Matrix Games Forums

Admittedly, I'm assuming you are playing against the AI. House rules in a PBEM is another matter. I believe that, if you want to operate under historical constraints, you can do so. Keep the S boats patrolling near the shoreline and set B17s to naval interdiction. Doesn't that largely recreate the historical constraints?

The game may provide for capabilities that were not historically used initially, but I think this is the lesser evil than trying to hard-code restrictions. Players will just be too upset. Though skip bombing wasn't developed until later, I would guess that the game will allow B-10s to skip bomb on December 7th. Not historical, but it was a capability that existed; it simply wasn't tried. I maintain that it is probably better to allow players to skip bomb with B-10s on December 7th than to eliminate capabilities via hard-coding that physically existed but weren't tried. Understand that I understand the problems with this, but allowing the player to use perfect hindsight to use tactics and capabilities that weren't "discovered" until later is simply the lesser evil. The alternative is to have players whine because they can't send S boats on long-range missions or do other things that they know is POSSIBLE, but the coding won't allow for.

This acknowledges that there is some unrealistic stuff in UV. There will always be balancing decisions that will be unpopular, and no algorithm can take everything into account. Gary's games are already magnificently/horridly complex, but they will never be perfect. Dampening one effect will only create discrepancies somewhere else.

But this is getting off of what I thought was your point: perfect hindsight results in unrealistic use of assets. Acknowledged. But I think that is a lesser evil than trying to hard-code some restriction to model, say, the U.S. ignorance of Mark 14 malfunctions. Players can choose to model or recreate such ignorance - if they want to - but would have no choice with hard-coded modeling. My only point is that players will be more upset with the latter than the former. Personally, I will, more than most, probably play the game by forcing myself to operate under many of the fallacies that the Allies were operating under initially. If nothing else, it gives the Japanese a boost and makes the game more interesting.

Originally posted by byron13
Admittedly, I'm assuming you are playing against the AI. House rules in a PBEM is another matter. I believe that, if you want to operate under historical constraints, you can do so. Keep the S boats patrolling near the shoreline and set B17s to naval interdiction. Doesn't that largely recreate the historical constraints?

The game may provide for capabilities that were not historically used initially, but I think this is the lesser evil than trying to hard-code restrictions. Players will just be too upset. Though skip bombing wasn't developed until later, I would guess that the game will allow B-10s to skip bomb on December 7th. Not historical, but it was a capability that existed; it simply wasn't tried. I maintain that it is probably better to allow players to skip bomb with B-10s on December 7th than to eliminate capabilities via hard-coding that physically existed but weren't tried. Understand that I understand the problems with this, but allowing the player to use perfect hindsight to use tactics and capabilities that weren't "discovered" until later is simply the lesser evil. The alternative is to have players whine because they can't send S boats on long-range missions or do other things that they know is POSSIBLE, but the coding won't allow for.

This acknowledges that there is some unrealistic stuff in UV. There will always be balancing decisions that will be unpopular, and no algorithm can take everything into account. Gary's games are already magnificently/horridly complex, but they will never be perfect. Dampening one effect will only create discrepancies somewhere else.

But this is getting off of what I thought was your point: perfect hindsight results in unrealistic use of assets. Acknowledged. But I think that is a lesser evil than trying to hard-code some restriction to model, say, the U.S. ignorance of Mark 14 malfunctions. Players can choose to model or recreate such ignorance - if they want to - but would have no choice with hard-coded modeling. My only point is that players will be more upset with the latter than the former. Personally, I will, more than most, probably play the game by forcing myself to operate under many of the fallacies that the Allies were operating under initially. If nothing else, it gives the Japanese a boost and makes the game more interesting.

Why is it that ahistorical things are the 'lesser evil' only when they favor the US?

Chiteng,
What allied/US favoritism are you talking about? Can you cite some more examples, because I was under the impression that this game (UV at least) was pretty balanced, considering certain limitations (Japanese sealift, etc.)....

Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng,
What allied/US favoritism are you talking about? Can you cite some more examples, because I was under the impression that this game (UV at least) was pretty balanced, considering certain limitations (Japanese sealift, etc.)....

I will start a new thread with a list

Originally posted by Chiteng
Why is it that ahistorical things are the 'lesser evil' only when they favor the US?

I'm not sure you've started the new thread, but I'm all for consistency. Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I think the Japanese should be able to completely denude China of Japanese forces if they wanted to. Why? Because Japan was physically capable of doing it - even though it was not the historical policy. This doesn't favor the U.S., does it?

Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I'm all in favor of allowing the Japanese submarine force to prey on cargo shipping to the extent the subs are physically capable of doing it. Hindsight shows that the U.S. devastated Japanese logistics and production because the U.S. used its subs primarily in that strategic role rather than the tactical role of sinking war ships. Using that perfect hindsight, it would be ahistorical for a Japanese player to be able to similarly focus on cargo shipping. Rather than hard-coding that Japanese subs can't (and I'm sure Gary would not), the lesser of the two evils is to allow the Japanese the benefit of perfect hindsight and use such tactics.

Chiteng, I think you believe that I'm attacking you personally or that I'm an Allied fanboy (not sure if mdiehl believes there is such a thing). I'm not. I acknowledge the unfortunate fact people will use perfect hindsight to improve over historical performance, and the Mark 10/Mark 14 torpedo issue is only one good example that you focused on. But the point can be made with examples that will favor a Japanese player using perfect hindsight as well. My only point - after agreeing with you that perfect hindsight will distort things if the players let it - is that this is a lesser evil than hard-coding incompetence, doctrine, and fallacy.

Originally posted by byron13
I'm not sure you've started the new thread, but I'm all for consistency. Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I think the Japanese should be able to completely denude China of Japanese forces if they wanted to. Why? Because Japan was physically capable of doing it - even though it was not the historical policy. This doesn't favor the U.S., does it?

Consistent with the lesser of two evils, I'm all in favor of allowing the Japanese submarine force to prey on cargo shipping to the extent the subs are physically capable of doing it. Hindsight shows that the U.S. devastated Japanese logistics and production because the U.S. used its subs primarily in that strategic role rather than the tactical role of sinking war ships. Using that perfect hindsight, it would be ahistorical for a Japanese player to be able to similarly focus on cargo shipping. Rather than hard-coding that Japanese subs can't (and I'm sure Gary would not), the lesser of the two evils is to allow the Japanese the benefit of perfect hindsight and use such tactics.

Chiteng, I think you believe that I'm attacking you personally or that I'm an Allied fanboy (not sure if mdiehl believes there is such a thing). I'm not. I acknowledge the unfortunate fact people will use perfect hindsight to improve over historical performance, and the Mark 10/Mark 14 torpedo issue is only one good example that you focused on. But the point can be made with examples that will favor a Japanese player using perfect hindsight as well. My only point - after agreeing with you that perfect hindsight will distort things if the players let it - is that this is a lesser evil than hard-coding incompetence, doctrine, and fallacy.

Except that of course Jap subs have been hard coded to be less effective, and yet USN subs remain untouched.

My experience has been the complete opposite - its the US Subs (fleet types) that are hard coded to be poor. I am averaging 1 torpedo hit per every 8-10 subsurface attacks with Fleet boats. (I checked over the last couple days of game turns.

With the IJN subs, its something more along the lines of 1 hit per every other attack. And the IJN torps do a number on ships they hit too. I don't see the unfairness in that.

And although the S-Boats hit/sink more ships than historically occured, they're also being sunk at a much faster rate. I think this is ok too, but thats just my opinion.

Jesus H. Cristus, Chiteng, you have a real Japanese persecution complex bordering on . . . on . . . somebody help me here with the right psychiatric diagnosis.

