Brave Sir Robin

[Mosby]

I've seen this a lot in my floatings through the forums, this "make the game more historical" thing. Are there a lot of people who want this game to turn into a documentary over the pacific theater? 

[bradfordkay]

That is overstating the case, I believe.

The historically minded crowd just wants to have the same abilities the original commanders had, and not more. When our forces have abilities they did not have in real life there is less of a feeling of satisfaction that we have outperformed history.

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

That is overstating the case, I believe.

The historically minded crowd just wants to have the same abilities the original commanders had, and not more. When our forces have abilities they did not have in real life there is less of a feeling of satisfaction that we have outperformed history.

This is an important point. WITP is more historical than many games, that's the reason why some of us play it to the exclusion of most other games. I bow to other's knowledge of the detail but I do think that generally the game seems to have the feel of the period. That's not the same in other games. I once played with a science fiction one and left that very quickly, I don't play games that have formations of war dogs, I don't like games where 15 nations will all gang up on you siply because you are inthe lead.... I could go on.

Roger

[Mosby]

does that thinking not lead to a slippery slope though?

Would it mean not being able to move where you'd like to move?, like, how far do you all want to go down that road? Because I can understand the dislike of sci-fi or fantasy stuff, I'm the same way. But I do love games that are set in a historic timeframe, but let me attempt to use all sorts of tools at my disposal to win. Otherwise, when playing as the Japs or the South in the civil war, why play at all if I'm doomed to lose just because that's the way it originally went down?

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: Mosby

does that thinking not lead to a slippery slope though?

Would it mean not being able to move where you'd like to move?, like, how far do you all want to go down that road? Because I can understand the dislike of sci-fi or fantasy stuff, I'm the same way. But I do love games that are set in a historic timeframe, but let me attempt to use all sorts of tools at my disposal to win. Otherwise, when playing as the Japs or the South in the civil war, why play at all if I'm doomed to lose just because that's the way it originally went down?

It can do of course, it depends where on the slippery slope you dig in and say this is my opinion and preference. IMHO the comparison between the War Between the States and the Pacific War is a good one. Neither Japan nor the Confederacy could win but they didn't know that, or accepted that. In both cases they relied upon the war weariness of the enemy which didn't happen. The problem/ enjoyment of WITP comes from knowing that and then living with it.

In none of my games has there been a rush for points dominance because its that which encourages the conquest of places that were not possible in real life. Now I'm not knocking people who play for that - its just not my way. I use points as a measure of how well, or badly, I am doing. In my last two moves in one of my games I got a growth in my points and that reflects (unusually) the fact that I caused the enemy some discomfort. I regard each small stage of the war as a separate campaign almost - so WITP givers me a 'story' that contextualises all the small battles that go on - and I take delight or misery from each of them.

The problem with WITP is the victory conditions. Japan can only win by doing things that were ahistorical or way beyond their real ability to grad the 4:1. If they miss on this then the rest of the war is a steady battle to avoid defeat. If the Allies avoid the 4:1 then its a steady battle to accrue the points to win - and by all accounts that's not easy. So, if you want to win you are forced into some pretty ahistorical things.

If, on the other hand, you play to win small engagements over a long period then I would maintain that this is far more fun..... after 3 years or so in the game the overall win or loss is less important.

As has been said elsewhere, its important to get opponents who approach the game in a like minded manner. I have met people and also seen occasions where their play is far removed from that - so we agree to differ.

IF, and its a big IF, it were possible to tweak some of the stuff that makes me annoyed these would be my list:



1. The absolute nature of victory. Instead I'd favour a 'sensible' points reward for taking and holding as much of the areas as japan actually did.... with some flexibility. It has been suggested elsewhere that a points award per turn would mean the Japanese could amass points over time and make the Allies need to retake places more urgent.
2. Slowing down operations - this would stop the speed of conquest for both sides, and the ability to switch plans overnight - haven't a mechanism for doing it though.
3. Making the Japanese ubertorpedo shield less of a problem - I gather AE will do this.
4. Ability to move LCUs within force areas without having to pay PPs.
5. If the Japanese could have been totally self sufficient and outproduce America just on their home islands - why did they go to war? So sort out the Home islands issue.
6. Sensible limits on locations for basing troops and facilities.

None of the above I think would make the game unplayable, but would render it much more 'historical' in flavour. I'd be much less a devotee of Sir Robin then. I think it would be a better game to play for both sides. It won't happen though as muich of the above is hard coded.

I don't think that would stop a player doing things differently to real life, but they would be doing things that might have been available to the actual participants and not fantasy land......

