Matrix Games Forums

Making decisions in a simulated combat environment should reflect those made in reality.

The lack of certainty in the outcome of any operation, no matter how well planned, is standard.

Making the decision with so many variables and possibilities, none more critical than the enemies strength, disposition, and actions, is the task for the Commander.

Replaying a turn would seem to to take these out of the equation, and provide hindsight. Not to mention, if one makes an oversight or "mistake", there are consequences that one must accept. I have made many in my games of PBEM UV, and some of the more catastrophic mistakes are well remebered. Like the saying goes, "the lesson learned the hard way is a lesson not forgotten".

Yes, overly complex interface and game mechanic quirks can magnify command problems, and I am sure the learning curve for WitP will be no less than as for UV, so there will be game mechanic mistakes made early.

So don't go try PBEM as the first attempt to play WitP.

Nagumo's mistake was far more fundamental, although it was less his fault than the operational planners'. He mission-overtasked his CVs. Given the state of a/c handling in the IJN, and CAP/CAC in both the IJN and USN in 1st half of 1942, having one command unit (TF) handle airfield suppression, CAP and anti-interdiction strikes was way too much for the local command structure and CV crews to handle. Midway would have happened anywhere that Japan forced a TF to simultaneously handle so many mutually exclusive tasks simlutaneously.

Originally posted by bilbow
There are different opinions on the issue of mistake -replays. Personally, I'm with Drex. You live with your mistakes. If the mistake is so serious that it affect the outcome in a major way, and there aren't many of those, well then concede and start over. Most mistakes and omissions simply don't affect the outcome that seriously. So live with the mistake and learn from it.
We've all probably forgottent to do some key setting, and paid for it. But most of us won't do it again, and we are better players for it.

This is a complex game, and I have learned most of the small but key features the hard way. And I am a much better player for it.

BEER!

Hi, This is too large a game to try to 'hurry' turns or operate without a plan. (And a systematic method of entering orders)
You can reduce the number of errors you make (I am the king at forgetting to put up CAP after I purposely rest a fighter group prior to the arrival of a TF)

I do not believe anyone will have so much going on that they cannot pay attention to TF's operating in the combat zones (How many zone will there be after May 42? Before that there are only 2 areas where enemy TF's can encounter one another and this period is not long and the locations are well known)

The auto supply system should take care of the number one player foul up. (If base is safe and needs supply just place it on auto supply)

Submarines will require a lot of attention (unless you allow the AI to handle. I prefer to do it myself. It requires a bit of effort to set up but once homeports and mission types decided it gets easier.)

Aircombat. Fatigue for routine missions (search and CAP) has been reduced. Watch the replay, check bases that engaged in combat. (The non combat bases should be ok-check them from time to time to get a feel for how often you need to change settings)

If your going to attempt to play this game you have to allow enough time and commitment to actually pay attention

I agree with Mogami here. You have to get into a routine. When I played Pacwar, I used to start in India and work my way east, giving orders, checking bases, etc. And I checked everything in the same order each time - Air, Land, Ships. This minimizes the chances of making a mistake.

Like others have said, real life battles usually go to the side that makes the fewest mistakes. "Do-overs" don't happen in real life, and I only think they should be allowed in unusual and rare circumstances here.

Just my $.02

Originally posted by madflava13
I agree with Mogami here. You have to get into a routine. When I played Pacwar, I used to start in India and work my way east, giving orders, checking bases, etc. And I checked everything in the same order each time - Air, Land, Ships. This minimizes the chances of making a mistake.

Like others have said, real life battles usually go to the side that makes the fewest mistakes. "Do-overs" don't happen in real life, and I only think they should be allowed in unusual and rare circumstances here.

Just my $.02

So if you fail to escort a raid and lose 120 sbd and 120 tbf
that is just the price of playing eh?

I'd only tolerate do-overs if the code was flawed. Set a TF destination and some stray quark puts your four IJN oilers without escort in San Francisco Bay and so forth.

Originally posted by mdiehl
I'd only tolerate do-overs if the code was flawed. Set a TF destination and some stray quark puts your four IJN oilers without escort in San Francisco Bay and so forth.

How about a surf combat TF static in a hex that fails to engage
enemy TF that proceed to make hash out of your CV's?

Posted by Mogami

Hi, This is too large a game to try to 'hurry' turns or operate without a plan. (And a systematic method of entering orders)

Not always a great selling point.

