Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

That the Allies didn't have enough penalties/the Japanese didn't have enough bonuses already?

i think the sub doctrines were an attempt to make sub ops more historical. They hurt us both equally because IJN subs are far less likely to engage anything other than a major warship. Can't tell you how many convoys went by between SF and PH and my subs wouldn't shoot. Just like yours with my units steaming by.

Chez

They should just as well have left this doctrine nonsense out as players like to determine this themselves, after all, this is what one does in an operational to strategic level game.

The effort spent on this could have gone into making a better AI submarine staff for the player. I suggested at one point that sub HQs be written into the game and submarines would be attached to them. The base menu was to have a submarine force submenu from which the player could select a number of patrol areas (large multiple hex areas defined and managable by the player) within which the subs assigned to that HQ would patrol...they would go nowhere else and would move frequently within it unless taken off AI control and given specific assignments by player (Ie special missions). The player could set the pace of operations, target priorities, patrol area density from the sub menu. (these would have a negative effect on crew morale and fatigue as I suggested that sub crews be modelled, subs being different in nature from normal ships due to conditions, the independent nature of ops, duration etc. Setting the pace of ops, for example, would have been most like a % slider bar which, when set at a percentage, the AI would attempt to maintain that percantage of submarines attached to the base in the patrol area selected.

Leaders assigned to the HQs would impart their ratings on the operations effectiveness of subs assigned to a particular HQ. Ie. Poor administration would slow repairs down and affect timetable of operations pace set by player. Inspiration would affect crew morale while in port (better hotels, women, booze, nosh etc). Sub tenders (I suggested that the Katori class CLs be given an AS capability as they served as sub force flagships...perhaps we could simply reclassify this CL in the editor) would still affect repair time as they do now.

Basically it would have eliminated the need to micromange submarines but still allow the player some serious control. This is what an operational game is supposed to be about. If auto sub ops is chosen now the whole situation spins out of control and subs all congregate in one specific area, never repair fully, one can't turn it off properly I don't think.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

That the Allies didn't have enough penalties/the Japanese didn't have enough bonuses already?

i think the sub doctrines were an attempt to make sub ops more historical. They hurt us both equally because IJN subs are far less likely to engage anything other than a major warship. Can't tell you how many convoys went by between SF and PH and my subs wouldn't shoot. Just like yours with my units steaming by.

Chez

Actually I'd welcome your subs to attack my supply and troop convoys. They're usually escorted with five or six flushdecks, often some cruisers just in case, and those DDs are pretty efficient at ASW work.

But let's get to the nub of it. If the Allied sub doctrine rule was an attempt to make this sim more realistic it was an ill-founded attempt. At best. In the early war Allied subs at least made the attempt to attack. I do have that correct, yes? But with this outrageous ruling they in fact make zero/nil/nada attempts. What is that? Already in UV the Mk 14s were programmed to be less effective, as they ought to be, so why would it be necessary to further cripple USN sub operations? And why isn't this rule documented, and if it is documented, where can I find it? I just want to read this crippled rationale for myself.

As for Japanese sub doctrine, at least that has a basis in history. If the Japanese player wanted to play with it off, okay, I've no problem with that. As I've said, it would likely only lead to massive casualties on that side of the board. (Probably too massive from I've read and experienced thus far, but that's just yet another problem, right?)

It's almost as if the development group for WitP had been composed only of 1) a certain groupie type and 2) gaming drunks. Because there is just so much in this "simulation" which doesn't make good sense, and it could only be in there because "the club" decided (or agreed) it should be in there.

That's all I get out of it. And why? Are these people actually gaming drunks (defined as those who have no clue as to the history of their subject, and are furthermore happily disposed to cornball rules like this one, no matter how much the rule might compromise the simulation), or did they know/see/sense somehow that this was a fundamentally bad thing but acquiesced anyhow on the assumption they might otherwise be kicked out of "the club" for complaing? I wrote about this two years ago, quite literally beat the horse to death, as it was abundantly plain then (to me at least) that this awful dynamic was assiduously at work and so threatened the good course of the project. Of course all I got for my trouble was to be shouted down without mercy by the more prominent club members, helped by more than a few misguided hangerson and wannabes and whatnot.

Whatever happened to serious playtesters? I well remember "back in the day" that while it might not have been possible to make gross design changes once beta rolled around, while it might not have been possible to get every single problem ironed out before release, at least the games would be tested to where you didn't experience universal glitches such as dropping to desktop (I suffered two of those today just making my first morning move) periodically while the player views his reinforcements. At least that sort of stuff was caught and sorted out. (Mostly. We always had a few people with problems--for a few years I refused to buy AMD processors because of the pointing finger at its supposed inherent conflicts, for example, not to mention the good old DOS conflicts--balky sound devices leap to mind.)