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: Mosby

does that thinking not lead to a slippery slope though?

Would it mean not being able to move where you'd like to move?, like, how far do you all want to go down that road? Because I can understand the dislike of sci-fi or fantasy stuff, I'm the same way. But I do love games that are set in a historic timeframe, but let me attempt to use all sorts of tools at my disposal to win. Otherwise, when playing as the Japs or the South in the civil war, why play at all if I'm doomed to lose just because that's the way it originally went down?

Just another thought. I stopped playing a certain ACW game for a variety of reasons - a major one being the provision of the Confederacy to have endless recruits, to win all battles in the first two years, and to be able to mount seaborne invasions wherever they chose. I do gather said game has toned a lot of that down, but it illustrates the imperative that can come into a game that is 'based on history' (as they say in the movies) but seeks a simple victory point arbitration as to winner and losers. Far better, to me, is a challenge that says - how much better can you do? - rather than 'can you get x+1 points and therefore be the winner.'

[Mosby]

So, in this game you would be ok as playing as the Japanese knowing you couldn't win, as long as you could be "better" than they were in real life?
Does that make me an awful person then when I consider that a waste of time? haha

I think I might be ok with that after being able to mull all of it over for a while, but I'm not too sure. I'd be ok with a game like Europa, where I myself set whatever I want for goals...but in here where it's pretty laid out that I need to beat the yanks...it would suck to play EVERY game knowing that I could never really win.

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: Mosby

So, in this game you would be ok as playing as the Japanese knowing you couldn't win, as long as you could be "better" than they were in real life?
Does that make me an awful person then when I consider that a waste of time? haha

I think I might be ok with that after being able to mull all of it over for a while, but I'm not too sure. I'd be ok with a game like Europa, where I myself set whatever I want for goals...but in here where it's pretty laid out that I need to beat the yanks...it would suck to play EVERY game knowing that I could never really win.

I think that the game provides for a whole variety of views and that as has been said its very important to agree with your opponent what your philosophy is.

Too often opinions get rather polarised on this forum - its not necessary. I understand that some people are more motivated by an end result than others. My take on this whole issue is I like, over a long period (years) to enjoy the highs and lows as I go - the 'journey' if you like, and not be overly concerned about the arrival at the end point. I mean realistically many games never get there anyway.

I'd only categorise you as an 'awful person' to the same degree as a mate who likes Italian food and I like Chinese..... its only an issue if we are trying to decide where to go for a meal! [:D]

The reason I don't play as Japanese is I don't enjoy the economics side of the game, indeed I did enjoy a team game while it lasted where I was on the Jap side but another person looked after the economy etc.

[Mosby]

Well put, I suppose getting to the end is much more important, and fun, than whatever the end is.

I've really wanted to snag this game for a while now, but I'm afraid it will probably have to be put on the back burner while I get my final year of school and an apartment taken care of.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

What you fail to consider is the fact that in AE we have 46 mile hexes in WitP they are 60 miles.

Isn't that a 40 mile hex in AE?

The AE scale is 40 nautical miles per hex, which is 46 statute miles, so you are both right [:)]

Andrew

[herwin]

What I recommend for the AE follow-on are some sort of victory conditions that reflect the real Japanese political goal--to reach a stalemate while still holding onto some of their gains. The War Plan Orange planners had defined victory as a close blockade within two years of the start of the war, because they believed that the American public would force an armistice then if the armed forces had not reached that level of victory. The big deal in WWII as it actually played out was the Pearl Harbour attack, which basically gave the armed forces an additional two years. So treat the strategic direction of the war as involving a quarterly card play as in Totaler Krieg defining the strategic direction of the war and whether resources would go to the IJA or IJN. One of the cards available is a Total War card, which reflects the decision of the Japanese High Command to attack outside of their GEA perimeter. "I want it all." Playing it also puts the Japanese economy on a total war basis and gives resources to both the IJN and IJA. In reality, the Japanese leadership played that card in the fourth quarter of 1941, but they don't need to. Other cards could have given the Army or the Navy resource priority without requiring the use of a large part of the merchant fleet to support military operations.

Allied cards would be similar, including one allowing the Allies to concentrate on the Pacific theater but with a early decision required.

[Anthropoid]

Are there some pre-defined set of "alternate" history house rules that have evolved over the years?
 
As a high-school paper and chit wargamer who then got into Civ for many years, I love the technical tactical side of things, but I also find "what if" scenarios to be more compelling than strictly "simulation" games.
 