How about an optional "WitP for Dummies" version of the game for those who enjoy playing without such a need for detail. Might reduce the number of law suits that Matrix could face from players whose brains exploded while planning the first turn's move of the standard Dec '41-45 campaign.

I do not believe anyone will have so much going on that they cannot pay attention to TF's operating in the combat zones (How many zone will there be after May 42? Before that there are only 2 areas where enemy TF's can encounter one another and this period is not long and the locations are well known)

I agree. Anyone who has played UVs scenarios that assume Midway didn't happen shouldn't have too much trouble handling CV forces up to end of '43. Now '44-45 on the other hand......

WitP for dummies version - No player can have more than 6 fleet CVs and 6 CVLs available at any one time. Any CVs over that limit are immeadiately sent back in the reinforcement pool. All CVEs are eliminated from the production pool because they make things too fiddly. The only exception being the Long Island, which is allowed for comedy value. The Allied player receives a bonus of 1000 VPs every time he succesfully uses the Long Island to transport a squadron from the USA to the South Pacific.

Submarines will require a lot of attention (unless you allow the AI to handle. I prefer to do it myself. It requires a bit of effort to set up but once homeports and mission types decided it gets easier.)

A lot of attention is right. Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Philippine Sea, North Pacific, Central Pacific, South Pacific, sound of brain exploding.

It could be a campaign scenario in its own right.

WitP for dummies version - All subs have unlimited ammo and fuel. Upon leaving harbour, all Japanese subs appear off the West Coast of the USA while all allied subs mass in the Sea of Japan. After '43, all Japanese submarines are eliminated.

Aircombat. Fatigue for routine missions (search and CAP) has been reduced. Watch the replay, check bases that engaged in combat. (The non combat bases should be ok-check them from time to time to get a feel for how often you need to change settings).

Air combat display was watched with some interest in UV. Will be turned off for the strategic campaigns in WitP to avoid screen wear. Check all the bases involved in combat? Not this little dummy!

WitP for dummies version - All airbases have unlimited aviation support and supply except after '44 when the Japanese are reduced to a total of 100 aviation support and 1000 supplies. The Japanese win all air combats up till end of '42 that have any version of the A6M present unless allied heavy bombers are also present, in which case the Japanese player automatically loses the combat. Allies automatically win all air combats from '43 onwards. All fatigue and morale is ignored so the player can get on with more important things. All squadron scores, pilot names and characteristics are removed to avoid the temptation to slow down and become involved.

If your going to attempt to play this game you have to allow enough time and commitment to actually pay attention

Only if you play the WitP for Mogami version (which comes with free pen set, 20 packs of ruled A4 sheets and a calculator).

The WitP for Dummies version comes with a doz bottles of beer and a family sized pizza, all that you'll need to last the time taken to successfully complete the '41-45 campaign for dummies.

Big selling point, that one. :p

Must bring this idea up in the development forums.

Originally posted by MikeKraemer
Yes, poor search and vasilated when he should have decisively gone after the US fleet.


In a game this size both sides are bound to make mistakes. The game will probably end up going to the played that makes the fewest.

Right. His mistake was tactical not mechanical (in the game sense of mechanical). If players make the same kinds of mistakes then they should expect the same kinds of results.

Originally posted by Chiteng
So if you fail to escort a raid and lose 120 sbd and 120 tbf
that is just the price of playing eh?

But if the TF commander fails to send escort (as it seemed used to happen frequently) then it is a game mechanics problem.

Originally posted by madflava13
I agree with Mogami here. You have to get into a routine. When I played Pacwar, I used to start in India and work my way east, giving orders, checking bases, etc. And I checked everything in the same order each time - Air, Land, Ships. This minimizes the chances of making a mistake.

Like others have said, real life battles usually go to the side that makes the fewest mistakes. "Do-overs" don't happen in real life, and I only think they should be allowed in unusual and rare circumstances here.

Just my $.02

In PacWar there was a published checklist which guided you through every turn so that you addressed all variables. WitP will probably provide one also. since PacWar has been out for years and covers the same scope as WitP, and was successful, this type of game has already been demonstrated to be viable and playable, mistakes made or not.

Right. His mistake was tactical not mechanical (in the game sense of mechanical). If players make the same kinds of mistakes then they should expect the same kinds of results.

