B17 Losses too heavy

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: The results

Post by ChezDaJez »

Thanks for the reply, Mike.
Once the tactical surprise that the Japanese COULD build a truely modern and effective fighter wore off, and the tactics to meet it's threat were evolved, the war's figures show that the fighting was pretty even.
Which is not good news for the Japanese, as their opponants are going to out produce them by a huge margin, and are already training 100,000 pilots during the year. Which means the following years figures
are going to show a much less than even result. Which is more or less born out by history.

Exactly, western powers were initially shocked at the Zero's performance. But ultimately, it was a victim of its own success. The Japanese never saw the need to build a replacement aircraft. By the time they did, it was too little, too late. The US, on the other hand, took the lessons learned during that first year and developed tactics that bought them time to produce aircraft that could easily defeat most anything the Japanese threw at them. As Japanese planes became obsolete compared to ours, their pilot attrition grew and their performance decreased as inexperienced pilots took their places. This chain of events culminated in slaughters like the Marianna's Turkey Shoot.

The Japanese went into the war expecting it to be over very quickly and therefore didn't see the need to do much long range strategic planning or even increase the level of pilot training. Unfortunately for them, the US and its allies never abided by that concept and the result was predictable. By the end of 1942, Allied planners had little, if any, doubt in the ultimate defeat of Japan. Time was on our side.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: The results

Post by bradfordkay »

"Remember Harpoon? What a great game! Fictional and without land combat, but what a blast were those carrier battles. You were able to choose what and when to launch, the ordnance choice, different platforms. 3rd dimension for aircrafts and submarines. Different speed settings, influencing fuel consumption.

Why can’t someone make something like this for PTO? "

There was one, SSG's Carriers At War. It did not have quite the detail of HArpoon (few games do), but it was a good continuous time portrayal of carier battles. Like Harpoon, it was not a strategic or grand operational level game, it was instead more of a tactical/operational level game.
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: The results

Post by ChezDaJez »

"Remember Harpoon? What a great game!

That was a good game. Enjoyed the hell out of it. Used to play the paper version (Harpoon II) on deployment. Resolving combat for a salvo of AS-6 missiles against a CVBG could be quite time consuming!

Unfortunately there would be some here that would say things like the missiles are too accurate or not accurate enough or that the pop up mode of the Harpoon missile is not accurately modeled and that ECM is not effective or too much so, etc, etc, etc...

Chez

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
testarossa
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: The results

Post by testarossa »

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Resolving combat for a salvo of AS-6 missiles against a CVBG could be quite time consuming!

Or trying to wear down US CVBG SAM shield by simultenious launch from Tu-22s, Oscar II and CBGN? Or dancing around F-14s with shortlegged Su-27s trying to shot down E-2C? Or sea level Tornado attacks with those lausy kormorans and alarms? Such a pity UBI pulled the plug on Harpoon 4.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: The results

Post by EUBanana »

You're mistaken. WitP has much in common with Risk at the core. The results from Gary's game are not historic, or even close to historic, in far too many areas, the same as Risk. It's true that WitP offers "detail," but in fact this "detail" amounts to so much chrome because it is not 1) all-inclusive but presented arbitrarily, and 2) is fed unintelligently into the various models--plus, from all I can tell and from what has been described to me, these models do not even operate all the time as was intended.

Thats odd, because in general the overall effect seems pretty historic to me. Just read a few AARs, you generally see people making choices which the RL commanders would have faced, and you often see similar campaigns.
If you want to gripe about problems that lead to ahistorical results I'd gripe about big picture stuff like India being too empty of defences and thus a viable target, or China being potentially a walkover in the first month of the war, not quibble over air losses which are caused by people using aircraft ahistorically.
I suspect in a large number of cases the weird air loss results are due to really good (or bad) pilot experience, which seems to have a huge impact on the game. Compare the AVG (experience 70-75) to some US Army Warhawks (experience 60) from December 41, the difference is enormous, and the AVG are flying inferior planes.

And in comparison to other games on the market, it beats the spots off them.
The result at end of day are two games which rely on dice to arrive at results that might as well be from a war on some other planet in some other universe. You could no more cite results taken from a session from the WitP "simulation" and portray those as "meaningful" or "instructional" than you could with results taken from Risk. Neither make much sense.

See, far as I'm concerned this is just the sort of hysterical and undeserved crap that all too often fills this board. "Might as well be from a war on another planet", I mean, jesus. Talk about crazed overreaction. From my point of view you damage your case by bleating such rubbish.
Now, as always, I'm willing to give Gary credit for designing fun games. I've played his games for years, donated my time to test them. And this game, too, is fun to play. To a point. But it is not a serious or even semi-serious simulation of WWII in the Pacific theater. Whatever lessons it teaches are mainly false, and it seems to have been designed with more of a Risk audience than hard-core wargamers. If you like it, fine. But that's not what we're talking about.