I am truly floored by that last statement. Your first posts on this thread were whining about how unfair it was for the U.S. player to recognize on December 7th that only the S Class boats could sink anything because the Mark 14 renders other classes useless pieces of s***. As a result, the U.S. player would use his S Classes in an ahistorical way as the primary sub weapon.

Now, somehow, you argue that only Japanese submarines are hard-coded to reduce effectiveness and that U.S. submarines are untouched.

Am I imagining things, or is this a complete contradiction? Please, please explain this to me.

I don't think Axis Fanboy fits, but Axis Whine-boy does. Jeez, I wish you'd say something positive once in awhile.

Originally posted by madflava13
My experience has been the complete opposite - its the US Subs (fleet types) that are hard coded to be poor. I am averaging 1 torpedo hit per every 8-10 subsurface attacks with Fleet boats. (I checked over the last couple days of game turns.

With the IJN subs, its something more along the lines of 1 hit per every other attack. And the IJN torps do a number on ships they hit too. I don't see the unfairness in that.

And although the S-Boats hit/sink more ships than historically occured, they're also being sunk at a much faster rate. I think this is ok too, but thats just my opinion.

I am simply quoting from the Matrix patch notes. Read them.
Jap subs used to match USN subs. They were delibretly
made less effective. It is in the notes.

Originally posted by byron13
Jesus H. Cristus, Chiteng, you have a real Japanese persecution complex bordering on . . . on . . . somebody help me here with the right psychiatric diagnosis.

I am truly floored by that last statement. Your first posts on this thread were whining about how unfair it was for the U.S. player to recognize on December 7th that only the S Class boats could sink anything because the Mark 14 renders other classes useless pieces of s***. As a result, the U.S. player would use his S Classes in an ahistorical way as the primary sub weapon.

Now, somehow, you argue that only Japanese submarines are hard-coded to reduce effectiveness and that U.S. submarines are untouched.

Am I imagining things, or is this a complete contradiction? Please, please explain this to me.

I don't think Axis Fanboy fits, but Axis Whine-boy does. Jeez, I wish you'd say something positive once in awhile.

I suggest that you dont understand what I said.
I would like the SS boats restricted to the actual way they were
used. They were NOT used to lay mines in Rabaul harbor.
That would be a VERY dangerous mission in a unsafe boat.

I would happily settle for Equal fleet sub effectiveness
with the proviso that USN torps did suck.

I am simply quoting from the Matrix patch notes. Read them. Jap subs used to match USN subs. They were delibretly
made less effective. It is in the notes.

Where does it say the Japanese subs have been hard coded to be less effective? Which patch item are you reading and which patch is it from.

Are you sure you're not getting confused about the fact that the ASW ability of IJN surface escorts was reduced in one of the earlier patches?

Originally posted by Drongo
Where does it say the Japanese subs have been hard coded to be less effective? Which patch item are you reading and which patch is it from.

Are you sure you're not getting confused about the fact that the ASW ability of IJN surface escorts was reduced in one of the earlier patches?

I will go look again, that is possible. I am hardly infallible.

Not to try and wrap this whole thing up a bit, but is it possible we're making much ado about nothing, considering we don't know anything about the production model? I mean if we're limited in the number of heavy bomber units availible, for example, then this isn't really an issue anymore, is it?

I say we wait and see what's going on with production and then resume this at that time, if necessary...

And to quote some of the (I think Aussie) posters, drink more beer!

Originally posted by madflava13
Not to try and wrap this whole thing up a bit, but is it possible we're making much ado about nothing, considering we don't know anything about the production model? I mean if we're limited in the number of heavy bomber units availible, for example, then this isn't really an issue anymore, is it?

I say we wait and see what's going on with production and then resume this at that time, if necessary...

And to quote some of the (I think Aussie) posters, drink more beer!

It would be easier to fix the B-17 attack profile AND give us the ability to make more at the same time.

I LIKE the B-17, just not the anti-ship modeling.