History or Balance

[Big B]

I have thought of work arounds with production - and there are options available - you just have to use your editor and do a lot of research.

That being said, As Is, Right Now - I don't think you can play a complete campaign with Japanese Production "off" ....can you?

B

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Agreed, but it is not an excuse to have coordinated US CV airstrikes with 150 planes in 4/42 or to be able to produce more than 420 Tojos in a month. Someone noted that after turn 2 it is not historical, but let me ask who is THAT stupid to want to replay again and again the same thing. Yes I want free, but historical choices vs complete freedom.

For all "mega-ultra-history fanboy" i suggest togle on/off for the japanese production.

Limited control of the japanese war industry was enabled to simulate assumption that Japan leaders realised the danger and turn their economy to the total war production (like US did - that's why Allied player can not interfere in his industry). Furthermore, it obvious that Japan couldn't run his industry based on total war demands without resources and oil. So, expanding war industry is possible only if the player capture oil and resources intact. If not, but despite that he expand his industry he is screwed...


So I'm agree with you - WiTP isn't 100 % historical simualtion. But i do want to have "what if".... what if Japan capture oil and resources intact, what if i realise that Allies would get Hellcats and Corsairs in the 1943 (hey, i'm at least smart as any Allied player who has correct prediction[:D])...

Besides that, 400 Tojos per month wont change the outcome of the war. You need decent airmen to fly them, that is the problem....

There is no completely freedom for Japan. There is no freedom at all - make a one mistake and you are screwed....

In short, i think that toggle on/off option would be good - for all historical issues (toggle on for historical oil/resource damage, japanese war industry....)...

Then all you have to do is founding the opponent.....

[pauk]

hmmm not sure what do you think with that?

Why Jap production cant be "static" like US production?

[Big B]

I merely meant that currently - I believe for the Japanese to play the entire war with fixed production like the Allies - you would first have to go to the Data Base and asign a monthly production schedule.

In other words - I don't think there is a preset production schedule that the game can default to...[:)]

B

ORIGINAL: pauk

hmmm not sure what do you think with that?

Why Jap production cant be "static" like US production?

[Mynok]

Is it not a scenario-based thing? I believe you could "turn production off" in the scenario file and thus have a no-production campaign game.

[Big B]

bump

ORIGINAL: Big B

I merely meant that currently - I believe for the Japanese to play the entire war with fixed production like the Allies - you would first have to go to the Data Base and asign a monthly production schedule.

In other words - I don't think there is a preset production schedule that the game can default to...[:)]

B

ORIGINAL: pauk

hmmm not sure what do you think with that?

Why Jap production cant be "static" like US production?

[Mynok]

If by "monthly production" you mean number of factories, that's probably correct.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


If by "monthly production" you mean number of factories, that's probably correct.

What I remember is that looking through the DB - if you see the P-39 slot - you will notice a monthly production number.
If you look at the slot for an A6M3 Zero (for example) there is no monthly production number specified.

B

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Big B

I merely meant that currently - I believe for the Japanese to play the entire war with fixed production like the Allies - you would first have to go to the Data Base and asign a monthly production schedule.

In other words - I don't think there is a preset production schedule that the game can default to...[:)]

ah, i think i understand now....not an expert for editor...

Anyway, i do like managment and i want to stay like it is. Idea was allowing to our "fantasy players"[X(] to keep production managment and "real history fanboys" to play "histroy"...

nevermind....

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Big B

I merely meant that currently - I believe for the Japanese to play the entire war with fixed production like the Allies - you would first have to go to the Data Base and asign a monthly production schedule.

In other words - I don't think there is a preset production schedule that the game can default to...[:)]

ah, i think i understand now....not an expert for editor...

Anyway, i do like managment and i want to stay like it is. Idea was allowing to our "fantasy players"[X(] to keep production managment and "real history fanboys" to play "histroy"...

nevermind....

Oh I think that japanese production is a nice feature - I think that fixed and adjustable production would be nice if it were available for both sides.

