Hold on Major Tom! Don't adjust the IJN Attack!
I think the solution to the Pearl Harbor results as well as other results against ships I've been getting, (way too many criticals) is to adjust the armor ratings of both sides ships. This was mentioned in another thread and I agree with it.
It would have the same effect and balance out the rest of the game as well.
That's my offer anyway.
Pearl Harbor Poll
Charles22: I lived in Australia for 2 years. They certainly do care about the Japanese actions in WWII the same as us. If we hadn't defeated the Japanese at the Coral Sea, Australia would have been invaded. Also recall the Australians fought like the Devil to hold onto Port Moresby in New Guinea. They bleed as much as we did.
While I lived there I ran into a man who had been a Doctor during the war. He hated the Japanese with an intensity I found surprising. When I asked why he said that during a landing on one of the islands they they screwed up and had to withdraw and left a bunch of wounded on the beach. He watched from his ship as the Japanese went to each wounded man and shot him or bayonetted him in front of all who survived and could do nothing on the ships.
While I lived there I ran into a man who had been a Doctor during the war. He hated the Japanese with an intensity I found surprising. When I asked why he said that during a landing on one of the islands they they screwed up and had to withdraw and left a bunch of wounded on the beach. He watched from his ship as the Japanese went to each wounded man and shot him or bayonetted him in front of all who survived and could do nothing on the ships.
I am calling on the moderater here to lock up this thread if it continues to be railroaded to be something that it wasn't supposed to be. There was ABSOLUTELY NO reason for you to bring up this totally off topic and inflamatory subject.
The discussion was having an accurate representation on Pearl Harbor in PAC WAR, not Japanese bashing. Indeed, many of the Japanese fought the war with brutality and cruelty, but, we cannot stereotype and justify hatred for an entire group of people from a specific era just because of the actions of a segment of their population. The Japanese Rising Sun Naval ensign was NOT a political sign like the Swastika, it was a WAR banner just like the Stars and Stripes is a WAR banner. The Rising Sun was used in MANY wars and engagements without any of this brutality of the Second World War or the invasion and occupation of China/Manchuria and should not be just limited to these later actions.
The Native peoples of Canada, Australia and the United States could look upon our flags with the same distain and hatred and see their unfurling as a slap in the face. However, we all know that we unfurl our flags (WAR or POLITICAL) to show our nationalism for our nations, not to glorify our unpleasent and cruel past. Lets give the Japanese the same leeway we demand for our own nations and militaries.
My analogies still hold true even if the Rising Sun was a Military flag.
In regards to modifying the Pearl Harbor attack, I requested that someone try out damaging 5 B5N's per IJN Carrier participating in the raid. Was there any or too much of a noticable difference?
Jeremy
The discussion was having an accurate representation on Pearl Harbor in PAC WAR, not Japanese bashing. Indeed, many of the Japanese fought the war with brutality and cruelty, but, we cannot stereotype and justify hatred for an entire group of people from a specific era just because of the actions of a segment of their population. The Japanese Rising Sun Naval ensign was NOT a political sign like the Swastika, it was a WAR banner just like the Stars and Stripes is a WAR banner. The Rising Sun was used in MANY wars and engagements without any of this brutality of the Second World War or the invasion and occupation of China/Manchuria and should not be just limited to these later actions.
The Native peoples of Canada, Australia and the United States could look upon our flags with the same distain and hatred and see their unfurling as a slap in the face. However, we all know that we unfurl our flags (WAR or POLITICAL) to show our nationalism for our nations, not to glorify our unpleasent and cruel past. Lets give the Japanese the same leeway we demand for our own nations and militaries.
My analogies still hold true even if the Rising Sun was a Military flag.
In regards to modifying the Pearl Harbor attack, I requested that someone try out damaging 5 B5N's per IJN Carrier participating in the raid. Was there any or too much of a noticable difference?