Wrong. The error was strategic. If the IJN player duplicates the Midway battle plan and there are two to three US CVs opposing him, the IJN player should expect to get "Midwayed."

Originally posted by mdiehl
Wrong. The error was strategic. If the IJN player duplicates the Midway battle plan and there are two to three US CVs opposing him, the IJN player should expect to get "Midwayed."

I agree. However that isnt the type of Error I was talking about.

There are 'errors' and there are 'bad decisions'

Error thru oversight can happen to ANYONE.

Bad decisions become obvious, usually quickly.

I'm certainly with the general flow of the arguments that players should be forced to live with their own mistakes. But
there are possible exceptions. When you order "naval strikes",
there is an AI "base commander" who actually sends out the aircraft---and seldom does he do it in the manner I wanted to
see. My suggestion was if this "imaginary hero" gets to miss-
direct my air strikes, he ought to at least chime in and put up
some CAP when the base is attacked and I failed to give the
order (for whatever reason).

If I'm forced to play as "above the level of designating specific
strike missions", fine---but let me have both sides of the coin. No
matter what I order, the same logic should put up CAP if the base is attacked! There may be a few other areas in which this would
apply as well.

Originally posted by Chiteng
I agree. However that isnt the type of Error I was talking about.

There are 'errors' and there are 'bad decisions'

Error thru oversight can happen to ANYONE.

Bad decisions become obvious, usually quickly.

Error on the part of the player does not warrant any kind of replay, whether by oversight or bad decision.

If you don't like the consequences, just make sure you don't do it again.

Originally posted by denisonh
Error on the part of the player does not warrant any kind of replay, whether by oversight or bad decision.

If you don't like the consequences, just make sure you don't do it again.

The perfect post! Well said!

Originally posted by denisonh
Error on the part of the player does not warrant any kind of replay, whether by oversight or bad decision.

If you don't like the consequences, just make sure you don't do it again.

Then I suggest you reduce the game to simply avoiding errors
rather than actual strategy.

No better than playing marbles really.

If you win by that method, you didnt defeat the other players
skill. He defeats himself, by making the error. You are merely an observer.

Originally posted by Chiteng
Then I suggest you reduce the game to simply avoiding errors
rather than actual strategy.

No better than playing marbles really.

If you win by that method, you didnt defeat the other players
skill. He defeats himself, by making the error. You are merely an observer.

Interesting.

I submit to you that at the heart of military planning, and the subsequent decision made by the responsible commander, is risk management.

A big part of risk management is reducing the possibilitiy of mistakes.

That is the main function of military training as a whole. In the US Army, we call it attention to detail, because inattention results in people getting killed.

UV, and I am certain WitP is as well, is an exersize in executing military operations at an "armchair" level.

Attention to detail is important, and even more so, accepting resposibility for you actions and their subsequent results. If you absolve yourself of responsibility for proper execution, who do you blame for your own inadequacies and failings? Your opponent? The game?

To state by reducing risk by paying attention to what you are doing is "No better than playing marbles really" is pure lunacy. Skill without competence is almost a proverb. Strategy means nothing until you execute.

Success in in the conduct of a military campaign should reflect on what is a neccesity in military planning.

That is, paying attention to what the hell you are doing.

If you can't do that, stick to checkers.

Originally posted by denisonh
Interesting.

I submit to you that at the heart of military planning, and the subsequent decision made by the responsible commander, is risk management.

A big part of risk management is reducing the possibilitiy of mistakes.

That is the main function of military training as a whole. In the US Army, we call it attention to detail, because inattention results in people getting killed.

UV, and I am certain WitP is as well, is an exersize in executing military operations at an "armchair" level.

Attention to detail is important, and even more so, accepting resposibility for you actions and their subsequent results. If you absolve yourself of responsibility for proper execution, who do you blame for your own inadequacies and failings? Your opponent? The game?

To state by reducing risk by paying attention to what you are doing is "No better than playing marbles really" is pure lunacy. Skill without competence is almost a proverb. Strategy means nothing until you execute.

Success in in the conduct of a military campaign should reflect on what is a neccesity in military planning.

That is, paying attention to what the hell you are doing.

If you can't do that, stick to checkers.

I didnt state any of that. YOU did. I spoke of oversight.
I spoke of design limitations. Make all the straw men you wish.
It doesnt matter to me.
If you think that sinking Kido Butai because your opponent
forgot to put his CAP up is gratifying, then I guess that speaks for itself.