B

[AirGriff]

x

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

m10bob, you shouldn't look down on people who do not want 100% history (or who want some/a lot of fantasy). Every opinion must be respected. And above all, it's their problem. I will never tell people how they should be playing this game. It's their game, they bought it, just like everyone [;)]

Tullius, my friend, I was not looking down on anybody.
I was quite sincere in offering alternative games they may seek out for the type of fictional encounters they want.
I make no excuses, I purchased this game as a wargame, based on actual historic event. I have been in the forums long enough to know Matrix actually watches over our shoulders and will make changes to games, depending on the tracks we leave in these forums.
I don't wish for fiction writers to change MY wargame.
If these sci-fi folks want to make their own mods, let 'em..
I'm not "PC", but I am honest.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it's probably a duck, and I have been reading these "fictitious requests" ever since WITP was released.
I have seen 4e bombers emasculated, Japanese supply increased, and several other changes made, all to "balance" the game, rather than to correct any historical incorrectness.
Tullius, my friend, you have accused me of something wrongfully, and then said you would not tell others how to play the game.
I have not, and will not.
You, however, have seen fit to tell me how to post threads..
Not a good practice.
BTW, read prior threads OF MINE and you will see not only am I FOR the Zero "bonus", I have also campaigned vigorously against what I feel is an inadequate representation of the Oscar, (the plane that literally ALL the highest ranking Japanese army pilots flew initially, but a plane that (in spite of only having 2 MG's) managed to shoot down the P 47 of an American Medal of Honor winner, ending that mans life.
If it is historic, or has a historic basis for its' representation,(like that Zero bonus), I am for it..
Enough elucidation?


Btw, I am not nearly as eloquent as some, and Pasternaski has himself said I have a "way with words", (truly an honor of immense proportion).
Nor am I as handsome, Tullius, as your picture suggests,(making you publicly more presentable to others), and having re-read my original post, I can see how someone who does not know me, at all, might have come to the conclusion you arrived at.[8D]

[mlees]

The US launched coordinated strikes against multiple targets in 4/42. Particularly germane are ... <snip> ...

I think the 150+ plus plane US coordinated strike is, as a matter of alt-history, less contingent upon (false) assumptions of USN incapability and instead more contingent on the CVs doing the attack. Based on "Shattered Sword" I'd have to peg down Hornet's performance initially.

A biography on Spruance I read last year was also critical of the Hornet's handling, as well.

It should be noted that each carrier handled their own launches and such. They were all operating from the same sighting reports, and Spruance ordered strikes on the same suspected enemy TF, presumably to arrive at or near the same time.

However, it is worthy to note that the Enterprise's strike was not as coordinated amongst itself as compared to the Yorktown's strike, and the Hornet's planes did not attack anything on 4 June. (The Enterprise and Yorktown strikes did all the damage...)

This may be seen as a fact that the USN still operated it's CV's in seperate little formations. The Hornet was just visible from the Enterprise, even though it was controlled by the same Admiral (Spruance), and the same "TF". The Yorktown was out of sight from either of the other ships, and on it's own "TF" and Admiral (Fletcher?).

The CV coordination ability should have been based on the experience levels of the TF leader in question. Or maybe some "admin/air" rating of the ship CO's (since CAG's are not represented). It should be a steep requirement, so that not all potential leaders have that coordination benefit (but they should also be able to learn it eventually, as well).

By the way, what is it based on now, just the experience level of the individual squadrons/pilots?

Anyway, what do you do to coordinate seperate Air combat TF's? Each TF has a different leader. Average out the leadership abilities?

Hard for me to guess how to do this modelling and be exact...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

i want a historically accurate game (as much as feasible) that is also balanced...that is why if *I* was designing a game of this scope, i would include variable victory conditions which were different based on a bidding system that two players would go thru before starting the game. a total point systsem could be generated in which geographic, manpower/material/ship/plane losses and political objective subtotals would be added together. these could be updated each year of the game to allow for auto-victories. for example, japan decides that by the end of 1942 he can control cities x,y,z with no more losses than x manpower, y planes/pilots and z ships and with an invasion of australia, he increases the first two totals by some multiplier to pay for the political impact of invading austraila. the allied player makes a similar bid and they are compared to come up with an auto-victory situation for that year. who cares who wins the war...the players have agreed to a set of objectives that will determine victory. think of it like making the "contract" in a game of bridge before playing the hand.

of course this is a very basic description of how the VC's would be generated, but the point is that the two players playing the game decide what victory looks like for THEIR game. otherwise, there could be playtesting til the cows come home to try and come up with "balanced" VC for a campaign game.