If I were to play a PBEM in this game, I think I'd want it to be an exploration of a compelling "what if" historical scenario.
 
I bet some of you grognards can provide fascinating examples of some of these. What comes to mind immediately for me:
 
(1) Japanese strategic doctrine focuses more on interdicting allied supply than on main battle force Jutland type fo scenarios. Turning off Japanese sub doctrine would be the most obvious and simple way to do this, but I see that this has been taken to an even greater elaboration with Alikichi's mod.
 
(2) Allied preparations pre-war more prepared
 
(3) Followup strikes at PH on Dec 8??
 
Related to this, is there a list of mods around here anywhere?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

My interpretation of the design of the current Game is that it is tailored to allow a Japanese player to achieve the first six months historical results, and then is tailored to allow an Allied player to achieve the historic moves from the South Pacific and eventually through the Central Pacific for the rest of the game.

I think your interpretation is a complete misread of the situation. I can't say for sure what the game was designed to do, but as IS it results in the Japanese achieving far more than the historical results in far less time, rather than allowing a Japanese player to achieve the first six months historical results." Given the frequency with which Ceylon, India, Port Moresby, continental Alaska, Hawaii, Johston Island, New Caledonia, and Australia are invaded, there is absolutely no question about the Japanese player being able to "achieve the historical results." Indeed, there is no question about the Japanese player being able to regularly EXCEED the historical results. And that is the core of the problem and why Sir Robin is chosen regularly.

You can defend the PI to the death as the Allied player. It won't alter the Japanese timetable, and the Japanese player will be able to vastly exceed the historical defensive perimeter regardless of what you do in the PI. At least "Sir Robin" allows the Allied player to deny a few CVPs to the Japanese.

The problem is that niether side has to garrison bases they have captured. That in itself would slow the pace of the Japanese advance as well as slow the late war over-run of Japan, hopefully bringing a little more of a realistic feel to the game. Sure if the base is flagged 'Allied' or 'Japanese' in the editor from the start you wouldn't need to garrison it as the owning nation, but if I capture one of those flagged bases then yes, garrisoning would be required, even if it required as little as 1 AV to garrison it.

In this way you do get a much more realistic outcome, and captured bases that are not garrisoned should return to their rightfull owner. After all, if I'm a British citizen I'm not going to stay on the Japanese side if they don't garrison troops to make me behave, for instance.

Uninhabitted south pacific islands and atols should be the only bases that do not require at least a minimum garrison level...as those are the only bases without an indigenous population that needs to be controlled.

Just my honest opinion on the subject.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Mosby

does that thinking not lead to a slippery slope though?

Would it mean not being able to move where you'd like to move?, like, how far do you all want to go down that road? Because I can understand the dislike of sci-fi or fantasy stuff, I'm the same way. But I do love games that are set in a historic timeframe, but let me attempt to use all sorts of tools at my disposal to win. Otherwise, when playing as the Japs or the South in the civil war, why play at all if I'm doomed to lose just because that's the way it originally went down?

I'm perfectly happy with alternate histories and events. In fact I would say that I'm more confortable and willing to accept the possibility of a Japanese victory (or a Confederate victory) then the vast bulk of posters to this board.

But I do insist that the national capabilities be at least plausably historical.

So if Japan wants to attempt an invasion of Austrailia or India, for instance, I am willing to grant them the possibility of success. But it should at least require an enormous national commitment on Japan's part. It should strain their logistic/economic/military capabilities to near the breaking point and if in the end Japan succeeds I would applaud the player for his skill and daring.

In China many posters have claimed that a Japanese victory should be flat impossible. I am more willing to grant a possibilty that Japan might do better. But certainly the full conquest of China must at least require a massive injection of troops and resourses by Japan. Is it remotely possible to argue that a Japanese player should roll through China while suffering only minor casualties and without any significant effect on the Japanese economy or war effort in other areas?

An invasion of Hawaii?? Well OK. But would it really have been so easy for Japan to keep the bulk of its fleet stationed for weeks and months thousands of miles from any friendly base?

But this is an old argument.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Again you are misreinterpreting the rule. If you have a 10 corps river defense line then the small force that needs to cross the river to unhinge your defense is at least the size of 5 corps - not a battalion.

You’re missing my point. The problem is all 10 corps are affected by the combat, so it’s wrong to negate any part of that 10 corps by assuming some small fantasy battle occurs in the hex that unhinges the river line somewhere. It’s a strategic system, so the entire hex needs to be unhinged to be accurate.

