What's really wrong with the game?

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."

Amen, brother!

Lack of proper cargo handling facilities, labor force and storage space as well as the limited number of ships that can be (un)loaded at the same time at available docks and wharfs are not modeled.

The Marines preparing for the Guadalcanal landing had to combat-load their ships mostly on their own due to labor shortage, and they had to do this in relays of a few ships at a time because the dock would only accomodate so many - and this was in Auckland, one of the larger port in the SoPac. Many merchantmen were used as floating warehouses or had to wait for days and even weeks before they could be unloaded. If you read Morison on the Guadalcanal campaign you stumble accross many other examples for the supply bottleneck - Watchtower was nicknamed Shoestring for a reason...

Should be in WitP somehow to slow down ops.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."

Amen, brother!

Lack of proper cargo handling facilities, labor force and storage space as well as the limited number of ships that can be (un)loaded at the same time at available docks and wharfs are not modeled.

The Marines preparing for the Guadalcanal landing had to combat-load their ships mostly on their own due to labor shortage, and they had to do this in relays of a few ships at a time because the dock would only accomodate so many - and this was in Auckland, one of the larger port in the SoPac. Many merchantmen were used as floating warehouses or had to wait for days and even weeks before they could be unloaded. If you read Morison on the Guadalcanal campaign you stumble accross many other examples for the supply bottleneck - Watchtower was nicknamed Shoestring for a reason...

Should be in WitP somehow to slow down ops.

That wasn't just a labor shortage--the longshoremen (or whatever they call them over there) gave the Navy a hard time!

The worst port in the region was Noumea, curiously modeled by everyone (including our friends at the CHS project) as a kind of south-seas Boston Harbor for some reason. It wasn't until much later, when of all things an Army officer went in there and finally got the situation sorted out, that Noumea functioned even reasonably well.

The big bugaboo is supply. Too much of it at the front too early. Curtail that, plus the problem in general with ports and air bases, and we'd immediately be on our way to a much better simulation.

Now someone please go tell Frag. (andwhileyoureatitdrillitintohisheadtoo)

[LargeSlowTarget]

I know, dockers on strike, not working on weekends and such - didn't want to go into too much detail since I'm supposed to work. [;)]
Noumea port was labeled as being unsatisfactory in every regard in the Hepburn report on SoPac bases.

Midway - we had this discussion before. USN had knowledge of enemy intentions and planed accordingly, while the Japanese plans were botched - but no battle plan survives contact with the enemy and elements of luck or SNAFUs then come into the play. The TBDs didn't pull the Zeros down to the deck according to a preconceived plan for the purpose of clearing the way for the SBDs - that timing happened by chance of the piecemeal arrival of the individual strike sub-groups. The Jap DD that pointed the way to the CVs might not have been sighted or might not have been there at all if the US sub (Nautilus?) hadn't been involved the way it was. Tone's floatplane might not have been delayed or the pilot could have made his contact reports more precisely, weather might have been different etc. - many variables that cannot be foreseen or pre-planned regardless how good the intel on enemy intention is. Miles Browning did a good job calculating the best time to attack, but that doesn't guarantee that the strike will proceed as planned, enemy will be sighted at the spot where you expect him to be and so on. I don't say the USN was lucky to win at Midway, but I think it could have turned out quite differently.

[Tom Hunter]

Though there are many problems with the game its very difficult to tell what they really are because the most significant factor in the game is not logistics, Japanese bonuses or night bombing, its the variation between players. Further there can be a lot of variation in play BY an individual player. After all trying out new strategies is one of the reasons we play the game.

When a really good commander runs into a really bad one extreme results can occur. Just look at the campaign in Malaya in 41-42 for an example. But even when two good commanders run into eachother extreme results can occur. Look at the Russian front in WWII, or Montgomery Vs. Rommel at El Alamien, or many other campaigns throughout history. War is full of bad generals who lost to good ones, but its also got a large number of good generals who lost to good ones.

Now lets look at some extreme examples in WitP. I think I am correct when I say that Wobbly, PzB, Blackwatch and myself are all respected players. We all have AARs up so our performance is there for all to see, in some cases over multiple games. Both Wobbly and Blackwatch have won many games of UV and are winning a number of games of WitP. Further Blackwatch has actually won the vast majority of the battles he has fought with me. So I don't think its the case that we are looking at less experienced or less capable players on one side or the other.

Until recently PzBs trashjing of Wobbly was causeing a lot of discussion about the weakness of India. PzB achieved strategic suprise over Wobbly when he invaded India, and after a hard fought campaign he took Karachi on September 23rd 1942 removing India and the British from the game. After watching this a number of people were posting that India needed more troops, a reaction force if invaded, and other kinds of help for this or that reason.