Maybe this is why I can't understand you folks. I've never paid any attention to the "victory conditions" in WITP at all. With 1600 turns at this level of detail, I have enough to think about without worrying about what someone else thinks is "winning". I know if I think I'm winning or losing, and at the end I will know if I've won or lost. Why would I want to spend hundreds of hours worrying about someone else's notions of what "winning" is? I'm damned sure the Joint Chiefs didn't spend any time worrying that if they didn't hold "X" island, or take "Y" port, by "Z" date, that God was going to step in and say the War was over and the other side had "won". Now I will worry that if I'm not in position to finish the war by the Summer of 1945 my opponant will be razing me for months about it. And as the Japanese, if I score a "reverse Midway" or wreck an attempt to invade Kwajalien, he's going to hear about it..., and if I'm still hanging in there at the end of 1945 he's never gonna hear the end of it.

(bold in quote added by kwik e mart)
i'm not sure which group of "you folks" you are grouping me into, but "you folks" sounds very close to "you people", which is never a good phrase to start a response in a dialogue with...

i would suggest that the bolded part of your quote above is EXACTLY what the Joint Chiefs sat around thinking about. why would Guadalcanal become such a focal point of 1942 if both sides weren't deeply concerned about hanging on to it? forget if it ACTUALLY was worth keeping or not, the fact is that both sides were determined to have that island. as for "God" stepping in a saying the war is over, i assume you are comparing this act of heavenly intervention with arbitrarily set VC's being achieved...i can see your point of this being too quick of an ending to a very long game...perhaps yearly auto victories aren't your cup of tea...if ever implemented, you could choose to simply not use them...i was just making a suggestion

someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but this computer application call WiTP was developed, marketed and sold as a GAME...not a simulation. simulations don't have zero bounuses, sub doctrines, etc, etc...i've used simulators before...for flight training and for CVN battle group exercises...i don't need to fly the simulator more than once to know what will happen if i get asymetric flaps close in to a landing and i don't need to partake in the battle group exercise simulator more than once to know what will happen if we don't coordinate our ASW assets correctly to counter an Victor III nuke sub...and i don't need to play WiTP for 1600 turns to know what will happen in the end.

i appreciate your view, but i spent the same money you did (presumably) for WiTP and would like to see a playable game...which is how it was marketed...

[TulliusDetritus]

m100bob,

"You can try to explain the 'auto-victory' conditions, or even pre-game 'house rules' to them, (as if speaking to a child), but some people will never be convinced once their mind is made up"

hehehehehehehehe, that's what [normal people] would call a lack of respect. Nevermind.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: mlees

The US launched coordinated strikes against multiple targets in 4/42. Particularly germane are ... <snip> ...

I think the 150+ plus plane US coordinated strike is, as a matter of alt-history, less contingent upon (false) assumptions of USN incapability and instead more contingent on the CVs doing the attack. Based on "Shattered Sword" I'd have to peg down Hornet's performance initially.

A biography on Spruance I read last year was also critical of the Hornet's handling, as well.

It should be noted that each carrier handled their own launches and such. They were all operating from the same sighting reports, and Spruance ordered strikes on the same suspected enemy TF, presumably to arrive at or near the same time.

However, it is worthy to note that the Enterprise's strike was not as coordinated amongst itself as compared to the Yorktown's strike, and the Hornet's planes did not attack anything on 4 June. (The Enterprise and Yorktown strikes did all the damage...)

This may be seen as a fact that the USN still operated it's CV's in seperate little formations. The Hornet was just visible from the Enterprise, even though it was controlled by the same Admiral (Spruance), and the same "TF". The Yorktown was out of sight from either of the other ships, and on it's own "TF" and Admiral (Fletcher?).

