Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Cyber Me

ORIGINAL: asdicus

For all scenarios I note that Singapore starts with 50% port damage on 7 december 1941. This takes 5 days to repair and makes a big difference to loading/unloading ships. Also of course you cannot build any forts at singapore for 5 days either while the port is repaired.

I cannot see any historical reason for the major port damage at the start of the game. The port was undamaged and working fine. Can any of the developers please explain why the port damage was added ? I would like to remove it in a custom babes scenario but I need to justify the change to my opponent.

It was Percival's order not to fortify the northern shores of Singapore up to 27th Dec 1941 because he didn't want to panic the civilians and wounded retreating troops- even though 6500 engineers could have been adding to the defences. Even when the Commonwealth forces crossed onto the island virtually nothing was done- the the little progress was made in the wrong positions as Percival mis-judged were the Japanese were going to invade- "There were no permanent defences on the front about to be attacked," Churchill said. By the time the Australians reached their front on 1st Feb 1942 they had to prepare their defences from scratch and only at night as the bank was now subjected to near constant bombing, strafing, and shelling during the day.

But the question remains. Since the player IS Perceval (and many others), why does Singapore start with the totally unwaranted 50% port damage? Wake Island battered the first Japanese invasion attempt..., but the game doesn't force the Japanese player to get battered as well.

mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history).

The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

But the question remains. Since the player IS Perceval (and many others), why does Singapore start with the totally unwaranted 50% port damage? Wake Island battered the first Japanese invasion attempt..., but the game doesn't force the Japanese player to get battered as well.

Nor does the game force upon the Allied player the Western sensibilities as they relate to a consideration of the effects of a protracted siege upon the civilian population of Singapore...

Nor does the game force Britain to defend Singapore, evidently in the 11th hour Churchill and the War Office decided that Rangoon or Java would be a far better option...

Nor does the game Force the Allied player to sally forth with Force Z...

Nor does the game force upon the Japanese player a consideration of the handling of prisoners...

Nor does the game force upon the Japanese a consideration of the contest between Army and Navy...

Nor does the game force Allied players to devote landing craft assets to Europe...

Nor does the game...

Nor does the game...

Nor does the game...

Wah, Wah, Wah...

If you don't like Singapore starting with 50 damage.. open up the handy dandy editor located in the SCEN file...click file...click open ...highlight Scenario 1 ....click Load/Save....click on Locations....scroll down to slot 722 .... change Port Damage from 50 to 0 or whatever number you like... then click File...then click Save Scenario As.... then save it in a slot #26 or higher...

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history).

The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether.

Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking...

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history).

The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether.

Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking...

Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early.

I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

mike, while I do stand on your side in this argument, Wake does inflict serious damage on the invading force as often as not (I have even seen the shore defense guns turn an invasion away in a duplication of history).

The problem seems to be that while recreating the historical results at Wake is a variable in the game, the 50% port damage to Singapore seems to be hard coded. Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias? The debate on that will rage until eternity whithout consensus while fostering animosity and rancor. Better to step aside and avoid the argument altogether.

Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking...

Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early.

I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)]

The designers who did this posted whey he did this and says it is a error and a oversite but it does not hurt anything in the long run. Why is this still going on?

ORIGINAL: Tijanski

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1




Wake CAN inflict serious damage..., and it can also accomplish nothing. No problem with that. The question was WHY the 50% damage on Singapore's port? What is the historical basis or rational for it? And IF there is one, why only at Singapore? That's what the original poster was asking...

Understood. My take on the apparent rational basis would be the age old need to give the Axis a helping hand in doing well early.

I've been playing grand strategic wargames since the mid '70s. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was the go-to game for my gaming cell for nearly 20 years (my real name appears in the design credits of Advanced Third Reich as a playtester). One thing you learn pretty quickly is that the Axis really do need to to well early on to make for a good game in the long term, both in ETO and PTO. So sometimes designers throw in a few artificial helpers. I don't see it as a big enough game bender to get bent over myself is all I'm trying to say. [:)]

The designers who did this posted whey he did this and says it is a error and a oversite but it does not hurt anything in the long run. Why is this still going on?