Jeremy
The idea of a "sneak attack" being a dirty wage war is just as silly as the idea that todays BDU's are not spiffy enough and we need to go back to flashy brightly colored uniforms with peacock feathers sticking out of the headgear! War is war, not fair. I always thought the idea was to win. Fair and sportsmanship is for athletics. Same with the silly notion that war is only about smashing things and that people don't get killed. I don't advocate leveling cities full of noncombatants just because we can but people die in war.
Sorry for my little Tizzy fit just one of those things.
Sorry for my little Tizzy fit just one of those things.
Major Tom: I wasn't being imflammatory, just answering one posters comments with some facts. If you think otherwise you are woefully mistaken. I have nothing against the Japanese. But, there are a considerable number of people who fought in that war who do. Some are my relatives. I'm finished with this line of thought, so onto the original discussion.
I find the game to be fairly accurate in the damage doled out to the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor. In the original attack the US Pacific Fleet lost the use of all it's Battleships in that attack. Sure, some of them returned to service later(much later). If I recall correctly the first US Battleship to take part in hostilities was the North Carolina, which was being built in Norfolk at the time of the attack. Also, I believe it was the only US Battleship for some time after Peral Harbor.
[This message has been edited by VictorH (edited September 28, 2000).]
I find the game to be fairly accurate in the damage doled out to the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor. In the original attack the US Pacific Fleet lost the use of all it's Battleships in that attack. Sure, some of them returned to service later(much later). If I recall correctly the first US Battleship to take part in hostilities was the North Carolina, which was being built in Norfolk at the time of the attack. Also, I believe it was the only US Battleship for some time after Peral Harbor.
[This message has been edited by VictorH (edited September 28, 2000).]
Actually there were many (4) Pre-War Battleships that were heavily modernized in the 1930's based on the West Coast that weren't sent to the South Pacific. These ships were in the Pacific well before the North Carolina got there.
Also, the South Dakota was sent down to the South Pacific soon after the North Carolina. Then the Washington came in from escorting convoys in the North Atlantic and so on. The Maryland and Tennessee were quickly repaired as they were only damaged by bombs and made regular patrols from Pearl. The Tennessee then was sent back to the US for a major overhaul. The Pennsylvania was also not damaged too much, but spent longer in repair than Maryland or Tennessee.
The Maryland and some other Pre-War BB's took part in the Tarawa operations, but, generally kept out of the South Pacific. One wonders if a Pearl Harbor were not to have happend wether or not the USN would use its slow battleships?
Jeremy
PS I am beginning to think that modifying the IJNAF will not be necessary, as, it does not totally cripple the USN to lose a few of these battleships anyway. I usually lose around 4-5 (vs the historical 5 sunk, but, 3 raised).
Also, the South Dakota was sent down to the South Pacific soon after the North Carolina. Then the Washington came in from escorting convoys in the North Atlantic and so on. The Maryland and Tennessee were quickly repaired as they were only damaged by bombs and made regular patrols from Pearl. The Tennessee then was sent back to the US for a major overhaul. The Pennsylvania was also not damaged too much, but spent longer in repair than Maryland or Tennessee.
The Maryland and some other Pre-War BB's took part in the Tarawa operations, but, generally kept out of the South Pacific. One wonders if a Pearl Harbor were not to have happend wether or not the USN would use its slow battleships?
Jeremy
PS I am beginning to think that modifying the IJNAF will not be necessary, as, it does not totally cripple the USN to lose a few of these battleships anyway. I usually lose around 4-5 (vs the historical 5 sunk, but, 3 raised).
In response to my earlier post, about having all the US battleships sunk several times. For some reason the game PacWar Ver 2.0 had started three game sessions at once. I had only started one and was only playing one. After I posted my results, I noticed this and opened each session. The settings were all identicle to my session, however the sunk battleships results were more within reason. I ran the game again several times, insuring that there was only my session running. The results are close to what everyone else has stated. They average out to 5 sunk BB's. I apologize for the inaccuracy and will be more careful next time.