The CV coordination ability should have been based on the experience levels of the TF leader in question. Or maybe some "admin/air" rating of the ship CO's (since CAG's are not represented). It should be a steep requirement, so that not all potential leaders have that coordination benefit (but they should also be able to learn it eventually, as well).

By the way, what is it based on now, just the experience level of the individual squadrons/pilots?

Anyway, what do you do to coordinate seperate Air combat TF's? Each TF has a different leader. Average out the leadership abilities?

Hard for me to guess how to do this modelling and be exact...

Funny, but if that's how the victors of Midway are rated - inefficient, How would you rate the losers of Midway?

Demo

[BLUESBOB]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Funny, but if that's how the victors of Midway are rated - inefficient, How would you rate the losers of Midway?

Demo

The unforutnate victims of some bad die rolls.

[Ursa MAior]

Thank Gawd we have both of our "favorite" a**holes back. Wish I'd be a hacker to stop these shortsighted idiots from posting such nonsenses.

Hey ya crusaders! Go to the sandbag and fight your war over there. Cuz' real men are doing it. They need you! You can serve the american dream much better there than here. (In case you are phisically unfit, then I apologize).

[mlees]

Funny, but if that's how the victors of Midway are rated - inefficient, How would you rate the losers of Midway?

Demo

That day (4 June), I would rate them thusly:

They coordinated their (4 CV) combined strike packages together better (as a single large formation, compared to the American single CV strike groups).

Individual IJN CV's, coordinated their planes better. (Enterprise SBD group split off/away from the TBD/fighters.)

What did they do wrong?

They focused on Midway, first and foremost, without scouting out the surrounding seas properly enough to ensure that the USN was not nearby. "Target fixation", I think, is the phrase.

When scouting reports of a force to the NE began to filter in (at first identified as a cruiser force), Nagumo waited for more info (and waited for Yamamoto, a day's sailing distance away, to offer advice, which did not come) instead of acting decisively. Minor error, considering the number of conflicting and incorrect reports that may have been coming in. Still, the successfull commanders, like Spruance and Halsey, somehow "knew" which ones were bogus, and which ones stirred the hairs on the back of their neck. The fact that an enemy force was present where it should not be should have raised some concern with Nagumo, or his staff.

When Nagumo finally decided to strike the force to the NE, he closed. This negates the range advantage of the IJN aircraft. (Was he aware of this advantage? Hmmm.) He should have sailed NW or west, to keep the enemy at his long range (and extreme range for the USN). This gives him more time to rearm and react to new sightings, as needed.

He had withheld 1/2 of his available aircraft in an antiship configuration, as per his standing orders. But when it came time to attack, he waited to add in the Midway base-strike aircraft, which needed to be refueled and rearmed. It seems he did not understand the purpose of holding those anti-ship aircraft aside in the first place. (The idea being: Strike! Strike as soon as feasible! Don't loiter around! If you can get your strike off before the enemy can, you might be able to sink him before he spots, and launches, against you. At the very least, this disrupts the enemies tempo of operations, which was ultimately happened against the IJN that day.)

Now, hindsight is 20/20, and it's easy to be critical when I have more info at hand then the guy did at the time. I realise this. [;)] But these errors, taken individually, may not have meant disaster. But additively, they do.

[mlees]

Thank Gawd we have both of our "favorite" a**holes back.

Er? Who is your ire directed against, sir?

Wish I'd be a hacker to stop these shortsighted idiots from posting such nonsenses.

So, if you dont like what they say, you want to shut them up? Sweet. you sir, sound like a true prince.

Hey ya crusaders! Go to the sandbag and fight your war over there. Cuz' real men are doing it. They need you! You can serve the american dream much better there than here. (In case you are phisically unfit, then I apologize).

Ahem. Some of us are older than we may appear, and have put in our time. *shrug*

Am I missing something here?

[Ursa MAior]

mlees
Yep. It is against mdiehl and Demosthenes. This not my normal style, but these loosers piss me off. Sorry if you feel offended it was not against you.

BTW dont argue with them. They wont hear what you say, unless you are saying that US, US uber alles.