Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Historiker, do you really think John's suffering unfairly to LBA in India? He has hundreds of mostly unguarded merchant ships within a hex to about six hexes of hundreds of highly experienced bombers. In this situation in real life, the Japanese transports would be shredded, I think. So, I believe these results are plausible, and that John should have known that if he moved into close range of Allied LBA and failed to adequately guard his ships he would take fearful losses.

In difference to Nemo, I see this as exploiting the game.
Its nothing to complain about when your experienced bombers devastade his fleet - but IMO, it should be in an acceptable way. For me, using naval search isn't acceptable, but everyone may regard that his way.

If your bombers are that experienced, what's the problem with unleashing them with the usual naval strike mission?
On the other hand, most games have a house rule regarding the altitude 4Es have to fly doing naval attack. This rule can easily be bypassed by letting them fly naval search with lower altitude. I don't know about how you handle this in your game...

Anyway: I never try to forget that its just a game and that both sides should enjoy it...

How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I have my bombers in India set for Naval Strike and 10% Naval Search. My experience with the game is that this setting increases the chances that my bombers will find and then sortie against enemy ships. I had no idea the Naval Search missions would be so effective at also scoring hits, but I think this is primarily due to John's failure to adquately provide for the defense of his ships. My bombers are flying Naval Strike missions every turn too. The damage he has suffered is totally within the bounds of reason given his proximity to 88% Experience Allied bombers (the range of experience is probably 70% to 95%). He stood the KB off about ten hexes because he lost an air battle early in the invasion and is afraid he doesn't have enought CAP. Now his unprotected transports are getting a battering. That's not exploiting the game.

I have no first hand experience with the Naval Search vs. CAP issue, yet, but from what I've read, John is under the impression that Naval Search is not affected by CAP. Does anyone know for sure which is true?

There is a saying: perception is reality in the eyes of the perceiver. To put that in WITP terms, an exploit is only an exploit if you are the one suffering the effects of it. John is complaining about how many ships have been hit by NavSearch yet I have not heard Dan complain about his subs being sunk by masses of Army Bombers on NavSearch. I could expand the list but I don't think it is necessary. John, is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I agree with Nemo that he failed to grasp the enormity of the situation when Dan invaded Iwo Jima and Sakalin Island. Now the fox is in the hen house while the dog is out hunting rabbits.

John's current operation is more a statement of his play style more than anything else. He has a very hard time planning defensive operations. He is an offensively minded player that is in a defensive point of his game. I realize that with the pilot bug and other warts in WITP that it is very hard for the Japanese this late in the game. Still I think John could have done more.

In my game I have the opposite problem, I am a defensively minded player that is now in the offensive phase of my game as Allies in late 1943. I am having a very hard time keeping up the offensive tempo because I look at every base I take as vulnerable. I reinforce and build defenses before moving on. I know this is giving my opponent time to regroup but I just can't get my mindset changed no matter how hard I try.

How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have no first hand experience with the Naval Search vs. CAP issue, yet, but from what I've read, John is under the impression that Naval Search is not affected by CAP. Does anyone know for sure which is true?

(1) Naval search (as well as recon and transport) missions are affected by CAP. You just don't see it because there are no animations for it. But CAP is (always was) less efficient against small strikes in WITP.

(2) This issue is not 4E-bomber related. Every high-experience bomber would give similar results (that is: use of high-experience B-25's or Betties would give similar results if in range). But 4E-bombers have better range and higher bombloads, of course.

(3) Basically same thing as with land based bombers on ASW or Naval Search. High XP makes them deadly against subs in WITP.

(4) Works out different (much better) in the AE.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.

My bomber groups are always set on 10% naval search; none are or ever have been set higher. If in his AAR John is implying or giving the impression that my bombers are set higher, please let him know that isn't the case.

Everybody's guessing here - why not just post the combat and operation reports?

If you're using 10% naval search, I don't see a problem in the least. Limiting 4E bombers to a purely strategic role would be ridiculous.

[edit] Whoops - should be more careful with my wording. I'm not doubting your word, it's just a lot of speculation going on based on verbal descriptions of the turn action. Combat and Operation reports might clear that up, so at least the discussion is based on facts not speculation.

