Page 2 of 16
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:20 pm
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Nomad
Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:]
Wanting historical capabilities is NOT the same as wanting a game that follows history exactly.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:33 pm
by Nomad
ORIGINAL: dtravel
ORIGINAL: Nomad
Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:]
Wanting historical capabilities is NOT the same as wanting a game that follows history exactly.
That is why I put this [&:] smilie, I wasn't sure I was reading his post correctly.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:49 pm
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Nomad
ORIGINAL: dtravel
ORIGINAL: Nomad
Why would you want to "punish" unhistorical game play? You are saying that you want a game that follows history exactly? [&:]
Wanting historical capabilities is NOT the same as wanting a game that follows history exactly.
That is why I put this [&:] smilie, I wasn't sure I was reading his post correctly.
Not meaning to jump on you. I've just seen some people argue that restricting the game to historical capabilities is the same as changing it from a game to a documentary. Which is *ahem* highly inaccurate and I'm tired of hearing it. My apologies if I came across as over-reacting to what you said.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:00 am
by Grotius
I voted for historical accuracy. One can "balance" a wargame with victory conditions.
That said, one must be mindful of what historians call "presentism." We tend to project our knowledge of the past backwards in time, and we may tend to resist too strongly against what-if scenarios. It is ahistorical, in other words, to insist that history must repeat itself. What if the war in Russia had gone significantly worse? I for one have always enjoyed playing wargames that imagine significant shifts in OOBs to reflect these what-ifs. "Uncommon Valor" itself sometimes assumed Midway hadn't been fought. That made for interesting scenarios.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:48 am
by witpqs
Agreed. Those types of variations are both interesting and appropriate.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:37 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: Grotius
I voted for historical accuracy. One can "balance" a wargame with victory conditions.
That said, one must be mindful of what historians call "presentism." We tend to project our knowledge of the past backwards in time, and we may tend to resist too strongly against what-if scenarios. It is ahistorical, in other words, to insist that history must repeat itself. What if the war in Russia had gone significantly worse? I for one have always enjoyed playing wargames that imagine significant shifts in OOBs to reflect these what-ifs. "Uncommon Valor" itself sometimes assumed Midway hadn't been fought. That made for interesting scenarios.
I agree...Just like in SPWAW, a defender may have 1200 points and the attacker 15,000, but if the defender met most of his objectives, he wins,(by the computer).[8D]
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:19 pm
by walkerd
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: walkerd
I do not think a true historical game would work or be fun. The only way to be historical is use no hindsight and have a greater degree of FOW. For myself I would like a mix of the two game styles.
I want the game to reward historical style play and punnish unhistorical game play and the only way to do that is have non historical results. For example, I know that Japanese long range torp bombers are unhistorical in their game results. If they were truly as ineffective as people would like then the Allied played would just not worry about Jap air strikes. With hindsight, an unrealistice high knowledge of the system and a total disregard for losses you would simply smash staright through the enemy air strikes.
I want the game to reward clever long term strategic thinking, good long term planning and the ability to out think my opponent. It can only do this by being unhistorical.
Probably not being clear enough here. I am not suggesting a fantasy land but historical results lead to unhistorical games.
WALKERD I
THINK I understand what you are trying to say, and I have some sympathy for your position. But no one is suggesting that either side be "straitjacketed" into following the exact course of history. What's being argued is that there were actual realistic historical factors that limited just how far afield you can stray from history. Ships can physically only sail so far on a load of fuel. The same for A/C. There are only so many tankers available to service the fleet. As the players have and can't help making use of "hindsight" in their planning, it's important that all these physical factors be adequately and accurately portrayed. What fun is it to claim "I did better than Yamamoto" when it wasn't a matter of you having a better plan (or a dumber opponant)---but that the "simulation" you were using allowed you to do things that he couldn't when constrained by reality?