Anyway, what I don't recall are silly rules like this (apparently undocumented) bogus Allied sub doctrine, replete with its ridiculous effect on game play, getting into our sims. Maybe I just have a bad memory. Now there was still plenty of Gary's rather odd views of history to go around--I mean he's always had this crazy fascination with all things A6M2, just for instance--but nothing quite as silly as I see here. I also don't recall testers being so arrogant about their work, or so afraid to "rock the boat" when warranted. In fact during one product test we were collectively on GEnie screaming at the top of ours lungs. That I remember well. (Maybe the developers, too. Maybe the developers have taken steps to "correct" that situation.)

Be that as it may . . . was this Allied sub doctine rule actually argued for by the test people, or was it just something that got "stuck in" at the last moment unilaterally, you know, something Gary dreamed up one night, with no reference to those who were supposed to be (and presumably were) testing this product for "feature effect"? What went on?

I read somewhere that the vast majority of "tests" for WitP were run AIvsAI. If so, that might explain some of this. I can't imagine a less efficacious approach to "testing" than that. Certainly some of this would be necessary to see how the gross numbers were percolating down from time to time (bottomline figures like casualties after four years or so), but the nuts of bolts of testing this kind of software (any kind of software) is to go in there and painstakingly play around with it in a real-life sort of way. This takes a lot of time, it requires concentration, some knowledge, some expertise even of what one is about, and coordination between the testers so engaged, but that's the only way to see what's actually going down in there in terms of game effect. At least the only way I can imagine.

Maybe I read that wrong, though. Maybe AIvsAI wasn't the most common form of testing this product. Wouldn't surprise me if it had been, though. It has all the earmarks of such sloppy work.

So, here I am complaing again. God help me! Do I really imagine that this sort of rant will affect good change? I guess not afterall. [:(]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

That the Allies didn't have enough penalties/the Japanese didn't have enough bonuses already?

i think the sub doctrines were an attempt to make sub ops more historical. They hurt us both equally because IJN subs are far less likely to engage anything other than a major warship. Can't tell you how many convoys went by between SF and PH and my subs wouldn't shoot. Just like yours with my units steaming by.

Chez

They should just as well have left this doctrine nonsense out as players like to determine this themselves, after all, this is what one does in an operational to strategic level game.

The effort spent on this could have gone into making a better AI submarine staff for the player. I suggested at one point that sub HQs be written into the game and submarines would be attached to them. The base menu was to have a submarine force submenu from which the player could select a number of patrol areas (large multiple hex areas defined and managable by the player) within which the subs assigned to that HQ would patrol...they would go nowhere else and would move frequently within it unless taken off AI control and given specific assignments by player (Ie special missions). The player could set the pace of operations, target priorities, patrol area density from the sub menu. (these would have a negative effect on crew morale and fatigue as I suggested that sub crews be modelled, subs being different in nature from normal ships due to conditions, the independent nature of ops, duration etc. Setting the pace of ops, for example, would have been most like a % slider bar which, when set at a percentage, the AI would attempt to maintain that percantage of submarines attached to the base in the patrol area selected.

Leaders assigned to the HQs would impart their ratings on the operations effectiveness of subs assigned to a particular HQ. Ie. Poor administration would slow repairs down and affect timetable of operations pace set by player. Inspiration would affect crew morale while in port (better hotels, women, booze, nosh etc). Sub tenders (I suggested that the Katori class CLs be given an AS capability as they served as sub force flagships...perhaps we could simply reclassify this CL in the editor) would still affect repair time as they do now.

Basically it would have eliminated the need to micromange submarines but still allow the player some serious control. This is what an operational game is supposed to be about. If auto sub ops is chosen now the whole situation spins out of control and subs all congregate in one specific area, never repair fully, one can't turn it off properly I don't think.

Interesting. You know, Ron, you remind me in some respects of Nathaniel Pyke, an Englishman with a certain genius for driving bureaucratic types directly up the wall. [:D] Are you familiar with his history? (Met a sad and tragic end, by the way, as do many geniuses I'm told.)

Point is I can well understand how this sort of barrage of ideas from you (I assume you spared no pain expressing yourself when you were still in "the club") more or less came to irk the development team, more so yet if you decided to insist. Sounds as if you weren't exactly "playing ball" with the others.

Not a bad idea at that, assuming Gary had taken the time to program it. No way, though. If he didn't have the time/inclination/ability to rid the game of CTDs there's no way your sub idea was gonna make it. More's the pity. [:(]

Hi, "not a scientist, but a man of a vivid and uncontrollable imagination, and a totally uninhibited tongue."

He killed himself with sleeping pills.

He is the guy who mixed sawdust with ice (Pykecrete) and wanted to build ships out of it.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, "not a scientist, but a man of a vivid and uncontrollable imagination, and a totally uninhibited tongue."

He killed himself with sleeping pills.

