Anyone care to speculate on what happened here?

[treespider]

Who was in command of said brigade and what were his ratings? Who was in command of said brigade commander? What was the morale of said unit that was defending...what was the experience of said defenders?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: herwin

OK, we've established that whoever designed the game doesn't understand ground operations, particularly issues revolving around tempo. Here's the second question: in preparation for the Japanese attack, I reinforced the air operating out of the base to eight squadrons with fresh fighter and bomber units. None of them flew, even to intercept Japanese air strikes. What I did may sound stupid to the gamers out there, but having spent six years as the chief engineer for the USMC air and ground command and control system for operations at this scale, I knew that the most effective way of ensuring continuous and effective direct air support to a unit under attack was to have aircraft in the same hex (at that scale). Not in a neighboring hex or further away, but co-located with the units being supported. Please don't tell me that what I saw here is how the game works, because that would indicate that the game designers not only lacked a realistic understanding of ground operations, they also lack a similar understanding of air operations.

Please note that air operations out of bases co-located (in WiTP terms) with the ground forces being supported were a common occurrence during WWII. The Japanese didn't withdraw from the positions around the USMC perimeter on Guadalcanal for at least three months, and air operations from Henderson Field were almost continuous during that period.

Of course, the fact that the entirety of coastal hexes are assumed to be within gun range of naval bombardment suggests that the game designers lack a realistic understanding of naval operations. Strike three...

When were your aircraft relocated to Magwe? What was the weather the day of the attack? What was morale of air units what was the rating of the air units commander etc etc etc...

[AmiralLaurent]

Herwin, there is nothing new in the fact that the game is not simulating many things correctly... the ground war being one of the main problems. As for operational tempo you are right, this notion is not included in the game.

About your air units, can you be more precise about what happens, please. I have seen numerous (irritating) cases when my airmen did not fly offensive missions but if a base is bombed and has fighters able to fly CAP they should fly.

A possible explanation was that you jammed the AF (where there was only one Allied BF) with 8 squadrons, so leaving no room for aircraft to be service or even fly. In game terms if your AF is overcrowed 25% of your AC won't fly, if your aren ot in range of an Air HQ 25%, etc.... that don't mean that 50% of each squadron won't fly, that means that 50% of your AC won't fly (or try to). So it is possible that in your case fighters were "grounded" by overcrowding, and bombers fail their check for one reason or the other (the lack of escorts could be one). Yeah, I know it is stupid but what about sending 8 squadrons in a base probably lacking support. By the way you said that your base had 2300 supplies. If there was a Bde, a BF and 8 squadrons here, your base was lacking supplies, and so your troops may have been penalized for that (or at least not able to draw supplies from the base).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: herwin

OK, we've established that whoever designed the game doesn't understand ground operations, particularly issues revolving around tempo. Here's the second question: in preparation for the Japanese attack, I reinforced the air operating out of the base to eight squadrons with fresh fighter and bomber units. None of them flew, even to intercept Japanese air strikes. What I did may sound stupid to the gamers out there, but having spent six years as the chief engineer for the USMC air and ground command and control system for operations at this scale, I knew that the most effective way of ensuring continuous and effective direct air support to a unit under attack was to have aircraft in the same hex (at that scale). Not in a neighboring hex or further away, but co-located with the units being supported. Please don't tell me that what I saw here is how the game works, because that would indicate that the game designers not only lacked a realistic understanding of ground operations, they also lack a similar understanding of air operations.

Please note that air operations out of bases co-located (in WiTP terms) with the ground forces being supported were a common occurrence during WWII. The Japanese didn't withdraw from the positions around the USMC perimeter on Guadalcanal for at least three months, and air operations from Henderson Field were almost continuous during that period.

Of course, the fact that the entirety of coastal hexes are assumed to be within gun range of naval bombardment suggests that the game designers lack a realistic understanding of naval operations. Strike three...

