Page 2 of 2
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:36 pm
by Nikademus
How realistic can you get!!!!!
well i'd like to see an automatic email sent to my home box if i get an 0-1 signed by MacArthur telling me to succeed or don't bother coming back.
[:)]
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:45 pm
by Nikademus
on a less silly note, those unhappy with the AV support thing may be interested in my new experimental version of my mod now available at Spooky's site.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:55 pm
by jwilkerson
Here is an excerpt from a post I made in this forum some time ago. The topic under discussion included whether or not WITP was a "simulation" or a "game" [:D]
If ( and many would disagree with this ) we assume for the sake of discussion, that WITP was intended to be a simulation ( and this may be what you are driving at ) then we could discuss two aspects. One of these aspects is .. have we implemented the simulation technically correctly ( such as if we intended to have A+B=C in the simulation ... does it ) and the other aspect is whether it models what we intended it to model.
I make simulations as a part of my job - and I can certainly say that we know our simulations ( our models ) are not 100% accurate - if they were - they would not be models. We can always name a factor we are not considering - hence we always know our models are not 100% complete and hence not 100% accurate. So why do we use them ? Economics. We have three levels of "investigative tools" to bring to the table. "Analysis", "Simulation" and "Empirical Observation" ... each of these tools requires a different level of investment of time and money ... and each has its place in the "tool kit". Analysis is often used to determine what tool to use next ... simulation is used mostly for "What if" .. but anything that we would present to a customer as a solution .. must be tested on a real tool ( in my case a semi-conductor manufacturing "tool" ) .. but performing all tests on a real tool for all "what if" analysis would be far to expensive in terms of time and resources, hence simulation is used - and where appropriate the even cheaper analysis tool.
So, back from digression ( just want to make sure my use of the term "simulation" is understood ) ... "simulation" is a mathematical model ... which ( in our case ) attempts to model something in the real world. The "purpose" of the model has much to do with whether it may be judged to be successful or not successful. There are no absolutely correct models ( absolute implies 100% .. not possible ). The purpose of WITP ( if it were a simulation ) is to provide entertainment to its players. Its purpose is not to provide the USN with a training tool. Its purpose is to provide its owners and creators with some piece of their livelihood and in exchange for the selling price, to provide entertainment to the customers. If it is a simulation, it is to provide this entertainment by providing us with some type of simulation of WITP ( 1941-1945 ) ... but again its success is not measured in absolute terms .. but instead in terms of its purpose.
Given the "niche" market for a product like WITP ( after all it has no Orcs or Spacemen ) and given the level of activity on this forum - and sales indicated by that level of activity. WITP has been unexpectedly successful - at its purpose. Can it be improved as a simulation ? Absolutely all simulations can be improved. However, there comes a point at which the value of improving the simulation is less than the benefit to be gained from improving it. In my world - we have a "quick and dirty" analyzer for our tool. It can be set up in minutes and run in seconds ... I can answer questions over the phone with it .. but it is far from as accurate as our more detailed "simulation" model .. which takes hours to set up .. and dozens of minutes to run ... but each tool is used in the proper place for that tool.
If the purpose of these discussions is to assess the "gaps" between WITP and the real world - attention also needs to be paid to the purpose for which WITP is and will be used. And priorities set accordingly. Again, we cannot close to the gap to zero - no one could afford that. And I think this is Rainer's point, actually, which I agree with.
But the question: Is "Witp historically correct" ... sounds like it might be attempting to judge Witp in some absolute sense ... and as I argue above, this isn't the way simulators are judged in the real world. They are judged in terms of "bang for the buck" ... how close do we need to come to serve our purpose and are we willing to spend what it will take to come that close. If so, we build that simulator, if not, we adjust our needs.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:42 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Halsey
I agree completely.
A player can add a certain level of historical accuracy by not using known design flaws as doctrine.
Limiting themselves to rules that will restrict the usage of weapons systems will also increase the enjoyment that this game has to offer.
Halsey I couldn't agree more. Players will, to a first order of magnitude, get out the historical accuracy they care to put into it.
Most of the more experienced players know the games design well and how to exploit it. Some of the best games I have played are the ones where both sides choose to simulate a learning curve by at least temporarily forgetting those exploits and sometimes doing the brave but dumb thing. [:D]...lord knows I have done enough of that in my games. [8|]
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:28 pm
by panda124c
Right you are niceguy, but the real failing of WITP from a historical point is you don't have a staff to blame when your Great Plan goes south. [:D]
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:24 pm
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Here is an excerpt from a post I made in this forum some time ago. The topic under discussion included whether or not WITP was a "simulation" or a "game" [:D]
Its a "gamulation"! Except for the days when its a "simulame".
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:27 pm
by Rainer
I use a mirror to chide the culprit [;)]
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:29 pm
by Nikademus
I just blame the game. Its obviously broken when my plans unravel.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:36 pm
by Rainer
If the purpose of these discussions is to assess the "gaps" between WITP and the real world
Not really.
I basically wrote the message to make people better aware of the needs of the support staff.
The head line is just an eye catcher [;)]
Cheers
Rainer
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:22 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Lets see.....air units don't attack when I tell them to.....LCU don't go where I tell them to....ship don't do what I expect them to.....
How realistic can you get!!!!!
Yes and No..., a squadron Leader who recieved orders to "go and bomb X" and instead of flying the misssion ordered spent the day in the Officers Club would be digging latrines as a Private the next day.