He is the guy who mixed sawdust with ice (Pykecrete) and wanted to build ships out of it.

If I'm not mistaken there was more to his life than that. A lot more.

By the way, his idea of creating barges out of ice was not just to transport cargo (good idea in some respects) but as an added bonus it would have gotten fresh water for irrigation to north Africa.

I just did a search on Google and found a piece you must have ripped that out of. A long time ago I read a book on the formation and combat history of the Devil's Brigade, another Pyke idea basically. Anyway, in that account I think the author said Pyke jumped from the window of his flat. No biggie.

11 April 1942

Dauntless dive bombers based at Baker Island yesterday attacked a Japanese combat task force located some one hundred miles east of the port. The Japanese were steaming east at the time and it is believed they are headed for Baker Island in order to bombard the garrison and facilities there. In the attack heavy cruiser Tone was reportedly struck by a 1000-lb. dropped by one of the Dauntless planes. There is no information available on the actual damage done to the Japanese warship.

Look at where the Japanese bombardment TF is. I don't know where its starting base is, but shouldn't this TF be either 8/10/12 hexes away from its destination hex on the turn prior to making its bombardment run-in? The way it is here the TF is left totally exposed to attack from Baker Island.

Isn't that wrong? Has this changed from UV? Is this the way it was in UV only I don't remember right? Jez, do you happen to know if one of your ships suffered some kind of "breakdown" in transit which caused the entire TF to slow its speed? (In other words, was your TF intended to bombard on 11 April?)

I normally position my ships at the maximum distance so as to stay out of air range. In this case I selected "Full Speed" when it was about 8 or 9 hexes away. I've seen the AI stop the ships at the max distance and then send them in next turn. So for this turn, I decided to let the AI do its thing. Obviously, it decided to do otherwise. Thank goodness, the bomb basically just scratched the paint (dmg pts are still green). Had it been an 1000lb AP it would have been far worse as it struck a turret.

BTW, sent a PM. Didn't get the attachment for last turn (129).

Chez

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I normally position my ships at the maximum distance so as to stay out of air range. In this case I selected "Full Speed" when it was about 8 or 9 hexes away. I've seen the AI stop the ships at the max distance and then send them in next turn. So for this turn, I decided to let the AI do its thing. Obviously, it decided to do otherwise. Thank goodness, the bomb basically just scratched the paint (dmg pts are still green). Had it been an 1000lb AP it would have been far worse as it struck a turret.

BTW, sent a PM. Didn't get the attachment for last turn (129).

Chez

I've seen the AI mess up like that, too. I'm not sure any more what speed to set my TFs at. Anyone else have this experience?

Does anyone know what sort of damage a 1000-pound GP would have (both a dud and with an explosion) on an inch of steel--according to Conway's that was what Tone had for her turrets. Or if you know of a site that has this sort of detail, please direct me there. Believe me, I've looked.

14-16 April 1942

The last few days have seen increased fighting off the northern shores of Australia as the Japanese continue their landings at Maumere and Koepang. On April 14 a Japanese group of warships raided Darwin harbor, but was beaten back with at least one heavy cruiser as a casualty due to a torpedo hit by a flotilla of patrol boats. The following day and the one after that Amerrican B-17s, Dutch Martins and Australian Hudson bombers flew forth from Derby, Wyndham and Darwin with a collectively deadly reply to the Imperial invaders, damaging numerous ships in the process, with the confirmed sinking of Hokumyo Maru.

14-16 April

Hudsons strike the Japanese at Koepang.

B-17s out of Darwin find the hunting good.

The Japanese ambassador to Germany, General Hiroshi Oshima, was overheard to say yestersay that the Allied air attacks on Japanese "merchant shipping" in the Dutch East Indies "greater co-prosperity sphere" were uncalled for and outright unfair in the typically American way. Responding from his office in Washington, D.C., Secretary of State Cordell Hull remarked, "All we're trying to do is achieve some game balance."

17 April 1942

Reports out of Australia say that the Japanese have stepped up their pressure at the small New Guinea base at Port Moresby, mounting yet another large bomber air raid yesterday out of Rabaul.

Large air raid!!!? You have more fighters up than the Japanese have bombs![:D]

The Allied fighter defense was able to mainly beat back the Japanese attack, giving better than it got in the air, but not without some loss.

18 April 1942

The next day this action resumed, only this time the hard-pressed defenders of Port Moresby were assailed from the sea as well as Rabaul. Again the fighters out of Port Moresby gave as good as they received, and then some, but another couple of ships in the harbor unloading supplies were damaged.

19 April 1942

The next day the Japanese returned. They thought they would finish the job.

Not quite. There were no hits on Allied shipping from that Rabaul air attack. [8D]

But the Japanese are hardly done. The next wave of enemy planes to bracket the Port Moresby defense flies in from out of the sea again. Is there no stopping them?