When were your aircraft relocated to Magwe? What was the weather the day of the attack? What was morale of air units what was the rating of the air units commander etc etc etc...

Six squadrons already present plus two fresh squadrons flew in from Calcutta. Weather was precipitation, but Japanese air strikes flew against Magwe. Morale was 80-99. Commanders had been cherry-picked.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Herwin, there is nothing new in the fact that the game is not simulating many things correctly... the ground war being one of the main problems. As for operational tempo you are right, this notion is not included in the game.

About your air units, can you be more precise about what happens, please. I have seen numerous (irritating) cases when my airmen did not fly offensive missions but if a base is bombed and has fighters able to fly CAP they should fly.

A possible explanation was that you jammed the AF (where there was only one Allied BF) with 8 squadrons, so leaving no room for aircraft to be service or even fly. In game terms if your AF is overcrowed 25% of your AC won't fly, if your aren ot in range of an Air HQ 25%, etc.... that don't mean that 50% of each squadron won't fly, that means that 50% of your AC won't fly (or try to). So it is possible that in your case fighters were "grounded" by overcrowding, and bombers fail their check for one reason or the other (the lack of escorts could be one). Yeah, I know it is stupid but what about sending 8 squadrons in a base probably lacking support. By the way you said that your base had 2300 supplies. If there was a Bde, a BF and 8 squadrons here, your base was lacking supplies, and so your troops may have been penalized for that (or at least not able to draw supplies from the base).

4-level airbase with 60 air support within range of an air HQ (at Mandalay). Some damage. Correction on the supplies:5800.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: herwin

OK, we've established that whoever designed the game doesn't understand ground operations, particularly issues revolving around tempo....

The bite is that you design the combat model for brigade sized conflict on open terrain, it will be wonky with division sized battles in the mountains and differently wonky on an atoll landing...one model doesn't handle everything right. Like there is no such think as an 'all purpose' weapon.

Semper Fi,
Lee

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

ORIGINAL: herwin

OK, we've established that whoever designed the game doesn't understand ground operations, particularly issues revolving around tempo....

The bite is that you design the combat model for brigade sized conflict on open terrain, it will be wonky with division sized battles in the mountains and differently wonky on an atoll landing...one model doesn't handle everything right. Like there is no such think as an 'all purpose' weapon.

Semper Fi,
Lee

I'm running into the same problems doing statistical analysis of disk cells in the auditory brainstem. The details matter. You need to start with the all-purpose model and think about the various situations it may be applied to. For operations on large islands and the continent, you need a model that accounts for the mismatch between time and space. Then for small operations you need a second model that takes into account the lack of operational depth. The same issue shows up in shore bombardments, base capture, air operations, etc.

What do I mean here by 'mismatch'? The typical combat model in a game is a forward numerical integration, with all the problems with consistency, correctness, and stability that forward models have. The combat model in WiTP is a particularly bad example.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The game makes a lot of well-defined combat situations where in reality the only suspense is how long the inevitable will take into crap shoots.

Given part of the objective was to discourage combat by formula, i'd say its working as designed.

[veji1]

Indeed, ability to "read" the combat formula and therefore optimize to the extreme is something I hate in games... and if it takes stupid die rolls to prevent that, then I'd rather go with the die rolls...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: veji1

Indeed, ability to "read" the combat formula and therefore optimize to the extreme is something I hate in games... and if it takes stupid die rolls to prevent that, then I'd rather go with the die rolls...

It's what an operational analyst does.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

It's what an operational analyst does.

but often not what battles do.

[veji1]

Yes but I want a game, not a mathematical exercice...

[veji1]

I like the fact that in this game AV can go up and down tremendously out die rolls.. Obviously it looks very weird, but the problem here is that the AV is made visible, which means we have access to a mathematical component of the combat model, which then leads our instinct to want to "understand" every bit of it...

As frustrating as it can be, aside from clear bugs, ie not being able to finish of stranded forces in a non base hex, I just "role play" the combat results and imagine why there was such an outcome...