If I were you then, I'd just call it a day then, because IMHO, WitP is as good as its going to get for years if not decades to come. If you want a totally historical game you'll have to remove the part where the player gives the orders, maybe you should ask Mike Wood to do that? [;)]

And as for me, I'm going to abandon all hopes of being a strategy games programmer if such minor issues - and they are minor issues, really - provoke such enraged responses.
Image
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: The results

Post by Tristanjohn »

Let's see, in your estimation my response was "enraged" and one of "crazed overreaction"? Yet I'm the person "bleating rubbish"?

Whatever you say, guy. [:D]



Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: The results

Post by moses »


Thats odd, because in general the overall effect seems pretty historic to me. Just read a few AARs, you generally see people making choices which the RL commanders would have faced, and you often see similar campaigns.
If you want to gripe about problems that lead to ahistorical results I'd gripe about big picture stuff like India being too empty of defences and thus a viable target, or China being potentially a walkover in the first month of the war, not quibble over air losses which are caused by people using aircraft ahistorically.

Well said. I agree completely.

And for people to compare this game to Risk!!!?? I have to believe that by the standards of some there is no game that could satisfy them.


juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

RE: The results

Post by juliet7bravo »

Lets see...just about every major (and minor) game function is broken to some degree. Japanese flak (responsible for 60+% of all US AC combat losses) hasn't worked ever, and no one even noticed...which says alot for game balance. Of course, in a stunning display of circular logic some people (apparently from an alternate universe) claim that it doesn't matter anyway since Jap flak is so useless, LOL. All ASW/Sub Ops results (responsible for crippling the Japanese war effort) prior to v1.5 were, as Frag put it, "utter nonsense". The logistics system (using the term loosely) means abundant supply for all. An infantry squad (apparent Storm Troopers) can make an entire division go away. The strategic implications/value of terrain (prime factor that drove the WitP) are mostly rendered moot since any old bit of land can support an infinite number of troops, supplies, fuel, and airfields/ports from Hell. Said ports (even in a rowboat sized port with a coconut log wharf) can load/unload an infinite number of ships and stock 16/18" shells. The AI is obviously fighting a war/sending convoys to another planet. And I have IJN warrant officers beaming themselves aboard my bridge and siezing command of my carriers. Oh, and in this "alternate reality", the Japanese have the capability to capture China, India, Oz, and the HI.

So yeah, change the names, give the ships some cool laser beam effects, trade the Zeros/F4Fs out for Tie and X-wing fighters, put Luke Skywalker, Obiwan Kenobi and Darth Vador in command slots...
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: The results

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

First let me say this started when I offered relevant data concerning the debate over the Tony. I made no claim as to its veracity or completeness. I do find Joe Baugher's data generally much more reliable than many other sources. Joe is a professor of physics and has published books and article with such intimidating titles as "Fast Triplet Excimer Formation in Fluid Solutions of Dinaphthylalkanes", whatever the heck that is. I assume that he understands what it means to conduct research.

You chose to not only disregard the data, as is your right, but in typical TristanJohn fashion, you chose also to denigrate my attempt to provide it. It is the latter, not the former, attitude that I have a problem with.

What I told you was that I'm familiar with Baugher's data and have found it wanting in many respects.

What we have here is a kind of closed circle of historical research. Researcher A quotes researcher B, B then quotes C, and C quotes A in turn. Before long someone else comes by and quotes A, B and C.

What, exactly, does that leave us with?

You tell me you're impressed with Baugher's ability to conduct good research because he's a professor of physics and has published books and articles with intimidating titles. I tell you that's a classic "appeal to authority" and makes no sense. (It's yet another form of our old friend, the ad hominem argument.)

Let's do a test and see if this ad hominem approach makes good sense in principle.

Please do a couple of Google searches. The names you're looking for are Sandra Donaldson Dewitz and John Tristan Schuler. Under Dewitz you're after a couple of books dealing with MIS (Management Information Systems), under Schuler you're likely to find anything, but in particular you want to pull up that guy's website--you might be directed to the splash page, but whatever. If that doesn't come up, go straight to tristanjohn.com.

