Hello...
We have updated the sections for our Pacific games, Uncommon Valor and War in the Pacific. Check them out...
Well, do these new games we are working on sound interesting to any of you PacWar folk?
Working Hard and Waiting for Your Encouragement...
Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
[This message has been edited by Mike Wood (edited January 05, 2001).]
RE: New Pacific Games
Mike - I for one am VERY encouraged by the features page for WITP. Finally a game that can be a worthy successor to Pacific War - the scale, playability and detail for us old timers. Glad you are making the operational South Pacific game as well for those who want to fight it out at that scale.
One note - you might want to update that flashing ad for WITP for "November 2000". I think you might have missed that release date
One note - you might want to update that flashing ad for WITP for "November 2000". I think you might have missed that release date
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
We are incredibly excited! Do you folks have an estimated cost yet? My gaming dollars are fairly limited (got 2 kids into horses!) and I need to know how much to start stashing away! Is there anything else you can come up with (mugs, shirts, hats etc.)that would help generate some quick income? Let any of us know what we can do to encourage and help you in your quest. It is as much in our best interest that you succeed as in yours! Good luck! (and hurry up! )
)Mike,
I think you can count on just about everyone here to buy the WITP game as long as cost is not exhorbitant.
I encourage you to take the necessary time to do the job right, however. You cleverly spent some time creating the free games to get the buzz going (I have encountered discussions of matrix games on other boards) and now need to make sure your original efforts are all they are advertised to be.
I don't know if you want to try for a release only on the net. This worked okay for Space Empires, but that was a one-man show. Still, they are finding no luck selling SE4 in stores, so maybe via the web (download only) might be the way to go.
I just purely HATE to pay $9.00 shipping for a $40 game, even if I save $1.80 in sales tax.
I think you can count on just about everyone here to buy the WITP game as long as cost is not exhorbitant.
I encourage you to take the necessary time to do the job right, however. You cleverly spent some time creating the free games to get the buzz going (I have encountered discussions of matrix games on other boards) and now need to make sure your original efforts are all they are advertised to be.
I don't know if you want to try for a release only on the net. This worked okay for Space Empires, but that was a one-man show. Still, they are finding no luck selling SE4 in stores, so maybe via the web (download only) might be the way to go.
I just purely HATE to pay $9.00 shipping for a $40 game, even if I save $1.80 in sales tax.
Steel Beasts and Combat Mission are 2 examples of games sold only on the net (order the CD from their site) that have done phenomenally well recently. Means they don't have to pay the middleman or a publisher. The "profit" all goes to them, so they can target just the military game community, NOT have to try and sell 25 million copies to make everyone in between happy. If the game and support is good enough, they don't even have to pay for advertising. Military game sites, mags, and word of mouth does it.
Goeff,
I hope you are right about the games, but I must admit that as an afficiando of the genre I have never heard of them. This is exactly the problem Matrix faces: how do you get the games known generally enough that people will order them online.
SE3 worked for one person. SE4 apparently took a herd of people, and I (a big fan) am still waiting to see how I will order the game.
I would pay $9 shipping for a game that costs $30 online and $40 in the store. If the game (a la WITP) is good enough, that is.
I hope you are right about the games, but I must admit that as an afficiando of the genre I have never heard of them. This is exactly the problem Matrix faces: how do you get the games known generally enough that people will order them online.
SE3 worked for one person. SE4 apparently took a herd of people, and I (a big fan) am still waiting to see how I will order the game.
I would pay $9 shipping for a game that costs $30 online and $40 in the store. If the game (a la WITP) is good enough, that is.
Wow, Loved the screen shots can't wait to get my hands on the games. i've one comment on TF size. It says TF's will be no more than 15 ships, however in Operation Forager TF58 with TG's 58.1,58.2,58.3,58.4 and 58.7 were all composed of between 20 and 25 ships.
The new maps are awesome! Do you have a target release date?
The new maps are awesome! Do you have a target release date?
You can run but you'll die tired!
Hello...
I do not know the price and we have no release date.