I can't imagine anybody would doubt my word about this, but just in case anybody does wonder, here's an offer.  John can send any (or all) of my turn files over the past seven game days to anyone of his choosing and I'll then send that person my password.  They can open the file and check naval settings and confirm that they are all at 10% Naval Search.  Since the turn files are coming from John and will come from several days back, there won't be any questions of my having tampered with them after the fact.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.

My bomber groups are always set on 10% naval search; none are or ever have been set higher. If in his AAR John is implying or giving the impression that my bombers are set higher, please let him know that isn't the case.

You need to communicate this to John then because the general impression is that they are set above that producing high hit rates.

As to the exploit thing, I have had enough. I have refrained from speaking my true feelings but this ongoing discussion in both AAR's and the War Room has been eating at me for two days now.

John has:

* Spent enormous amounts of energy putting Carrier units in China on "training" missions. He has used ground attack missions to make fighter groups with high EXP to use for CAP and Escort missions. He has used ground attack missions to make torpedo bombers groups have high EXP for NavAttack. I know this is typical Japanese Fanboyism, but it is still an exploit

* Stripped most if not all of his DB's off his carriers and replaced them with TB (which, BTW, are overrated in the game). Again, typical JFB activity but still an exploit (see the AE threads regarding the truth about how limited the Japanese CV's were in terms of supporting high numbers of TB's)

* Put hundreds of Army bombers on NavSearch/ASW to destroy Allied submarines.

* Stripped all his strike aircraft off his CV's to create a CAP trap

WITP has a lot of bad design that allows players to do things that were not possible in RL. John has used every one of those loopholes to his advantage throughout the game. Dan, to his credit, has complained very little. Now John has started this Indian misadventure and it is not going his way. Since it started he has accused Dan of cheating/spying and now exploiting the NavSearch routine. Odd, when Dan's carrier strike aircraft were wiped out by John's CAP trap off Hokkaido, I seem to recall most of Dan's energy was focused on getting his air groups rebuilt not whining about John's tactics.

Dan, you have played a brilliant game. You have showed both perseverance during some very dark times and remarkable resiliency. You invasion of Hokkaido and Salkilin late in 1943 goes right up there with PZB's capture of Karachi in my mind as far as WITP bold moves. You have been "gamed" by John throughout this game, yet, have done little complaining. I salute you[&o]

Guys, let's call a spade a spade. John DOES have a history of crying wolf when things don't go his way. It is unfortunate and I think it is understandable given some other stressors BUT even if Canoerebel had his bombers on 100% naval search it'd be entirely fine. John can't ask for rule changes just because he is unwilling or unable to enact the necessary countermeasures.
 
 
OTOH if it would settle this I'll put myself forward as someone who would be prepared to look at the two filesets. I don't doubt Canoerebel but I think that this whole calling his play into question is ridiculous and I'd like to settle it as quickly as possible as I think he deserves better.

My email to John this a.m.: 
 
Based upon additional comments in my AAR, it seems that many people are under the impression that my Nav Search was set higher than 10%.  I've offered to allow you to send whatever files you wish to anyone of your choosing; I'll then send that person my password and they can check the files going back as far as you wish.  Since the files will be coming from you, there can be no question of my having tampered with them.  Nemo has offered to serve in this capacity, but you can choose whoever you wish.  It might be best to choose somebody that has this version loaded - I think Q-Ball, Miller, and BigB would be obvious candidates.  You are also welcome to send them those older files to check that I had my present garrison in India long, long before you first considered invading - I think they were there before July '44, but select one file from each month - say May, June, July '44 - and that person can verify that my defenses that were in place on your D-Day have been in place since way back in late spring or early summer.

Everyone knows John and I are partners on a 2x2, and I think he's a fine chap overall. My two cents, of all the alleged exploits or gaminess mentioned here, 4E Nav Search, deception in China, pilot training, etc.....I think almost all of it is within acceptable conduct. Possible exception MIGHT be switching out CV airgroups, but other than that I haven't heard anything that to me would be a problem.

It's a game, and it's usually not a good thing when high emotion comes into the game, but I think both of you have played fair and square.

Well said, Q-Ball.  I've said once before that John is almost like a brother now, and the intensity is almost like brotherly competition.  Alot goes into a game, so tensions are high, but while I'm intense with my brother, it doesn't change the fact that he's my brother and a good man.
 