Now. Look over the work of Dewitz. This lady is (was) a professor, too. She took her PhD from the University of Texas, then wrote what is considered to be one of the definitive MIS instructional texts--as far as I know it's still being pruchased by other professors around the country, and this is some ten years after publication, something unheard of in the field, where normally texts are rendered obsolete a bare year after publication. Schuler's background is somewhat more eclectic, if not to say disjointed. Still, he has degrees, too, though he isn't "published" anywhere except newspapers and magazines, and that was some time ago.

Anyway, look over Dewitz and her work and anything you can find on her.

Do the same for Schuler. Check out his site (it's incomplete, has been sitting there unattended or worked on for the past two years, but it does have some stuff to look at and is more or less representative of the man's work in photography at least).

Now tell me, based on this search, who you think knows more about World War II, or for that matter research in general: Dewitz or Schuler?

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: The results

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

CHEZ. Your points are legitimate and well-founded. In most of the time that the numbers cited were gathered the Japanese were on the offensive rather than the defensive, so the 1.2 to1 "edge" of the Wildcats is probably inflated by the factors you mentioned by about 25%. Which would give an "even
odds" result of something like 1 : .95 in favor of the Zeros. John would probably not object if the game were producing a relatively even exchange rate over the long haul. I wouldn't. Sure some days will be good, and some won't. The Zero has many "edges" in such combats, the F4F relatively few. But the few are important ones, like being A LOT tougher and having better usable firepower and having the ability to break off in an unfavorable situation by accellerating into a roll or putting the nose down and diving.

That's a useful summation. Ratios of 1.2:1 or 1:1.2 only suggest to me roughly equal.

By the way, the Japanese enjoyed the advantage of being on the offensive during these raids, and in fact pumped up their figures on one occasion when they bounced the boys at Cactus.

But no matter, after a year's struggle the Wildcat and Zero were roughly equal in combat, whatever the reasons. And so that's where I would start with my model for those two aircraft. How to go about that? I don't know. It would take time to work out. But it ought to be apparent that Gary's simplistic approach doesn't get it. If in fact the Zero is more "maneuverable" and was driven by "better" pilots, so be it. But in that case something of critical nature must be missing from the plane/pilot ratings, and/or something else is otherwise mistaken with the air-to-air combat formula(s), because the ingame kill ratios don't jive with history.

What could be more clear than that?

Do the kill ratios have to come out to the precise decimal point? No. Should the kill ratios be in the ballpark consistently? Yes.

Of course that's only one "starting point." There are many aircraft for the game to consider. And woe is me, some of the ratings for these planes don't appear to make sense, either.

Finally, I don't see this as an issue of the "game engine being too old and stretched and worn out." I see the bad ingame results as deriving from indifferent and biased programming. And that can surely be corrected, old worn-out game engine or not.



Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
GoofTrooper
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: USA

RE: The results

Post by GoofTrooper »

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


However, using the numbers that Gooftroop provided from Frank's book, we get 115 Zeros lost vs 101 Wildcats which equates to a ratio of 1.13:1. Close but less than 1.2:1. Frank, however, also says that 13 of the Zeros lost were due to P-39/400s so let's subtract them out. That give 102 Zeros lost against 101 Wildcats... even odds. Including Marine pilots would drop the ratio to under 1:1 for the Wildcat.


editted for incomplete sentence.

Actually, the overall combat figures don't give a break down of kills by scoring platform. The individual battle descriptions do, but that would take some time to go through. The 13 P39/400s I listed are combat losses for those aircraft. Since it doesn't give a breakdown, I though it would be helpful as an indication of their combat participation. As I recall their performance wasn't stellar. Sorry for not being clear.
Image
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: The results

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Let's see, in your estimation my response was "enraged" and one of "crazed overreaction"? Yet I'm the person "bleating rubbish"?

Whatever you say, guy. [:D]

What Moses said. I call it as I see it. [;)]
Image
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: The results

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Japanese flak (responsible for 60+% of all US AC combat losses) hasn't worked ever, and no one even noticed...which says alot for game balance.

Not that I necesarily disagree, but I'd advocate some caution with this number. If indeed 60% of all US AC combat losses were to AAA (sounds about right to me), that doesn't necessarily mean that 60% all US AC combat losses were to AAA throughout. As the US gained air superiority from '43 onwards, fewer aircraft would've been shot down by Japanese fighters. That alone means that AAA will be weighted heavier in the statistics. Furthermore, the US flew far more missions against many more targets in the latter half of the war. AAA is naturally only effective if you actually attack the target its defending, and by exposing more aircraft to more AAA guns, one would expect the AAA proportion of kills to rise. These two factors probably explains why losses to AAA appears proportionally heavy, but it doesn't follow that what holds true for 1945 is also the case for 1942. Statistics provide the "what", not the "why".