"2+2=5 only if they are paying you a million dollars a year and your boss can't count"
------------------
understanding requires patience
Grok
"2+2=5 only if they are paying you a million dollars a year and your boss can't count"
------------------
understanding requires patience
Grok
"My teeth have more bite, than your mouth has bark!"
I suppose bringing up a fact or two to support the view that the Rising Sun flag wasn't appropriate for the situation, is considering hating Japanese. I brought up the point of my Japanese relatives just to disperse with such a notion. That flag means some very bad things to a lot of people, people who might, and do, otherwise get on completely well with Japanese people. The people who own my corporation aren't Japanese, they're mostly British and American.
As someone pointed out, any 'knowledgeable' Aussie would have known the threat the Japanese poised with their Navy. It's not that big a deal, but considering how I've never seen that flag placed on US soil with honor, I'm wondering why the people in my corporation didn't feel peculiar enough to think that there was something wrong with it either. They must be completely ignorant of what Pearl meant, and indeed what is going on over there today.
BTW, I didn't intentionally divert the subject matter here, it was an aside, something relating quite directly to the picture you see at the top of this screen. Or did Pearl happen? It's also quite timely considering a Pearl Harbor movie is coming out.
War is war, not fair? War takes two sides to fight, right? That's part of the whole issue with the attack, THERE WAS NO WAR. Just let someone come and set fire to your house without warning, and then tell me "all's fair". How moronic is it that something as barbarous as that, that we would call "fair", because you might decide to fight back and therefore be a war? As far as I'm concerned, it's a moron who said: "All is fair in love and war", and I bet nobody knows who made that quote without looking it up, so worthless the quote has proved to be.
If my aside were the first step of a war, then what I did was fair, wasn't it (if the moronic quote is some shade of worthy truth, which it isn't)? On the other hand, if my aside, was simply an aside, then I must've been unfair. Sorry to throw a bit of the real world into the discussion, but I actually thought I wouldn't meet with any hostility, especially considering how there was no hatred for Japanese themselves in any of my posts. I was wrong.
As someone pointed out, any 'knowledgeable' Aussie would have known the threat the Japanese poised with their Navy. It's not that big a deal, but considering how I've never seen that flag placed on US soil with honor, I'm wondering why the people in my corporation didn't feel peculiar enough to think that there was something wrong with it either. They must be completely ignorant of what Pearl meant, and indeed what is going on over there today.
BTW, I didn't intentionally divert the subject matter here, it was an aside, something relating quite directly to the picture you see at the top of this screen. Or did Pearl happen? It's also quite timely considering a Pearl Harbor movie is coming out.
War is war, not fair? War takes two sides to fight, right? That's part of the whole issue with the attack, THERE WAS NO WAR. Just let someone come and set fire to your house without warning, and then tell me "all's fair". How moronic is it that something as barbarous as that, that we would call "fair", because you might decide to fight back and therefore be a war? As far as I'm concerned, it's a moron who said: "All is fair in love and war", and I bet nobody knows who made that quote without looking it up, so worthless the quote has proved to be.
If my aside were the first step of a war, then what I did was fair, wasn't it (if the moronic quote is some shade of worthy truth, which it isn't)? On the other hand, if my aside, was simply an aside, then I must've been unfair. Sorry to throw a bit of the real world into the discussion, but I actually thought I wouldn't meet with any hostility, especially considering how there was no hatred for Japanese themselves in any of my posts. I was wrong.
Ground control to Major Tom! (sorry could'nt resist)
I'm not sure reducing the Japanese B5N contingent would be a good idea for the opening historical move.
The reason being is that even with the larger # of torpedo bombers present, the battlewagons still tend to stand up fairly well do to the interaction between the torpedo warhead sizes vs their high armor ratings.
I know others have posted that they see most or all of their battleships sunk, but i personally have yet to see this (strange!) On average i tend to only (permantly) use 1 or 2 battleships per campaign start once the drone of enemy aircraft has disipated.
So unless the torpedo damage routines are signifigantly modified (to represent a more realistic damage quota) i'd say 'nay' to reducing the IJN attack force.