Some of these CO's are a little too inclined to ignore orders.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:49 pm
by Rainer
Some of these CO's are a little too inclined to ignore orders.
As I see it there are two aspects.
First, to TEST the game engine it would be good to have a switch to turn that "randomizing" off, so the tester knows exactly what is supposed to happen with a given set up. Probably not available to public, if at all.
Second, some players would probably be more than happy to have these randomizers either been turned off completely (say like FOW), or have a means to "tune" them up or down. This feature also is a major (may be THE major) contributor to "unpredictiveness", thus not likely to be welcomed by all players.
I'm not sure modders have the means to tune this parameter (probably not).
I'm afraid both require major changes of the engine, thus won't happen in our life time.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:57 pm
by AmiralLaurent
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Lets see.....air units don't attack when I tell them to.....LCU don't go where I tell them to....ship don't do what I expect them to.....
How realistic can you get!!!!!
Yes and No..., a squadron Leader who recieved orders to "go and bomb X" and instead of flying the misssion ordered spent the day in the Officers Club would be digging latrines as a Private the next day.
Some of these CO's are a little too inclined to ignore orders.
You're right but what the game should display will be a endless list of units not carrying orders as ordered because of late transfer of orders, bad decoding, bad weather during formation phase, unit getting lost, threat of thunderstorm over base prompted call back, wrong location given for target, leader of strike turning back for mechanical defect, escort and bombers not bombing so raid cancelled, first AC taking off bogged into mud, two AC collided and blocked the runway, (false?) air alert when AC should have left dispersals delayed and then cancelled the raid, flu epidemy, malaria epidemy, hangover after a celebration, alimentary intoxication, all aircraft grounded for inspection after a structural failure, etc....
WITP is still allowing to send too much AC day after day, and less than 5-10% will turn back before target or not find it. The WW2 rate was far more important than that.
By the way, UV was better in the sense that the primary mission might be flown in the afternoon phase too if the weather cleared.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:03 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Lets see.....air units don't attack when I tell them to.....LCU don't go where I tell them to....ship don't do what I expect them to.....
How realistic can you get!!!!!
Yes and No..., a squadron Leader who recieved orders to "go and bomb X" and instead of flying the misssion ordered spent the day in the Officers Club would be digging latrines as a Private the next day.
Some of these CO's are a little too inclined to ignore orders.
Almost all of my air missions fly except for weather related problems. How do I know? My missions in Southpac/Southwest pac fly 80-90% of the time. My Burma missions fly 50-60% of the time.
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:03 pm
by msaario
I think what the game needs is simply a whole lot of randomness. You play the way you play because you practice it twenty-times over (as we all know its called the hindsight, and close to 20/20 or whatever). You know the F4U will toast A6Ms and so on. Why not add a bit of salt to the game? Make the player learn which plane or ship does the best instead of reading it from the book or manual (or table). And as said above, a whole lot of stuff should go wrong all the time...
This would require e.g. a lot of balance b/w historical accuracy and randomness (in the database that it, the game-play has that already) - can you really have both? Hide the enemy plane stats (no peeking!), switch plane names and their stats around a bit, make the other guy learn the hard way what works where etc.
Yeah, not gonna happen, but I'm just dreaming. This would have to be built-in, not done with an editor (works once, right?).
--Mikko
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:36 pm
by Rafael Warsaw
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Lets see.....air units don't attack when I tell them to.....LCU don't go where I tell them to....ship don't do what I expect them to.....
How realistic can you get!!!!!
Yes and No..., a squadron Leader who recieved orders to "go and bomb X" and instead of flying the misssion ordered spent the day in the Officers Club would be digging latrines as a Private the next day.
Some of these CO's are a little too inclined to ignore orders.
I think that You are missing something - Lets say that an Higher command gave an order but guys down there were not able to complete due to 100 various reasons (local fog the obvious You can name other 99). History knows at least a 1000 examples of same misbehavior from single squads to whole armies not duing what The Higher command wanted them to do or thought that they will do. That is one of the reasons we had mass armies and we have professional armed forces now.
In very general term its human nature itself which creates problems with coordination of bigger teams plus when distan comunication kicks in things start to get messy.
"go bomb X" - errr...GPS off.......digital maps off.....radio malfunctions on....guided bombs off....weather on.... Plz do read ie about Marianas.
INHO game developer
do not puts You in a brown shoes of a wing commander. Different scale.
Plus WITP its a GAME but not a SIMULATION. It was not intended to be one. Do You want to do 1 day turn in a few hours alone? Have you ever counted number of men in HQ of various levels working to move 1 Division from place? Do You want to try? Join the Army. Good Luck.
Btw: Its may 1942 and manila still holds. Its unhistorical! Game is broken. No doubt about it!
[:D]
P.S.
Whats really broken is a user HOSTILE interface.
[:@]
RE: WitP historically correct?
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:17 am
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Lets see.....air units don't attack when I tell them to.....LCU don't go where I tell them to....ship don't do what I expect them to.....
How realistic can you get!!!!!
Yes and No..., a squadron Leader who recieved orders to "go and bomb X" and instead of flying the misssion ordered spent the day in the Officers Club would be digging latrines as a Private the next day.
Some of these CO's are a little too inclined to ignore orders.
Almost all of my air missions fly except for weather related problems. How do I know? My missions in Southpac/Southwest pac fly 80-90% of the time. My Burma missions fly 50-60% of the time.
You get status or abort messages from the program telling you this?