A rough computation of figures from the USAAF digest demonstrated the above:

FEAF losses by cause, 1942-45:

EA/AAA/Operational:

1942: 264 (96%)/6 (2%)/6 (2%) <- recorded op.losses clearly too low. 6 aircraft for the entire year???
1943: 395 (73%)/25 (5%)/119 (22%)
1944: 216 (24%)/245 (27%)/449 (51%)
1945: 67 (9%)/270 (35%)/432 (56%)

This shows how A2A losses dwindle proportionally while other kinds of losses go up. However of A2A losses, of a total of 943, 666 (71%) occur 1942-43. By contrast, only 31 (6%) of 546 AAA losses occur 1942-43.

Another way of looking at it is by comparing the no. of sorties with losses. It demonstrates the same general trend, but suggests that this holds true not not only in absolute terms.

Percentage chance of being shot down on any given sorties airborne, by type and year, FEAF:

Aircraft/AAA = Ratio:

1942: 1.85%/0.04% = 46:1
1943: 0.38%/0.02% = 19:1
1944: 0.13%/0.15% = 1:1
1945: 0.05%/0.20% = 1:4

The overaching point is of course that the 60% losses to AAA (or whatever the figure is) isn't necessarily a function of the qualitative effectiveness of Japanese AAA or lack thereof, but rather linked to operational factors. That said, I've already stated my personal opinion of in particular groundbased AAA elsewhere in this thread.

Tom

Source: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm


Where's the Any key?

Image
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: The results

Post by moses »

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Lets see...just about every major (and minor) game function is broken to some degree. Japanese flak (responsible for 60+% of all US AC combat losses) hasn't worked ever, and no one even noticed...which says alot for game balance. Of course, in a stunning display of circular logic some people (apparently from an alternate universe) claim that it doesn't matter anyway since Jap flak is so useless, LOL. All ASW/Sub Ops results (responsible for crippling the Japanese war effort) prior to v1.5 were, as Frag put it, "utter nonsense". The logistics system (using the term loosely) means abundant supply for all. An infantry squad (apparent Storm Troopers) can make an entire division go away. The strategic implications/value of terrain (prime factor that drove the WitP) are mostly rendered moot since any old bit of land can support an infinite number of troops, supplies, fuel, and airfields/ports from Hell. Said ports (even in a rowboat sized port with a coconut log wharf) can load/unload an infinite number of ships and stock 16/18" shells. The AI is obviously fighting a war/sending convoys to another planet. And I have IJN warrant officers beaming themselves aboard my bridge and siezing command of my carriers. Oh, and in this "alternate reality", the Japanese have the capability to capture China, India, Oz, and the HI.

So yeah, change the names, give the ships some cool laser beam effects, trade the Zeros/F4Fs out for Tie and X-wing fighters, put Luke Skywalker, Obiwan Kenobi and Darth Vador in command slots...


Yes and I can make the same argument about every single wargame ever published in history.

In every wargame ever made, important subjects are abstracted, deemphasized, or omited entirely.

That's reality and its been that way forever.

It's perfectly legitamate to debate about how bombers might be better modeled in the game to reflect history, or any of a number of other topics.

It shows a very great lack of perspective however to suggest that should the game not be changed to conform to your desire then it is worthless.
User avatar
TommyG
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Irvine Ca
Contact:

RE: The results

Post by TommyG »

Boy, I don't think either Joe or I expected this kind of response. As the guy who lost the 52 fortresses that started the thread, I'd like to end it by pointing out that I have now replaced my losses and am still flying 75+ plane raids but now only with "little friends" along. And the war goes on.
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: The results

Post by ChezDaJez »

What we have here is a kind of closed circle of historical research. Researcher A quotes researcher B, B then quotes C, and C quotes A in turn. Before long someone else comes by and quotes A, B and C.

And your independent "research" was conducted how? Look at the references that Lundstrom, Frank and Morison and others list. I'll bet they include other authors also.

You tell me you're impressed with Baugher's ability to conduct good research because he's a professor of physics and has published books and articles with intimidating titles. I tell you that's a classic "appeal to authority" and makes no sense. (It's yet another form of our old friend, the ad hominem argument.)

"Appeal to authority" Hmmmm, guess that's why I never appeal to you and that does make sense. And I don't believe I ever said I was "impressed" by his data. I simply find it useful. And his credentials tell me he is used to doing research.

Now tell me, based on this search, who you think knows more about World War II, or for that matter research in general: Dewitz or Schuler?