Michael Wood
I do not know the price and we have no release date.
Bye...Originally posted by MikeKraemer:
Wow, Loved the screen shots can't wait to get my hands on the games. i've one comment on TF size. It says TF's will be no more than 15 ships, however in Operation Forager TF58 with TG's 58.1,58.2,58.3,58.4 and 58.7 were all composed of between 20 and 25 ships.
The new maps are awesome! Do you have a target release date?
Michael Wood
Hello...
Yes, you will need to send several task groups for some missions. Right now, there is no provision for a task force, composed of several task groups.
Michael Wood
Yes, you will need to send several task groups for some missions. Right now, there is no provision for a task force, composed of several task groups.
Bye...Originally posted by sethwrkr:
15ship Hmm. Tough to get japanese flack worth a hoot, but then maybe a betty will survice to drop bombs against an allied TF. What about transport TFs. Will we just have to send multiple tfs?
Seth
Michael Wood
Good Even'.
Did I read correctly that TG's will be limited to 15 ships? I dearly hope not because that will be about as ahistorical as I can think of, most notably if the TG's are not able to be linked under a TF command..unless you are going to have eighty or ninety individual TF's for each operation. I'd really recommend a rethink on this, because it is decidedly too limiting and, would, admittedly on the surface, appear far too artificial... unless you can have some mechanism for linking the TG's. Almost all of the later war CV TF's were somewhat larger than this, not to mention the fact that if one disregards prewar USN CV doctrine and decide to operate multiple CV TG's (or TF's) then the ASW screen alone will take up a lot of ship slots, unless you are counting multiples DD's as a single ship. Further, a transport TF would have to be larger than fifteen ships to be effective. Additionally, this would eliminate convoys whatsoever. If WitP continues with the possibility of IJN submarines operating against merchant shipping, this creates a problem of rather difficult proportions to correct. How about a little more information on this, please?
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
Did I read correctly that TG's will be limited to 15 ships? I dearly hope not because that will be about as ahistorical as I can think of, most notably if the TG's are not able to be linked under a TF command..unless you are going to have eighty or ninety individual TF's for each operation. I'd really recommend a rethink on this, because it is decidedly too limiting and, would, admittedly on the surface, appear far too artificial... unless you can have some mechanism for linking the TG's. Almost all of the later war CV TF's were somewhat larger than this, not to mention the fact that if one disregards prewar USN CV doctrine and decide to operate multiple CV TG's (or TF's) then the ASW screen alone will take up a lot of ship slots, unless you are counting multiples DD's as a single ship. Further, a transport TF would have to be larger than fifteen ships to be effective. Additionally, this would eliminate convoys whatsoever. If WitP continues with the possibility of IJN submarines operating against merchant shipping, this creates a problem of rather difficult proportions to correct. How about a little more information on this, please?
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Looking back at my books on the Pacific War, rarely did individual combat TF's exceed between 15-20 ships. These are the ones that are grouped together to fight in a single engagement. The battle of Savo Island wasn't one IJN TF vs. one USN TF, but, one IJN TF vs. multiple USN TF's. USN Ships were grouped in small numbers (4-6) and were picked off by the combined force of the IJN TF.
Later in the war, the USN had many separate Task Groups from each Task Force (64 TG had 64.1, 64.2, 64.3, etc) which rarely went beyond 15 ships. This is what WitP is probably trying to model. Also, Admirals were usually only assigned a relatively small number of ships, so they could fight better. Directly commanding 12 ships is a heck of a lot easier than 24 ships.
Example.