Some people are convinced there is a conspiracy.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Some people are convinced there is a conspiracy.

This thread has just about confirmed for me that we have officially run out of things to talk about. We need to rewind the forum.

I'll start: "PT boats are insanely overpowered!!!!"

The only thing that actually sticks in my craw is the two standards applied; to wit:

1)If any Japanese commander screwed up, let's give them the ability to fix it in the game.

2) If any Allied Commander screwed up, let's hard code it or make a house rule about it to make it so in the game too.

I started this thread and to be honest I am disappointed that some posters have taken to bashing the game developers. JWE was kind enough to answer my question and that is sufficient for me. I think witp ae is a great game with a lot of excellent and dedicated developers and testers. Sure there are some issues but they don't detract from the overall game experience - you just learn to play around any stuff which causes unhappyness.

Please no more posts in this thread moaning about stuff - thanks.

Sooo... Is this disregard-thread now? [:)]

Sooo... Is this disregard-thread now?

Don't think so.
Asdiscus gave us just a reminder why most of us visit this forum.

Disregarding the reason for the 50% damage: Is it realistic that a port the size of Singapore at 50% damage can be fully repaired in just 5 days?

Looks like some Allied version of "Speedo - Worko".[/align][/align] [/align]A construction site can only "support" a certain workforce and certain work does require a certain time, no matter how many Eng units and supplies are at hand (setting/hardening of concrete for example). [/align] [/align]There are also diminishing returns for more of everything, sometimes to the point of getting in each others way and actually slowing things down.[/align][/align] [/align]
It is my impression that repair and construction for ports should be much slower, esp. compared to airfield repair/construction which appears to be the 'easier' task.[/align][/align]

No takers? My objection is too stupid to even comment on? [:(][/align]

I kinda agree. It always seems too easy to repair major base damage. You can knock a base back to the stone age and then after a couple days of resting your bombers the base will be operational again.

However there would be issues with slowing down repair of base facilities in witp. Namely the way building forts and repairing damage is linked. If we had drastically reduced repair rates for port damage (or AF) then it would become impossible to build forts anywhere that's contested. Think of any of the starting locations for the allies; we'd never get them beyond level 1 forts because the feeble bombing effort the IJA can put forth in the beginning would be enough to keep all allied bases in range repairing port damage.

All it would take is a couple bombers every so often and singapore couldn't build forts before the japanese army got there.

Sail some carriers through the dei once a week conducting port strikes and palembang, batavia, soerbaja, balikpapan, tarakan, cagayan, ambon, ect ect would all be unable to build any forts before invasions happened.


So while I would like to see port and even airfield repairs take longer, I don't think it would be a good idea with the current model with forts linked to repairs.

I think repair speed is fine. Like Sredni said, player cannot deside not to repair facilities. For example IRL Munda airstrip was totally destroyed, and japanese did not even try to repair it. Instead they build heavy fortifications around the airfield. Impossible in this game. (I'm not complaining!)

But I think expanding facilities should take much longer, espesially expanding ports.

Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias?

Yes.

Also, it sort of violates the whole "can you do better than history?" subtext of consim gaming. WitP is, however, not unique in its dedication to hardwiring Allied defeats and in making the rest "optional."

The only thing that actually sticks in my craw is the two standards applied; to wit:

1)If any Japanese commander screwed up, let's give them the ability to fix it in the game.

2) If any Allied Commander screwed up, let's hard code it or make a house rule about it to make it so in the game too.

Funny to have Hand Bolter commenting that he was a playtester of A3R in this thread, because A3R is one of those games that really tosses production disparity between the Western Allies and the Axis straight into the trash can. It's one of those designs that takes note of all of the Allies' fears and builds them structurally into the game and none of the Axis' ones.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

No takers? My objection is too stupid to even comment on? [:(][/align]

Do you really WANT an answer to this question??? [:D]

Don't worry about asdicus. The guilty posters have been doing that since the original Witp days.