In your case your forces might have been betrayed by the local population that let the japanese in the city (through the sewage system or whatever), or your dispirited commander had a meltdown and thought "all is lost, lets retreat/surrender before it is too late"...

[CaptDave]

Something I don't think is mentioned often enough when folks complain about the compromises in the various game models is that while it may be theoretically possible to design more realistic movement, ground combat, and the like, doing so within the limitations of a typical home computer is another matter. I don't think any of us are running Crays at home (supercomputers, for those who aren't familiar with the maker), and, despite what the vultures in Redmond would like us to do, we shouldn't have to be upgrading our equipment every 3 years. In fact, someone who has to think twice, thrice, or four times before shelling out the price of this game is unlikely to look favorably on spending a couple thousand every few years for a new box to play it on.

When all the home users in the world are running 200 THz machines with 500 TB RAM, then maybe we can start seeing games where all the variables can be factored in. Until then, though, compromises need to be made. The ideal, fully-detailed game certainly wouldn't run on this piece of slop I have at work!

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

It's what an operational analyst does.

but often not what battles do.

Well, my complaint is more that the game has a much wider variance in outcomes than we see in reality.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin


Well, my complaint is more that the game has a much wider variance in outcomes than we see in reality.

understood. However it still sounds like your trying to math the system too much. I don't think the ground system is perfect, but i'll accept the occasional frustration or head scratcher any day over older wargames where the outcome could be calculated close if not exactly within a formatic prediction.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin


Well, my complaint is more that the game has a much wider variance in outcomes than we see in reality.

understood. However it still sounds like your trying to math the system too much. I don't think the ground system is perfect, but i'll accept the occasional frustration or head scratcher any day over older wargames where the outcome could be calculated close if not exactly within a formatic prediction.

You're dealing with someone who used to do this stuff professionally...

The easiest way to get the ground combat model right is by allowing partial control of hexes. Combat then affects the amount of control. Moving into an unoccupied hex does the same, just faster, with the size of the force entering affecting the amount of control changing hands. Atolls are really small, islands are bigger, coastal hexes still bigger, and continental hexes biggest of all. This has the advantage of avoiding problems with numerical instability.

The air combat model can be done by converting from the random-number-draw system to something that generates a sortie count for each squadron using similar or more intelligent rules. You can still allocate the sorties by squadron or group, but it's more reliable in its output. You can also force the sortie number up at the cost of the planes involving requiring maintenance.

The naval model should have two things added: way-points and movement three times a day (fixes at midnight, 8 am, and 4 pm). The location used for planning the next day would be the 4 pm location.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

You're dealing with someone who used to do this stuff professionally...

Your dealing with someone who's heard all this chest puffing stuff before. To take a page from Sid Meiyer's book....here's a computer...here's a pile of books. Good luck with your new wargame and let me know when you finish it.

[Feinder]

Just call me Switzerland.

I wish the model was somewhere in between the ultra-low-level-many-variables-thus-very-varied-results that we see, and rock-paper-scissors.

I *like* the "traditional" grognard system of:

Code: Select all

 ---------
 |  X    |
 | 2-4-1 |
 ---------
 Attack-Defend-Movement
 

With some double roll vs. a table that says
3 steps DEF eliminated, 1 step ATK eliminated
2 steps eliminated DEF eliminated
ATK disrupted

Whatever.

Just call me ol' fashioned, but I think the sytem focused too much on the details, and missed the big picture.  Don't get me wrong, I think the system (very roughly) works, and isn't going to change anyway.  But given the amount of  and lack of that the ground model recieves, a "more traditional" approach might have been better.

Still, we have what we have.
-F-

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder


Still, we have what we have.
-F-

Yes. we have what we have. Its not perfect, like i said....but it used to be worse IMHO. I"m happy with what was able to be tweaked/modified and worked hard to get a couple of them pushed through.