TF 58 had 12 Carriers
It was divided into 4 Task Groups
TG 58.1 3 Carriers
TG 58.2 3 Carriers
TG 58.3 3 Carriers
TG 58.4 3 Carriers
Each TG had escorts, which probably didn't amount to more than 12 vessels. So, TF 58 might have had 60 ships, BUT, they never operated as one solid unit. Earlier USN TF's weren't subdivided BECAUSE they didn't have as many ships, and these TF's rarely exceeded 15 ships. Mitscher, the commander of TF 58 was more like a Strategic commander, leaving Rear Admirals in the Task Groups to be Tactical commanders. Mitscher told the TF where to go, and where to strike, but, the TG commanders ordered the strikes and did the 'fine tuneing'. Mitsher would have NO effect in the fighting ability of the pilots or sailors, their Rear Admirals would. I am not sure wether or not TF and TG representation will be included in WitP, but, one could just assume that late war USN TF's are really late war USN TG's.
From my readings, a typical TF was usually made up of 4 capital ships (usually Cruisers) and 8 screens (usually 2 Destroyer Divisions). Usually combat occurred between one TF at a time.
Numbers of ships in a TF does not always mean that they will win. In PacWar, this wasn't so, no matter what your ship type, or commander the nation with the greatest number of ships usually won in an engagement. Repeatedly in History did outnumbered forces defeat a much larger enemy. WitP is going to focus on INDIVIDUAL ship capability, gained not only through ship armament, but, Leader quality, and crew quality. You could have a small TF of obsolete ships commanded by crack sailors and commanders overwhelm a larger TF of modern ships commanded by green sailors.
I understand that Cargo vessels will be represented like they are in PacWar.
[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited January 07, 2001).]
Later in the war, the USN had many separate Task Groups from each Task Force (64 TG had 64.1, 64.2, 64.3, etc) which rarely went beyond 15 ships. This is what WitP is probably trying to model. Also, Admirals were usually only assigned a relatively small number of ships, so they could fight better. Directly commanding 12 ships is a heck of a lot easier than 24 ships.
Example.
TF 58 had 12 Carriers
It was divided into 4 Task Groups
TG 58.1 3 Carriers
TG 58.2 3 Carriers
TG 58.3 3 Carriers
TG 58.4 3 Carriers
Each TG had escorts, which probably didn't amount to more than 12 vessels. So, TF 58 might have had 60 ships, BUT, they never operated as one solid unit. Earlier USN TF's weren't subdivided BECAUSE they didn't have as many ships, and these TF's rarely exceeded 15 ships. Mitscher, the commander of TF 58 was more like a Strategic commander, leaving Rear Admirals in the Task Groups to be Tactical commanders. Mitscher told the TF where to go, and where to strike, but, the TG commanders ordered the strikes and did the 'fine tuneing'. Mitsher would have NO effect in the fighting ability of the pilots or sailors, their Rear Admirals would. I am not sure wether or not TF and TG representation will be included in WitP, but, one could just assume that late war USN TF's are really late war USN TG's.
From my readings, a typical TF was usually made up of 4 capital ships (usually Cruisers) and 8 screens (usually 2 Destroyer Divisions). Usually combat occurred between one TF at a time.
Numbers of ships in a TF does not always mean that they will win. In PacWar, this wasn't so, no matter what your ship type, or commander the nation with the greatest number of ships usually won in an engagement. Repeatedly in History did outnumbered forces defeat a much larger enemy. WitP is going to focus on INDIVIDUAL ship capability, gained not only through ship armament, but, Leader quality, and crew quality. You could have a small TF of obsolete ships commanded by crack sailors and commanders overwhelm a larger TF of modern ships commanded by green sailors.
I understand that Cargo vessels will be represented like they are in PacWar.
[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited January 07, 2001).]
