said, I think once the city is besieged reinforcements should stop, but otherwise the rule is fine.
Whether or not I'd like to admit it, Frag's right. You can't lose your biggest port and expect nothing to happen. Losing that key a location needs to have far reaching effects, not "Karachi reinforcements now arrive at Colombo", and then when Colombo falls "Arrive at Perth" and when Perth falls.... where would you have it end? I say better to screw the player just a tiny bit (if Karachi is lost you are already screwed), and err on the side of plausible history. The last thing we need is a Hirohito style game, in which finally we see a message "Karachi forces now arrive at San Francisco".
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Frag is "representing the Company" here and he does a consistantly arrogant job of it. He rationalizes unsupportable design and programming decisions.
There is nothing here that tells me that I should buy any more 2x3 games. And by having Frag "represent the company" Matrix is sending me a message that I shouldn't buy more games from them either. Attitude is everything, and I don't like the attitude I see from 2x3, Matrix and their reps.
Remember, I'm a paying customer. I can and will vote with my wallet.
Dave Baranyi
I'm with Dave on this one... I have no opinion on the design issues, but the second a paying customer voices a legitimate complaint and gets a response like:
What exactly did you expect? That loosing Karachi would have no impact?
he's got a right to be upset.
So, does that mean I have the right as a fellow PAYING customer to say RTFM and stop posting tripe? [:D]
Rule 15.5 clearly states "If all arrival locations for the units are enemy controlled, the unit will arrive as soon as one of the locations is recaptured and the unit will be listed as arriving at an unknown destination."