Most of the arguements you are reading come from people who want to compete with reality. Meaning within the same physical constraints as their historical counterparts. Meaning when they have a series of combats involving Zero's and F4F's they want the average result to be something close to the average historical result. If the Allies didn't have hundreds of 4-engined bombers in 1942, then the good Allied player doesn't want them either. He want's what Kinney had, so he can compare himself and his performance to something meaningfull. Yea, it would be much easier to have B-52's and just shatter Japan from San Francisco---but it wouldn't be WW II in the Pacific.
It's only possible to have "historical style play" to reward if your assets perform in the manner of their historical counterparts. Otherwise you are just jerking off.
What I am saying is those people who want a true historical play will never find it defined by the game parameters. People play far more bloody, with far more insight and hind sight then they did historicaly.
If people true want to play historicaly then can just choose to do so. Nothing stopping them. Stop overstacking, stop massive convoys of free supply and fuel, stop massing aircraft to unrealistic levels, when attacking attempt to minimise your own losses, fully prep all invasions etc etc. Find an opponent with the same mind set and away you go. The little things will remian minor irritations but the major game problems can be self limited.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:10 pm
by Brausepaul
I think this poll is futile...the majority of US players cries foul if the design doesn't ensure a US victory from the beginning.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:12 pm
by Nomad
ORIGINAL: Brausepaul
I think this poll is futile...the majority of US players cries foul if the design doesn't ensure a US victory from the beginning.
Kind of depends on how you mean that. If you are saying the Japan has any chance of winning the war, then I would say you are wrong. Both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game. But, the Allies will always win the war.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:16 pm
by Brausepaul
Actually that's exactly what I mean, but any discussion about this is futile.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:33 pm
by Big B
ORIGINAL: Nomad
ORIGINAL: Brausepaul
I think this poll is futile...the majority of US players cries foul if the design doesn't ensure a US victory from the beginning.
Kind of depends on how you mean that. If you are saying the Japan has any chance of winning the war, then I would say you are wrong. Both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game. But, the Allies will always win the war.
ORIGINAL: Brausepaul
Actually that's exactly what I mean, but any discussion about this is futile.
By "historical" what is meant is that the 'game pieces' function as they would have ITRW - not that history has to be acted out exactly day by day as if we were watching a documentary.
What bothers most allied players (and I'm sure some Japanese players too) is that there are so many things that don't act as they did historically - or come in the numbers they actually did, etc. - the net effect of which turns a good part of the game into a semi-fantasy. For example - say 90 Zeros vs 90 F4Fs, with the Zeros shooting down 80 Wildcats and the Wildcats getting maybe 10 Zeros. A very common result in WitP in 1942 - but absolutely no historical basis in reality. This sort of thing destroys realistic game play. Another example - May 1942 - US player is operating 200 B-17s from Port Moresby and pasting Rabaul. Why can the Allied player put 200 B-17s at Rabaul in May 42? Because they were put in the game to balance it for the Allies presumedly. - Both of those examples force a style of game play that will result in unrealistic tactics and outcomes.
That's what is meant by Historical vs Balanced.
B
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:38 pm
by Nomad
ORIGINAL: Brausepaul
Actually that's exactly what I mean, but any discussion about this is futile.
I guess I'll go back to being a realistic fanboy. [8D]
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:34 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Grotius
I voted for historical accuracy. One can "balance" a wargame with victory conditions.
That said, one must be mindful of what historians call "presentism." We tend to project our knowledge of the past backwards in time, and we may tend to resist too strongly against what-if scenarios. It is ahistorical, in other words, to insist that history must repeat itself. What if the war in Russia had gone significantly worse? I for one have always enjoyed playing wargames that imagine significant shifts in OOBs to reflect these what-ifs. "Uncommon Valor" itself sometimes assumed Midway hadn't been fought. That made for interesting scenarios.