Major Tom:
I will have to find again my references - usually the Samuel Eliot Morrison series on Naval Operations in WWII. But IIRC, which may be cloudy from a number of years ago - the escorts for the CV TG's - most notably the destroyers, could range upward of 16 or so. I will try to find the series. In the back of several volumes arecomplete breakdowns of the OOB's of the Fast Carrier Task Groups involved in various actions - usually in 1944 and on. The numbers I remember are 12-15 CV and CVL, 6-8 BB's depending on where they were in the upkeep cycle, etc. But Spruances's Task Force Fifty Eight at the Battle of the Philippine Sea was 106 ships divided into five Task Groups - and one of them was the Battle Line - which was not normally done. Lee's task force was broken out of the carrier task forces to enable them to deal with the IJN fleet if the opportunity for surface action arose. That means that under normal operating conditions there were 106 ships divided into four carrier TG's - or 26 ships average. Also, again from memory - TF 34.2 - again the Battle line - was to have been composed of six battleship, either four or six cruisers, and about twelve destroyers. One account I recall stated that the orders for the BAttle line went out to even more ships, 6 BB's, 2 CA's, 4 CL's, and 16 DD's. Standard doctrine for Battle Fleet formations included at least that many in PRE WAR doctrine often with many more, as many as twenty to twenty four destroyers in the Battle Fleet.
I'll say it again - 15 is an artificially low number - and it appears to be artificially low in precisely the wrong area - in DD's!
I know that apppears to be a lot of ships for a single commander to control - but a single commander did not control all of them. He controlled the Carrier Division Commanders - always admirals, Battleship and Cruiser division commanders - again admirals, and destroyer division commanders - commodores. They were lots of flag types afloat in each TG who got together frequently to work out who was going to do what with which and to whom when the ortho hit the mixmaster. The TG commander gave these guys the orders and objectives. They passed it on to the ship commanders. So chain of command is not a limiting factor in size of a Task Group. But ship availability is a limiting factor, and that is controlled by such things as early war losses in cruisers and requirements for repair/refit/overhaul. Believe me, if Spruance or Halsey could have found another couple of cruisers to spare for an AA screen and another division of DD's for the ASW screen, you betcha they would have had them in there.
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
[This message has been edited by RevRick (edited January 07, 2001).]
I will have to find again my references - usually the Samuel Eliot Morrison series on Naval Operations in WWII. But IIRC, which may be cloudy from a number of years ago - the escorts for the CV TG's - most notably the destroyers, could range upward of 16 or so. I will try to find the series. In the back of several volumes arecomplete breakdowns of the OOB's of the Fast Carrier Task Groups involved in various actions - usually in 1944 and on. The numbers I remember are 12-15 CV and CVL, 6-8 BB's depending on where they were in the upkeep cycle, etc. But Spruances's Task Force Fifty Eight at the Battle of the Philippine Sea was 106 ships divided into five Task Groups - and one of them was the Battle Line - which was not normally done. Lee's task force was broken out of the carrier task forces to enable them to deal with the IJN fleet if the opportunity for surface action arose. That means that under normal operating conditions there were 106 ships divided into four carrier TG's - or 26 ships average. Also, again from memory - TF 34.2 - again the Battle line - was to have been composed of six battleship, either four or six cruisers, and about twelve destroyers. One account I recall stated that the orders for the BAttle line went out to even more ships, 6 BB's, 2 CA's, 4 CL's, and 16 DD's. Standard doctrine for Battle Fleet formations included at least that many in PRE WAR doctrine often with many more, as many as twenty to twenty four destroyers in the Battle Fleet.
I'll say it again - 15 is an artificially low number - and it appears to be artificially low in precisely the wrong area - in DD's!
I know that apppears to be a lot of ships for a single commander to control - but a single commander did not control all of them. He controlled the Carrier Division Commanders - always admirals, Battleship and Cruiser division commanders - again admirals, and destroyer division commanders - commodores. They were lots of flag types afloat in each TG who got together frequently to work out who was going to do what with which and to whom when the ortho hit the mixmaster. The TG commander gave these guys the orders and objectives. They passed it on to the ship commanders. So chain of command is not a limiting factor in size of a Task Group. But ship availability is a limiting factor, and that is controlled by such things as early war losses in cruisers and requirements for repair/refit/overhaul. Believe me, if Spruance or Halsey could have found another couple of cruisers to spare for an AA screen and another division of DD's for the ASW screen, you betcha they would have had them in there.
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
[This message has been edited by RevRick (edited January 07, 2001).]
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Let's look at the largest of the naval battles, Leyte Gulf, to see if the 15 ship maximum span of control makes sense.