Would it be possible to modify the opening move so that more B5N's carry heavy bombs instead of torpedos?
I'm not sure reducing the Japanese B5N contingent would be a good idea for the opening historical move.
The reason being is that even with the larger # of torpedo bombers present, the battlewagons still tend to stand up fairly well do to the interaction between the torpedo warhead sizes vs their high armor ratings.
I know others have posted that they see most or all of their battleships sunk, but i personally have yet to see this (strange!) On average i tend to only (permantly) use 1 or 2 battleships per campaign start once the drone of enemy aircraft has disipated.
So unless the torpedo damage routines are signifigantly modified (to represent a more realistic damage quota) i'd say 'nay' to reducing the IJN attack force.
Would it be possible to modify the opening move so that more B5N's carry heavy bombs instead of torpedos?
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
I would not change a thing with how the initial PH attack is carried out. I've run it just three times and have lost between 2-4 BBs with the rest heavily damaged.
In a way losing most of the battle line makes for an interesting what if. I have read that some Navy higher ups were not interested in salvaging the ships due to the time needed for repairs.
In hindsight the expense and time taken to raise and recondition the BBs sunk at Pearl was wasted. While the ships did perform very well in a bombardment roll, the materials and man power used to bring them back to life could have been better spent. Perhaps building transports, LSTs etc. So the game does bring that out.
As for the thread getting slightly off topic, who cares its all interesting.
Doug
In a way losing most of the battle line makes for an interesting what if. I have read that some Navy higher ups were not interested in salvaging the ships due to the time needed for repairs.
In hindsight the expense and time taken to raise and recondition the BBs sunk at Pearl was wasted. While the ships did perform very well in a bombardment roll, the materials and man power used to bring them back to life could have been better spent. Perhaps building transports, LSTs etc. So the game does bring that out.
As for the thread getting slightly off topic, who cares its all interesting.
Doug
"War is war, not fair? War takes two sides to fight, right? That's part of the whole issue with the attack, THERE WAS NO WAR. Just let someone come and set fire to your house without warning, and then tell me "all's fair". How moronic is it that something as barbarous as that, that we would call "fair", because you might decide to fight back and therefore be a war? As far as I'm concerned, it's a moron who said: "All is fair in love and war", and I bet nobody knows who made that quote without looking it up, so worthless the quote has proved to be."
My intent was that in a fight, or war per say that all is fair (argue that point however you may). As far as there being no open declared war at the time, history shows that the intent of Japan was for the declaration of war to preceed the attack if only for a few minutes. Also the U.S. leadership knew that a war with Japan was coming and it was mostly arrogence on their part, (and a battleship naval view) that led to their being suprised by Pearl Harbor They figured it would come at Wake or the P.I. That Japan attacked the U.S. was not a suprise, only the location was. This isn't that irrelevant a thought considering that Saddam gave some good indications that he would attack and they were ignored/misinterpreted. History has a funny way of repeating itself doesn't it?
[This message has been edited by dhuffjr (edited September 29, 2000).]
My intent was that in a fight, or war per say that all is fair (argue that point however you may). As far as there being no open declared war at the time, history shows that the intent of Japan was for the declaration of war to preceed the attack if only for a few minutes. Also the U.S. leadership knew that a war with Japan was coming and it was mostly arrogence on their part, (and a battleship naval view) that led to their being suprised by Pearl Harbor They figured it would come at Wake or the P.I. That Japan attacked the U.S. was not a suprise, only the location was. This isn't that irrelevant a thought considering that Saddam gave some good indications that he would attack and they were ignored/misinterpreted. History has a funny way of repeating itself doesn't it?
[This message has been edited by dhuffjr (edited September 29, 2000).]
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Well, then why was their attack "cowardly" and "dishonorable"? If the Japs intended to follow established protocol for the commencement of hostilities but screwed up by half an hour or so, then i for one can't see where the dishonor lies. An honest mistake, i'd say.Originally posted by Charles22:
Yogi: The Japanese had sent diplomats to declare war as the bombing started or just before it, but failed to get it to them in time.