I've had a problems with a few things John has done in the game:  His misleading statement early in the game about China (referenced on the previous page of this AAR), although this could fall within the defination of psych-ops; the time he trapped all my merchant ships in a corner of the map and bombed them unmercifully (in real life, those merchants would have just proceeded further south), but getting them stuck there was my own fault, so I never complained to John;  and the time he swapped all his Nav fighters for some other kind of fighter, sent me the turn, and then asked for a redo when he learned through his AAR that those fighters might not even fly (I felt that once he sent the turn it should've been a done deal, but I ultimately agreed to let him go back a few turns and start over).
 
I don't mind John pulling troops out of China, swapping out strike aircraft for fighters (the massive CAP trap he set for me near Hokkaido), swapping out dive bombers for torpedo bombers, using LBA on ASW search and destroy missions, allowing small garrisons to remain in DEI and Philippines so that he could train pilots, or any other number of strategems.  Most or all of these, I felt, fell within the area of "what if."  The Japs didn't try them in real life, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have.  It's a game, so it's all about the challenge of using assets to try to devise a way to defeat your enemy.
 
(I did mind when there were questions about me having foreknowlege of John's invasion, but I think that was put to rest early on).

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Well said, Q-Ball.  I've said once before that John is almost like a brother now, and the intensity is almost like brotherly competition.  Alot goes into a game, so tensions are high, but while I'm intense with my brother, it doesn't change the fact that he's my brother and a good man.

I've had a problems with a few things John has done in the game:  His misleading statement early in the game about China (referenced on the previous page of this AAR), although this could fall within the defination of psych-ops; the time he trapped all my merchant ships in a corner of the map and bombed them unmercifully (in real life, those merchants would have just proceeded further south), but getting them stuck there was my own fault, so I never complained to John;  and the time he swapped all his Nav fighters for some other kind of fighter, sent me the turn, and then asked for a redo when he learned through his AAR that those fighters might not even fly (I felt that once he sent the turn it should've been a done deal, but I ultimately agreed to let him go back a few turns and start over).

I don't mind John pulling troops out of China, swapping out strike aircraft for fighters (the massive CAP trap he set for me near Hokkaido), swapping out dive bombers for torpedo bombers, using LBA on ASW search and destroy missions, allowing small garrisons to remain in DEI and Philippines so that he could train pilots, or any other number of strategems.  Most or all of these, I felt, fell within the area of "what if."  The Japs didn't try them in real life, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have.  It's a game, so it's all about the challenge of using assets to try to devise a way to defeat your enemy.

(I did mind when there were questions about me having foreknowlege of John's invasion, but I think that was put to rest early on).

I know John is going through hell right now and that is probably affecting his mood. My point was not about exploits vs non-exploits but that John has a very myopic view of what is and is not gamey. I know the things I listed in my previous post are considered normal strategies for WITP. That doesn't mean they are not exploiting the game system.

My point is that John has no problem screaming about things being overstated or unrealistic when it is going against him but often gloats when the shoe is on the other foot. I don't think this breaks operational security but those that read both AAR's know John has been bragging some time about how many subs his has sunk with Helens and other Army bombers on NavSearch and ASW patrol. Odd, the same game routine that has given him so much success against subs is now wrecking his merchant fleet. Before it was a "MUWHAHAHAH Moment", now it is, "OMG, this game is so messed up, this is so unrealistic, this is so unfair".

I can't imagine anybody would doubt my word about this, but just in case anybody does wonder, here's an offer. John can send any (or all) of my turn files over the past seven game days to anyone of his choosing and I'll then send that person my password. They can open the file and check naval settings and confirm that they are all at 10% Naval Search. Since the turn files are coming from John and will come from several days back, there won't be any questions of my having tampered with them after the fact.

I really doubt that this is needed...

I really have enjoyed this AAR both from your angle and from John's.

This little Indian adventure is just icing on the cake for me as it is hard to imagine such a major Japanese attack so late in the the game.

I have no complaints with your managment of the Allies. You really have done a great job. One thing though. This AAR has tought me that the Japanese carrier force must be pursued and dealt with as soon as the Allies have sufficient carrier force themselves. Even the loss of half of his carriers would have made any attack such as this impossible. It really does not matter if the Allies take large losses themselves, the Japanese carrier foce has to be hunted down without remorse. Until they are suppressed, a massive IJN carrier force in being creates too much uncertainity.