The Japanese had a First Strike Force that when through San Bernadino Strait. It had 5 BB, 10 CA, 2 CL, and 15 DD. Interestingly, it was not employed as a single force. It was divided into two forces, "Force A" of 3 BB, 6 CA, 1 CL, and 9DD (total 19 ships) and a "Force B" of 2 BB, 4 CA, 1 CL, and 6 DD (13 ships). Why did Kurita do this? It is possible that these were the ships that we based at the various bases at the start of the campaign, but Kurita retained this organization for the Battle of Samar, so there must have been a reason for it. I expect it was a span of control issue.
I have been on the staff of a US carrier Battle Group commader, and I can assure you that the ability of such a staff (even with subordinate staffs from the DESRON and Air Wing helping) to control large numbers of ships is limited. There are too many variables, and too much to keep track of, even with the aid of computers. 19 ships seems like a large number for a modern staff.
Looking to the US at the Battle of the Marianas, we find:
TG 58.1
2 CV
2 CVL
3 CA
2 CL
10DD
(19 ships)
TG 58.2
2 CV
2 CVL
3 CL
12DD
(19 ships)
TG 58.3
2 CV
2 CVL
1 CA
4 CL
13DD
(22 ships)
TG 58.4
1 CV
2 CVL
4 CL
14DD
(21 ships)
TG 58.7
7 BB
4 CA
13DD
(24 ships)
So it seems that a limit of 20 or so ships is reasonable (with a better commander like Lee maybe able to command a few more). I certainly would prefer being able to link TGs into a TF (repetitive orders are a drag in the existing system and would be a real pain under the new system).
Doug
The Japanese had a First Strike Force that when through San Bernadino Strait. It had 5 BB, 10 CA, 2 CL, and 15 DD. Interestingly, it was not employed as a single force. It was divided into two forces, "Force A" of 3 BB, 6 CA, 1 CL, and 9DD (total 19 ships) and a "Force B" of 2 BB, 4 CA, 1 CL, and 6 DD (13 ships). Why did Kurita do this? It is possible that these were the ships that we based at the various bases at the start of the campaign, but Kurita retained this organization for the Battle of Samar, so there must have been a reason for it. I expect it was a span of control issue.
I have been on the staff of a US carrier Battle Group commader, and I can assure you that the ability of such a staff (even with subordinate staffs from the DESRON and Air Wing helping) to control large numbers of ships is limited. There are too many variables, and too much to keep track of, even with the aid of computers. 19 ships seems like a large number for a modern staff.
Looking to the US at the Battle of the Marianas, we find:
TG 58.1
2 CV
2 CVL
3 CA
2 CL
10DD
(19 ships)
TG 58.2
2 CV
2 CVL
3 CL
12DD
(19 ships)
TG 58.3
2 CV
2 CVL
1 CA
4 CL
13DD
(22 ships)
TG 58.4
1 CV
2 CVL
4 CL
14DD
(21 ships)
TG 58.7
7 BB
4 CA
13DD
(24 ships)
So it seems that a limit of 20 or so ships is reasonable (with a better commander like Lee maybe able to command a few more). I certainly would prefer being able to link TGs into a TF (repetitive orders are a drag in the existing system and would be a real pain under the new system).
Doug
I have to agree wit RevRick. Task Force 58 at the Philipine Sea broke out as follows:
TG58.1 TG58.2 TG58.3 TG58.4 TG58.7
2CV 2CV 2CV 1CV 7BB
2CVL 2CVL 2CVL 2CVL 4CA
2CA 3CL 1CA 1CLAA 13DD
2CLAA 13DD 1CLAA 3CL
14DD 3CL 15DD
13DD
22 20 22 22 24
TG58.7 the battleline was pulled out of the carriers screens in anticipation of a surface engagement.