In the Tom & Blackwatch AAR the situation is reversed. The British counter attacked into Malaya in September, the game has reached September 20th and there are several divisions supported by artillery, massive air support and the Royal Navy knocking on the door to Singapore. In a wonderful peice of simatry the British may retake Singapore on September 23 1942, the exact date Karachi fell to Wobbly.

These are extreme results. But they did not happen because of a messy logistics system, screwed up land combat or any of the other problems that usually get listed on the forum. They happened because of decisions by the players.

One campaign seems to support the argument that India is too weak. The other seems to support the arguement that its too strong. But I don't think this is the case for either campaign. I think they both support the argument that player action is much more important than the OOB or the logistical system.


It may be true that in a real war we would operate differently, be more catious with our forces or even just try to get away from the real war all together by finding a nice safe desk job in Cleveland or Sasebo. But this is not a real war, its a game and we play to have fun. Your claiming that the game moves too fast because of underlying problems with the game.

I think you are missing the most important reason the game moves fast: the fact that the players each want thier side to move fast and will do just about anything they can to speed thier forces up in pursuit of victory.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

By this time in history the Allies had checked the Japanese in the Coral Sea and won a huge strategic and tactical victory at Midway, two real events which I doubt very much Gary has allowed players to experience in the game. Which is another good thing for the Japanese cause, right? And yet look where Chez and I are. I just can't see the Allies as being capable of building up Australia and Papua New Guinea and the Noumea area as fast and as surely as I have been able to, and this happening in lieu of having those two historical naval victories in the bag.

In my PBEM with MarkVII, as the Japanese I experienced the reverse of Midway as Mark will attest to, in Feb 42 3 US Carriers sunk off Pago Pago. The game has its flaws but I think you can run a very credible WW2 simulation. I am not sure if I want to be burdened with shipping all the different types of supplies that would be needed at various bases
for the sake of playability there has to be compromises. And I think Matrix has done well in that department. Anyway just my 2 cents. Apologies to Mark for bringing up Pago Pago again god that was a good fight[:D][:D]

It wouldn't be necessary to break down the generic form of supply we have now into individual rolls of toilet paper. It would only be necessary to ensure that ports couldn't load and off-load supply so fast, and that bases required time and good organization in order to function properly. It would also be necessary to revamp corporate thinking along lines of the air model insofar as at present aircraft are entirely too easy to keep flying, especially the heavier stuff. Also the naval model could stand review at least to the extent that warships could no longer reload in every backwater pisshole the game currently is pleased to call a "port."

There is more that could and should be done to slow the game down, but what I've mentioned would be a step in the right direction.

I agree your observations, although I am totally unable to support an intelligent argument to the contrary. I have always felt that GG had his agenda biased and casted in concrete when it came to sounding the bell to slug it out at the combat phase (in all of his games). I'm not sure, it could be any other way and still give Japan any chance at a victory in a PBEM or giving the Allied player, playing against the AI, anything but a rapid cakewalk as opposed to the drawn out eventual victory (my preference of game play).

I would be in favor of slowing down the logistics and rapid base build ups in the game, but, I don't think that is going to happen by the developers or even the mod squad. There may be a solution of sorts for the Allied fanboys against the AI with self imposed "house rules". I'm not very good in this area and would like some ideas as to what should be included in any such rules for my personal play.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
I think you are missing the most important reason the game moves fast: the fact that the players each want thier side to move fast and will do just about anything they can to speed thier forces up in pursuit of victory.

Mmh - of course player strategic decisions have a big impact on the course of action. But I still maintain that the game allows players who want to move fast to do so because it doesn't impose realistic limits on the speed of ops, i.e. not modeling the supply bottlenecks that did exist IRL.
Your India example - conquering India is possible in WitP if strategic surprise is attained, but IRL it would have been impossible for Japan because it lacked the troops and the shipping resources to supply them. Japan had its own supply bottleneck in both production and distribution - but in WitP, apparently the Japanese side has more ships than needed for distribution because several real-life aspect are not modeled (inefficient use of shipping due to inter-service rivalries, ships needed to supply civilian economy + the unlimited (un)loading capacities of the ports). The Allies IRL initially couldn't move as fast as they wanted either because of their own bottlenecks - worldwide demand for shipping, lack of decent harbor facilities in the active areas and all the stuff I've already mentioned. Most if it is not modelled in WitP, so players can do things that were not possible IRL.
You want Guadalcanal? In WitP you can send 100 freighters to Noumea and have them all unload simultaneously within a few days - wasn't possible in real life. Players who want to (ab)use this lack of game-imposed limitations of course can move faster than history and will be on the 'canal earlier than the Japanese. If you restrain yourself to use 8-ship convoys and only one at a time, you'll be lucky to launch Watchtower in August 42 at all. Again, players who want to move fast can do so because the game doesn't model the historical logistical nightmare.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers.