Keep up the good work.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwinkle, very well said.  I agree, although the root of the problem in my opinion is that he should have hit Sikhalin Island with everything he had in early 1944.  Sikhalin has always been the real threat to Jap welfare, and early in '44 I was so weak that John had a decent chance of hurting me badly.  Not only were my ground forces wrecked, my ships were out of fuel, I was low on supplies, and I had a tremendously long and vulnerable supply line.  John didn't know my problems, of course, but he did know his - an Allied Sikhalin Island would be murder to the Japs.

At the current rate the Allies wouldn't achieve auto-victory until late winter or spring.  I'm at 1.40 to 1, and probably will be about 1.60 to one on New Years Day barring some calamitous one-sided victory that either increases or decreases that ratio.

I haven't played PBEM into 1945 and it's years since I read the manual. Does the engine do auto-victory checks in real-time after 1/1/1945, only periodically on the first of the months, or does it do one, last check on 1/1/1945 and then leave it to VP totals to determine the winner?

I agree with the hindsight that he should have defended/counter-attacked the North. Like most others I'm reading both AARs, so I'll just say that both of you are in for some surprises when it's all over and you read "history" to your grandkids. [;)]

I will say this though, and I'd say the same to him. Both of you seem, at least outwardly, to sometimes underestimate the game's FOW formulae, especially in air combat results. VPs don't lie, but many of the successes you both assume happened, didn't.

The second thing is more amateur shrink-ish. I think--just maybe--that the reason he didn't "go North" on you was becasue it would have been too pedestrian. He likes the bold, brilliant stroke. (Witness this week.) His enthusiasms, as well as disappointments, spike and recede. He, for example, spent lots of time and resources on Oz, and for what? You are more plodding, more methodical, more able to exploit past success in a careful manner. You aren't on Formosa yet, rolling dice. He would be. This difference in approach has been one of the most interesting aspects of these AARs for me. It's Mac vs. Nimitz.

After detailing to John earlier today that I have (and have always had) my bombers set at 10% Naval Search, he writes this in his most recent email:  "Well--you changed your settings for this turn.  Actual real strikes came in.  I can handle that so much better then the other.  Only 22 hits this turn."
 
My reply:   "John, you're wrong every time you accuse me of something.  I've told you already that my settings have been Naval Strike with 10% Naval Search from the beginning and they remain so this turn. I have not touched the settings.  I've had real strikes every turn (your CVEs, BBs and a number of transports have fallen victim to them; but cloud cover has kept them from flying in large numbers up to now, I guess."
 
So now he doesn't believe my word on this, and he has also declined my offer to let a neutral party review the file.  I think I'm going to give him my password and let him see for himself.  I'm pretty  hacked off.  First he questioned my honesty, now he doubts the truth of what I've told him.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

After detailing to John earlier today that I have (and have always had) my bombers set at 10% Naval Search, he writes this in his most recent email:  "Well--you changed your settings for this turn.  Actual real strikes came in.  I can handle that so much better then the other.  Only 22 hits this turn."

My reply:   "John, you're wrong every time you accuse me of something.  I've told you already that my settings have been Naval Strike with 10% Naval Search from the beginning and they remain so this turn. I have not touched the settings.  I've had real strikes every turn (your CVEs, BBs and a number of transports have fallen victim to them; but cloud cover has kept them from flying in large numbers up to now, I guess."

So now he doesn't believe my word on this, and he has also declined my offer to let a neutral party review the file.  I think I'm going to give him my password and let him see for himself.  I'm pretty  hacked off.  First he questioned my honesty, now he doubts the truth of what I've told him.

Cannonrebel,

You just have to cut him some slack here. He tends to jump to quick conclusions and then feels bad about it later. It is just his way.

I know nothing about the merits of his legal issue and would not venture to say anything about it, but it is apparent that the pressure he is under is tremendous. I doubt that I could function in a gaming sense if I were under the same pressure. Who here could?

I wouldn't send your password. Just play the game out and let him whine, vent or whatever. I think all the folks who read both sides know what to believe.

The game probably won't last much longer anyways given his India adventure and your soon-to-be presence on Taiwan.