If this is indeed the truth, then it is frightening how self-centered and ignorant those americans are. Fortunately, i do not belive it to be the thruth. You got to have more sense of proportions than that?Originally posted by Charles22:
Actually, if you want to know the truth, the WWII German national flag (swastika) might get less Americans upset than the Rising Sun one.
I mean, what's the industrial slaughter of 10 million innocent people, the devastation of a continent, the attempted extincton of a whole race, compared against the breaking international protocol and serving an embarrasing defeat to the high and mighty US of A? Nothing, apparently, nothing at all...
Sorry if i sound hostile, but when a legitmate naval banner of a democratic nation, even admittedly out of place, is considered more offensive than the Swastika, then i get hostile.
[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited September 29, 2000).]
Yogi: The Japanese are the ones that attacked America, not the Germans. The American nation was both so angry at Japan and suspicious of Russia, that we kept Russia from helping in the Pacific. I only pointed out that people over here were and/or are more upset at what Japan did than what Germany did, simply because it is such an understated thing. You must admit, that from a certain view, that if there's a couple of bully's on your street, you're going to be less concerned with the one who is bothering other people, won't you? The Germans were pretty much minding their business with us, they didn't want to provoke us, whereas, Japan, a much smaller national power decided to get 'brave'.
The point made about the declaration of war isn't legit, because when someone plans to tell you they're at war with you, and tell you basically as the bombs were falling (BTW, for those that don't know your history, the Japanese diplomats had the "precise" timing in their heads as to when to make the announcement, they were in cohesion with the military), that they're at war, all their declaration is doing is making a mere technicality. An Axis aggressor wasn't concerned too much with how they would abide by international law (for they would conquer it, so they thought).
The Japanese decided that if America didn't fuel them with oil, that they would go and take it from whoever they wanted. In order to steal like a thief from others to support their murderous campaign in China, they would have to wipe out the American fleet. Japan was probably thoroughly convinced that if it went trying to take Australia and so forth, that America would go to war with them. If they considered that war was inevitable with America because of both an available fleet and America's likely desire to protect various nations there, they thought they might as well wipe the fleet out by surprise. America's cutting off American aid with fuel, must've convinced them that America would intensify their commitment if Japan went into further aggression.
The Axis were nothing more than a bunch of thugs and Japan was just as stupid as Italy was. They all felt they had to try and keep pace with Hitler and bit off more than they could chew.
The point made about the declaration of war isn't legit, because when someone plans to tell you they're at war with you, and tell you basically as the bombs were falling (BTW, for those that don't know your history, the Japanese diplomats had the "precise" timing in their heads as to when to make the announcement, they were in cohesion with the military), that they're at war, all their declaration is doing is making a mere technicality. An Axis aggressor wasn't concerned too much with how they would abide by international law (for they would conquer it, so they thought).
The Japanese decided that if America didn't fuel them with oil, that they would go and take it from whoever they wanted. In order to steal like a thief from others to support their murderous campaign in China, they would have to wipe out the American fleet. Japan was probably thoroughly convinced that if it went trying to take Australia and so forth, that America would go to war with them. If they considered that war was inevitable with America because of both an available fleet and America's likely desire to protect various nations there, they thought they might as well wipe the fleet out by surprise. America's cutting off American aid with fuel, must've convinced them that America would intensify their commitment if Japan went into further aggression.
The Axis were nothing more than a bunch of thugs and Japan was just as stupid as Italy was. They all felt they had to try and keep pace with Hitler and bit off more than they could chew.
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
Grok,Originally posted by Grok:
when the Sunk Ships Page comes up...I notice that I do have some unsunk BB ships, yet when it comes to the US player turn and I check Pearl Harbor all are sunk. A bug?