Oh my, you mean John Wayne didn't win the war all by himself ??? [:D]

Of course he did! I just saw it on TV the other night!![:D]

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Documentaries and movies are subject the the whims and prejudices of the editors, directors, and/or producers.

Oh my, you mean John Wayne didn't win the war all by himself ??? [:D]

Of course he did! I just saw it on TV the other night!![:D]

Thank god, thought I was wrong after all these years. [:D]

[Grotius]

I agree that the pace of the game is generally too fast, and in particular that supply and fuel move too quickly. I still think the game is an awesome achievement, though, even with its flaws.

Anyway, I thought Pry was doing a mod that would slow down the movement of supply and fuel -- diminishing the amount of cargo that transports could carry and whatnot. Or am I thinking of the CHS?

[freeboy]

Really the easiest fix .. to quick supplies is cut the size of the capacity down by a factor..

[Nikademus]

One can also reduce the daily supply output for entry locations such as Karachi, or SF.

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



Oh my, you mean John Wayne didn't win the war all by himself ??? [:D]

Of course he did! I just saw it on TV the other night!![:D]

Thank god, thought I was wrong after all these years. [:D]

I met John Wayne in 1973, when our wind ensemble was playing for the opening of an art museuem. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a tall man in a tux listening to us. After we were through with our piece, a soft-spoken, gentle, cultured voice said "You boys certainly add to the ambience of this event". I turned fully around and saw Mr. Wayne. I said to myself "Damn, John Wayne just used the word ambience!". He smiled, thanked us, and walked away.

A real mind-opener given all his 'tough guy' roles.....

[jwilkerson]

I think Pry is the one looking at reducing ship carrying capacity ( across the board ) ... I think we saw [ in a post ] that CHS carrying capacity ( overall ) wasn't much different. At least the shipping capacity change can be done "with the editor" ... reducing the ability to unload large amounts of shipping simultaneously at a port ( regardless of size ) would require a coding change - and is thus unlikely to be had.

[Bradley7735]

CHS has reduced the capacity of all ships by about 25%, I think (maybe 35%). However, they have added lots more ships, so total (overall as jwilkerson said) isn't changed much.

But, the 25% reduction in capacity is something. You need more ships to move the same supply. Those ships suck up more fuel. You need more escorts for more ships.......

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Though there are many problems with the game its very difficult to tell what they really are because the most significant factor in the game is not logistics, Japanese bonuses or night bombing, its the variation between players. Further there can be a lot of variation in play BY an individual player. After all trying out new strategies is one of the reasons we play the game.

No matter what the style of play is for a given player the game system still moves too fast. The big reason it moves too fast is because the logistics model is off. By a large degree. Cut off supply and fuel and no matter what style of play someone has he isn't going to move so fast.

When a really good commander runs into a really bad one extreme results can occur.

We're off the track now.

My opponent in my PBEM has played soundly. The Allies still enjoy a much superior position toward the end of June, 1942. That's ridiculous.

I think you are missing the most important reason the game moves fast: the fact that the players each want thier side to move fast and will do just about anything they can to speed thier forces up in pursuit of victory.

I don't miss your point, I simply don't wish to incorporate it in my argument. That's because it would be begging the question.

The thing is that the game allows players to move more quickly than they reasonably could in real life. The game system is whacky. It bears scant relation to the realities of World War II in the Pacific.

As I say, the most fundamental problem with the system which ought to be addressed is supply. There's too much of it and it can be moved forward too fast and dropped off too fast and all that. It's dumb. Strip away this supply fantasy and I don't care how aggressive you are you're not going to run around the board in some crazy fashion. You're going to sit around and wait for enough supply to build up, just like they did in real life.

That may not be "fun" to a lot people around here, but it would be accurate and lead to saner play.

As it stands now, the situation is impossible for Japan and I would think toward the middle of the war not too attractive, either.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I know, dockers on strike, not working on weekends and such - didn't want to go into too much detail since I'm supposed to work. [;)]
Noumea port was labeled as being unsatisfactory in every regard in the Hepburn report on SoPac bases.