Are you seriously insinuating that your wife would not know how to conduct methodical, effective research on WWII should she chose to do so? And are you really trying to tell me that I should use your incomplete website that contains zero information of any kind to determine your qualifications as an expert on WWII? From your website, I can't even determine what kind of photography you prefer, let alone how good you are at it. I do see that you list your occupation as "taxi driver." Is that where your expertise comes from? I think it's rather obvious who would be more qualified to conduct thorough research of any kind in your family.


...from previous Schuler postings in this thread:
By the way, the Japanese enjoyed the advantage of being on the offensive during these raids, and in fact pumped up their figures on one occasion when they bounced the boys at Cactus.

I believe it was the Americans on the offensive here. The Japanese were responding to an American invasion and in case you didn't know, invasions normally denote offensive action, not defensive. I'll assume you meant to say that the Japanese were the attacker. Either way, it was hardly an advantage to fly a long way to the target, engage in air combat with an enemy who has been alerted and waiting for you, then hope you have enough gas to get home (assuming you aren't all shot to he!!, in which case you probably won't make it home anyway), and then turn around to do it all again the next day.

In this case, I'm confident of what I write, and equally sure other authors who write something else are not correct in their conclusions.

My, my. Must be real lonely at the top. BTW, don't look now, but your ego is showing.

Chez

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: The results

Post by ChezDaJez »

Actually, the overall combat figures don't give a break down of kills by scoring platform. The individual battle descriptions do, but that would take some time to go through. The 13 P39/400s I listed are combat losses for those aircraft. Since it doesn't give a breakdown, I though it would be helpful as an indication of their combat participation. As I recall their performance wasn't stellar. Sorry for not being clear. .

Oops, my bad. Was my mistake. Sorry.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: The results

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Lets see...just about every major (and minor) game function is broken to some degree. Japanese flak (responsible for 60+% of all US AC combat losses) hasn't worked ever, and no one even noticed...which says alot for game balance. Of course, in a stunning display of circular logic some people (apparently from an alternate universe) claim that it doesn't matter anyway since Jap flak is so useless, LOL. All ASW/Sub Ops results (responsible for crippling the Japanese war effort) prior to v1.5 were, as Frag put it, "utter nonsense". The logistics system (using the term loosely) means abundant supply for all. An infantry squad (apparent Storm Troopers) can make an entire division go away. The strategic implications/value of terrain (prime factor that drove the WitP) are mostly rendered moot since any old bit of land can support an infinite number of troops, supplies, fuel, and airfields/ports from Hell. Said ports (even in a rowboat sized port with a coconut log wharf) can load/unload an infinite number of ships and stock 16/18" shells. The AI is obviously fighting a war/sending convoys to another planet. And I have IJN warrant officers beaming themselves aboard my bridge and siezing command of my carriers. Oh, and in this "alternate reality", the Japanese have the capability to capture China, India, Oz, and the HI.

So yeah, change the names, give the ships some cool laser beam effects, trade the Zeros/F4Fs out for Tie and X-wing fighters, put Luke Skywalker, Obiwan Kenobi and Darth Vador in command slots...

I know what you mean, although I'm not quite that way with WITP just yet, but I am not playing it until a new patch comes out. When I say I know what you mean, I mean that it gets to a point with quite a few games, where you realize there's such a far stretch from anything historic going on, you realize that you would have more interesting gameplay from the likes of the CIV series, which at least doesn't pretend to be too historic. If what I'm playing is lukewarm historic, then a good fantasy title will beat it every time.
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: The results

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
...Since you are so sure you're right and won't do any research on your own to answer your own questions - I will do the research. My memory of...
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but since you started this thread... [;)]

Is research actually the problem here? It is admitted that model doesn’t take into account aircraft performance based on altitude nor does it give an advantage to massed bomber formations, both of which were important historically in the fighter vs. bomber equation. Since the model doesn’t simulate the historical limitation ahistorical results are the outcome. So… what is the answer? It seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to re-write the subroutine to include altitude performance and other such factors, so…

What would you like to see and what do you think is practical?
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: The results

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: moses

As if any wargame is even close to being realistic.

The real commanders were lucky to have 1 % of the real-time intel we have in the game and less then that of actual control of the forces.

The game teaches a lot about the Pacific war. Most major systems have a fairly realistic feel to them even if they are not strictly 100% accurate under all conditions.
The flow of the game is a little too fast but otherwise can reasonably approximate the flow of the actual war.

Anyone who has played wargames for the last few decades knows that this is the most detailed accurate treatment of any large theater ever produced. Its fine to quibble about the details but to feign moral indignation over the failure of the developers to achieve perfection is too much.
Agreed.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”