TG58.1 TG58.2 TG58.3 TG58.4 TG58.7
2CV 2CV 2CV 1CV 7BB
2CVL 2CVL 2CVL 2CVL 4CA
2CA 3CL 1CA 1CLAA 13DD
2CLAA 13DD 1CLAA 3CL
14DD 3CL 15DD
13DD
22 20 22 22 24
TG58.7 the battleline was pulled out of the carriers screens in anticipation of a surface engagement.
You can run but you'll die tired!
Hi, I am against a limit based on anything other then programing limits. (Just make sure to also include how to refuel a large TF and where to anchor it) It is ok to reward players who keep small TF (leader bonus) and penalize those who "overstack". I believe in letting the player cut his own throat where ever possible, rather then limit them to only "historical" modes of play. This means all I want are the ships/planes/units/leaders/maps. If the US player does not want to attack PI so be it (but allow Japan enough freedom to then not garrision it as heavy) I want the players to "invent" the war as they go not relive the war. Large TF small TF there is a difference not only it combat ability but in where you can keep them. Try sending 100 combat ships (as Japan) to the outer limits of the empire and see what happens to them.
Even if an airbase is built to hold 100 AC sometimes you just can't supply that many.
So please include realistic logistics ect but leave out the politics ( I usally fire MacArthur and shoot him rather then listen to him) Please leave out any units not actually available. Everything I have read about this new game makes me want it. I really am looking forward to playing it online. (Not PBEM,.... well that too)
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited January 08, 2001).]
Even if an airbase is built to hold 100 AC sometimes you just can't supply that many.
So please include realistic logistics ect but leave out the politics ( I usally fire MacArthur and shoot him rather then listen to him) Please leave out any units not actually available. Everything I have read about this new game makes me want it. I really am looking forward to playing it online. (Not PBEM,.... well that too)
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited January 08, 2001).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Personally I would like for there to be a certain bit of politics. Why else would you as the British want to reinforce Singapore? Why would you attack the Philippines instead of just going for Formosa? What would be the purpose of a Doolittle Raid? The IJA and IJN working in harmony?
At least make politics an option. Many people state that Pacific War was too easy to win, as, all you had to do was secure the Marianas and bomb Japan into submission or have the IJA and IJN work together an overwhelm the Allies. In reality the war wasn't that simple. Shoot MacArthur or not, the US would still look pretty lame of they avoided the Philippines. The IJA and IJN repeatedly srewed eachother over by not bothering to coordinate or support eachother.
Leaving these critical points out of the picture for WitP will only leave the game feeling unrealistic.
At least make politics an option. Many people state that Pacific War was too easy to win, as, all you had to do was secure the Marianas and bomb Japan into submission or have the IJA and IJN work together an overwhelm the Allies. In reality the war wasn't that simple. Shoot MacArthur or not, the US would still look pretty lame of they avoided the Philippines. The IJA and IJN repeatedly srewed eachother over by not bothering to coordinate or support eachother.
Leaving these critical points out of the picture for WitP will only leave the game feeling unrealistic.
-
Vito Di Meglio
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 10:00 am
Hi Mogami, I fully agree with you,
especially about MacArthur, personally I leave him in Manila to surrender. Anyway, I get the headquarter back the next week.Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, I am against a limit based on anything other then programing limits. (Just make sure to also include how to refuel a large TF and where to anchor it) It is ok to reward players who keep small TF (leader bonus) and penalize those who "overstack". I believe in letting the player cut his own throat where ever possible, rather then limit them to only "historical" modes of play. This means all I want are the ships/planes/units/leaders/maps. If the US player does not want to attack PI so be it (but allow Japan enough freedom to then not garrision it as heavy) I want the players to "invent" the war as they go not relive the war. Large TF small TF there is a difference not only it combat ability but in where you can keep them. Try sending 100 combat ships (as Japan) to the outer limits of the empire and see what happens to them.
Even if an airbase is built to hold 100 AC sometimes you just can't supply that many.
So please include realistic logistics ect but leave out the politics ( I usally fire MacArthur and shoot him rather then listen to him) Please leave out any units not actually available. Everything I have read about this new game makes me want it. I really am looking forward to playing it online. (Not PBEM,.... well that too)