Midway - we had this discussion before. USN had knowledge of enemy intentions and planed accordingly, while the Japanese plans were botched - but no battle plan survives contact with the enemy and elements of luck or SNAFUs then come into the play. The TBDs didn't pull the Zeros down to the deck according to a preconceived plan for the purpose of clearing the way for the SBDs - that timing happened by chance of the piecemeal arrival of the individual strike sub-groups. The Jap DD that pointed the way to the CVs might not have been sighted or might not have been there at all if the US sub (Nautilus?) hadn't been involved the way it was. Tone's floatplane might not have been delayed or the pilot could have made his contact reports more precisely, weather might have been different etc. - many variables that cannot be foreseen or pre-planned regardless how good the intel on enemy intention is. Miles Browning did a good job calculating the best time to attack, but that doesn't guarantee that the strike will proceed as planned, enemy will be sighted at the spot where you expect him to be and so on. I don't say the USN was lucky to win at Midway, but I think it could have turned out quite differently.

You know, I almost always agree with you in principle. (Great minds thinking alike? ) It's true, there were unknowns and what-ifs and luck and all that involved. But going into the battle of Midway one would expect the Allies to do well, not poorly, and given the bad Japanese handling of affairs on the day that becomes more assured still.

The Japanese might have turned the tables on the USN, but it was doubtful. They really didn't have their act together.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
I think you are missing the most important reason the game moves fast: the fact that the players each want thier side to move fast and will do just about anything they can to speed thier forces up in pursuit of victory.

Mmh - of course player strategic decisions have a big impact on the course of action. But I still maintain that the game allows players who want to move fast to do so because it doesn't impose realistic limits on the speed of ops, i.e. not modeling the supply bottlenecks that did exist IRL.
Your India example - conquering India is possible in WitP if strategic surprise is attained, but IRL it would have been impossible for Japan because it lacked the troops and the shipping resources to supply them. Japan had its own supply bottleneck in both production and distribution - but in WitP, apparently the Japanese side has more ships than needed for distribution because several real-life aspect are not modeled (inefficient use of shipping due to inter-service rivalries, ships needed to supply civilian economy + the unlimited (un)loading capacities of the ports). The Allies IRL initially couldn't move as fast as they wanted either because of their own bottlenecks - worldwide demand for shipping, lack of decent harbor facilities in the active areas and all the stuff I've already mentioned. Most if it is not modelled in WitP, so players can do things that were not possible IRL.
You want Guadalcanal? In WitP you can send 100 freighters to Noumea and have them all unload simultaneously within a few days - wasn't possible in real life. Players who want to (ab)use this lack of game-imposed limitations of course can move faster than history and will be on the 'canal earlier than the Japanese. If you restrain yourself to use 8-ship convoys and only one at a time, you'll be lucky to launch Watchtower in August 42 at all. Again, players who want to move fast can do so because the game doesn't model the historical logistical nightmare.

Exactly so.

I'm very disappointed in this game. While the Japanese can move fast for a few months the Allies can, too, and with far greater weight. Soon enough the position is impossible for the Japanese. That's all I've gotten from play.

What's the solution? Assuming Matrix doesn't address this problem I don't see one, because the Japanese want to conquer everything and the Allies want to stop them so house rules only go so far. Also, if you threw in enough house rules to cover all the system flaws there'd be little actual game play left for anyone. What game mechanic doesn't need to be modified by a house rule?

No night air attacks? No naval bombardments? No use of harbors as designed for off-loading purposes? No stacking LCUs in hexes (to a point, and what exact point would that be?). No re-arming of warships in ports smaller than 9? No flying B-17s except at 1) maximum altitude and 2) only in individual squadrons? How about B-29s? Will we allow those to even come onto the board? No sending torpedo-armed aircraft into harbors? (Boy, the Japanese fanboys would love that one!) Take 1,000,000 load points of Japanese shipping at the start of the game and park it permanently over in some remote corner of the home islands? (Another Japanese fanboy favorite.) Completely re-write the scenarios and get rid of most of the resource centers around the map so there isn't so much "casual" supply to glom onto? Only use Andrew Brown's map?

The list is endless. The list is insane.

I really think the best solution (barring an intelligent set of system fixes by Matrix, which I feel is highly unlikely) is to simply play as Mogami does. Let your opponent do whatever he wants to do and you do the same. The game makes no good sense by itself anyway so why not just treat it like some fatansy space model? Let the chips fall where they may and have a good time!

Not my cup of tea, but that's what Gary gave us.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

One can also reduce the daily supply output for entry locations such as Karachi, or SF.

The problem isn't one of too much supply for the Allies, it's the ability to move it forward and unload it fast. Same for the Japanese in that respect, plus they didn't have that much supply to begin with. And they have entirely too much merchant shipping to move it with. Plus, they don't have to "make" their supply by dragging resources home and waiting awhile for supply to "come" but rather just let the resource centers all over the map make it for them. And so on.

[eMonticello]

Here's how I solve the problem ... PORT RULEZ!!!!

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
You know, I almost always agree with you in principle. (Great minds thinking alike? )

As I said in another thread not long ago - in Germany we say 'Two idiots - same ideas' [:D][;)].