No problem with this line of thought. "What if's" are always fun. Just be sure the "base line" you are building on is as realistic and accurate as possible. Then you can play with "might have beens". How about Stalin DOESN'T have a paranoid conniption fit fit in the late 30's and gut the Red Army? The Germans get crushed in 1941 and 100% of all Allied efforts go to the Pacific? More likely than a quick victory by Hitler.... Another favorite is the US Navy wakes up and uses some of the "Two-Ocean Navy" funds to test it's torpedoes realistically in 1940. So they start the war with working torpedoes in all tubes. Quite possible once the funds started becomming available. Even something as simple as the U.S. Army's "Design Team" didn't screw up and "fix" the P-39 into an un-supercharged "dog" at higher altitudes. Big problem with most of the more realistic "what if's" in the Pacific war is that they favor the Allies (who historically committed most of the pre-war "boners"). Japan wasn't reading our codes..., suppose the US had made better use of it's code preaking information? Kido Butai runs into dozens of working US subs North of Hawaii, and finds 100+ Fighters flying CAP over Pearl with all the AAA manned and ready. Have fun...
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:43 pm
by joliverlay
How can you have a game with historical capabilities on both sides (not a science fiction fantasy) an have any reasonable chance of Japanese victory? Most people who know anything about history don't think it possible. Yamato himself is well known to have belived the Japanese had no chance. Japanese wargames before Midway and after, both showing Japan would lose the war were replayed with cheats to give the desired results. My point is, its not bias when we look at the facts and come to the same conclusion as the participants. The Japanease had no chance of a miliatary victory, their top commanders knew it, and their own wargames came to the same conclusion. If we want a historical wargame, the victory conditions have to reflect how well each CNC used his forces, not by who won the war.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:45 pm
by Mike Scholl
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:49 pm
by joliverlay
I have a suggestion for those who want to see the US lose (or have that possibility) at war in the pacific.
We need a modern scenario where the US Navy of the near future (only 140 combatants) is forced to fight an emerging power (India, China), remerging power (Russia) or coalition. Then you can start with historical forces (or something close) and project whatever shipbuilding capability and resource/industry etc. you want. What I'm saying is we need WITP 2010. The game could involve conquest of territory (espeically resource producing areas) or simply control of sea lanes and projection of power. Sim Canada made some wonderful games that did this on the tactical level, we need a modern WITP.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:54 pm
by bradfordkay
You can try to resurrect Victory Games "Fleet" series. The boardgame versions were great fun.
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:55 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: joliverlay
How can you have a game with historical capabilities on both sides (not a science fiction fantasy) an have any reasonable chance of Japanese victory?
Simple. If you play against an opponent without Allied CiC historical capabilities[:D]
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:56 pm
by Big B
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
No problem with this line of thought. "What if's" are always fun. Just be sure the "base line" you are building on is as realistic and accurate as possible. Then you can play with "might have beens". How about Stalin DOESN'T have a paranoid conniption fit fit in the late 30's and gut the Red Army? The Germans get crushed in 1941 and 100% of all Allied efforts go to the Pacific? More likely than a quick victory by Hitler.... Another favorite is the US Navy wakes up and uses some of the "Two-Ocean Navy" funds to test it's torpedoes realistically in 1940. So they start the war with working torpedoes in all tubes. Quite possible once the funds started becomming available. Even something as simple as the U.S. Army's "Design Team" didn't screw up and "fix" the P-39 into an un-supercharged "dog" at higher altitudes. Big problem with most of the more realistic "what if's" in the Pacific war is that they favor the Allies (who historically committed most of the pre-war "boners"). Japan wasn't reading our codes..., suppose the US had made better use of it's code preaking information? Kido Butai runs into dozens of working US subs North of Hawaii, and finds 100+ Fighters flying CAP over Pearl with all the AAA manned and ready. Have fun...
For some reason most people never consider that "What If's" can go more than just in the Axis favor.[;)]
RE: History or Balance
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:20 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Big B
For some reason most people never consider that "What If's" can go more than just in the Axis favor.[;)]
That's because what MOST of the people who want to play the "what if" game REALLY want is some way for the Japanese to "WIN" the war. I've played around with Japanese "what if's" from time to time, but more with the goal of alowing them to put up a better and more extended defense. Never deluded myself that they had any chance of "winning".