The "Battle Results" page has never been accurate regarding sunk ships. For some reason lost in the mists of time and Gary Grigsby's memory, not all ships with 99% + damage sink immediately. Those ships from Pearl Harbor that "sink" when the computer is calculating other attacks/battles are not posted in the Battle Results page.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
-
Manic Jester
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Houston, Texas
I just want to say I've been a long time listener, First time caller!
I have run the origanal on three different platforms, and Version 2.0 on two different platforms. This may seem a bit odd, but the first time I ran either version on a computer with a processor more that a 100MHz I received these devastating results at Pearl. Even with Version 2.0 on my 100Mhz platform I rarely have more than 3 BB's sunk, but most of the other BB's have at least 50% more damage. I also think that you get different results (Better) if the Display & Delay setting are set to NONE, but that is just flying off on a tangent!
Try this if you can and see what kind of results you get.
I have run the origanal on three different platforms, and Version 2.0 on two different platforms. This may seem a bit odd, but the first time I ran either version on a computer with a processor more that a 100MHz I received these devastating results at Pearl. Even with Version 2.0 on my 100Mhz platform I rarely have more than 3 BB's sunk, but most of the other BB's have at least 50% more damage. I also think that you get different results (Better) if the Display & Delay setting are set to NONE, but that is just flying off on a tangent!
Try this if you can and see what kind of results you get.
Hello everyone, Zakamoto here . .
I've run the historical first turn 4 times, with the results
2 sunk - once
3 sunk - twice
4 sunk - once
Average 3, ne?
All for starts were at "Even" balance, all four starts were as Computer=US, Human=Japanese.
I have played a total of 6 two player games of Pacwar to conclusion against 4 different opponents, and these results look fairly consistant to the TWO PLAYER results back then. Generally in these games we had a gentleman's agreement to restart if the Japanese didnt sink at least 3 battleships because of the long term play balance issue. Historical issues aside, things get pretty steep for the Japanese player soon enough regardless of the damage done at Pearl.
Note the counts given above reflect battleships actually sunk at Oahu, not the "SUNK" count (inaccurate) and not counting the Prince of Whales (if that gets sunk too).
I'd conclude the number of battleships sunk is about right and consistent with old two player results. Of course, that is based on a statistically insignificant number of tries. As is everybody elses, I might add . .
- Zakamoto
I've run the historical first turn 4 times, with the results
2 sunk - once
3 sunk - twice
4 sunk - once
Average 3, ne?
All for starts were at "Even" balance, all four starts were as Computer=US, Human=Japanese.
I have played a total of 6 two player games of Pacwar to conclusion against 4 different opponents, and these results look fairly consistant to the TWO PLAYER results back then. Generally in these games we had a gentleman's agreement to restart if the Japanese didnt sink at least 3 battleships because of the long term play balance issue. Historical issues aside, things get pretty steep for the Japanese player soon enough regardless of the damage done at Pearl.
Note the counts given above reflect battleships actually sunk at Oahu, not the "SUNK" count (inaccurate) and not counting the Prince of Whales (if that gets sunk too).
I'd conclude the number of battleships sunk is about right and consistent with old two player results. Of course, that is based on a statistically insignificant number of tries. As is everybody elses, I might add . .
- Zakamoto
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Did the Japs now have to have given you time to prepare your defences after declaring war to be considered honourable warriors? That is just plain silly.Originally posted by Charles22:
The point made about the declaration of war isn't legit, because when someone plans to tell you they're at war with you, and tell you basically as the bombs were falling... ... that they're at war, all their declaration is doing is making a mere technicality.
For that matter, the US were shooting at German U-boats without any declaration of war at all, and escorting ships with war materials for Britain, all a clear violation of all norms of neutrality. How is that any less a breaking of protocol than the Jap late declaration of war? If anything it is worse, since there wasn't even an attempt to go through the forms. Should the Stars and Stripes be considered a shameful flag in Germany for this?
It seems to me you are really angry about Japan starting a war against your country AT ALL, never mind technicalities, and hey, i would be to - perhaps for a whole decade after the war ended, but not half a century afterwards and i would never consider the flag of that country eternally dishonoured.