You want to say “hey I only need to establish one bridgehead to cross this river, why do I have to defeat the entire hex’s defending stack”. The answer is simple, because the defender doesn’t have the option of using strategic and tactical reserves to defeat your crossing. He’s stuck with some arbitrary 50% rule you made up which makes rivers totally useless to him. It’s a strategic system, so you have no choice but to include every single defender in your calculations. Anything less is cheating, and unfair to the defense.

ORIGINAL: treespider
...the game is so abstract that we detail every squad, rifle, tank and machine-gun and artillery piece down to how effective each item is vs armored or unarmored targets to include the range on a daily basis.

This is all just noise and distracts from the fact we have a very strategic scope for land combat to contend with. Every single unit on the defense is affected by whatever happens in a hex, so every single unit MUST be counted. Your rule negates a huge part of the defending stack because it’s *assumed* a small tactical engagement unhinges the entire river line. It’s pure fantasy and has no part in a strategic land system.

ORIGINAL: treespider
So 5 corps are insufficient to establish a bridgehead for one single day against 10 corps along a 60 mile front?

Yes 5 corps are insufficient because all 10 defending corps are affected by those 5 corp. Like it or not the land system is what it is, you have to work within those constraints and making up some fantasy scenario in your head about a tiny bridgehead does not justify the rule.

It should take 20-30 corps or more to establish a successful bridgehead against 10 corps using the land system in WitP. What you have now does nothing except negate river terrain as a defensive feature. Now perhaps that was the intended goal, I don’t know.

With a system that allows every single attacking unit (whether battalions or corps) to attack every single defending unit in a hex and wipe them all out all in one day, you have to make the entire hex the issue. Making up some tactical scenario in your head is pure fantasy, nothing of the sort occurs in this system.

Rivers have to be decisively tough obstacles if you want to have any semblance of reality. That means they need to be force multipliers, not force reducers as this system makes them. It doesn’t matter if they multiply a battalion or 10 corps, they have to multiply the entire defense equally.

The test is simple, a division in a hex attacked by 2 brigades should win and force them to retreat every single time. If they ever establish a bridgehead, your system sucks and rivers are broken. 2 divisions attacking 1 division should have a chance of success. The higher the odds go up from there the better, but anything less than the defending force should be basically impossible.

Jim

[BrucePowers]

I really like alternate history mods. Especially the ones that have ship designs that might have been.

[TulliusDetritus]

"Otherwise, when playing as the Japs or the South in the civil war, why play at all if I'm doomed to lose just because that's the way it originally went down?" - Mosby

But the fact is that a lot of PBEM freaks (Japanese section) still play this wonderful game... and they know (many of them are Utter Experts) that Japan is doomed & doomed & doomed... so what?? Wnning or losing, who really cares? You must enjoy the game each turn or you are basically wasting your time (don't forget PBEM games will last years maybe). I am not a PBEM freak but I do enjoy every turn I play. That's the spirit.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

"Otherwise, when playing as the Japs or the South in the civil war, why play at all if I'm doomed to lose just because that's the way it originally went down?" - Mosby

But the fact is that a lot of PBEM freaks (Japanese section) still play this wonderful game... and they know (many of them are Utter Experts) that Japan is doomed & doomed & doomed... so what?? Wnning or losing, who really cares? You must enjoy the game each turn or you are basically wasting your time (don't forget PBEM games will last years maybe). I am not a PBEM freak but I do enjoy every turn I play. That's the spirit.

What would be interesting to know is how many serious PBEMs have resulted in a de facto win for either allied or japanese. You read a lot of folks 'round here saying "this is too possible, or that is too easy, or that is too hard . . " If Japan expands too quickly, that must mean good Japan players against an equally good Allied players have won more often than you would predict? If the "Sir Robin" is so silly, and pyrrhic, that must mean that it further accentuates the disparity in Japanese wins? I'd love to see the data that showed this stuff.

[TulliusDetritus]

Anthropoid, even a Japanese victory is possible. There is the auto-victory thing. I almost never visit the AAR section but I think some guys managed to get this auto-victory as Japan.

My point is simply: the game per se is the reward, NOT a final score. Years playing vs someone and then you may say "oh, I won". That's five minutes of glory... Fair enough. What about the thousands of turns, hundreds of hours? They don't count? They are not part of the fun? Are you sure? I very much doubt it. In fact, I affirm this reasoning must be false... that or WitP is an absurd, worthless game [8D]

Now if we talk about games which we will finish in 2 or 3 days... That's a different story.

[JWE]

Never heard anything that goes to the heart of the matter expressed so well.

Reasoned, relevant, and pithy.

John