Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: pbear

ORIGINAL: Mosby

So, in this game you would be ok as playing as the Japanese knowing you couldn't win, as long as you could be "better" than they were in real life?
Does that make me an awful person then when I consider that a waste of time? haha

I think I might be ok with that after being able to mull all of it over for a while, but I'm not too sure. I'd be ok with a game like Europa, where I myself set whatever I want for goals...but in here where it's pretty laid out that I need to beat the yanks...it would suck to play EVERY game knowing that I could never really win.

Win???? What is a win, the Japanese themselves expected to lose if forced to fight to the end, their hope was in the US becoming tired of fighting and suing for a peaceful settlement giving Japan what she needed.
So if you maintain the empire for even one month longer than the Japanese did historically then you have done a 'better' job than historically, and have in essence 'won'. I think the problem is in the mind set that says this many points and I win and you lose.
Because if the size of this game it is actually possible to cause your opponent (Allied) to quit the game solely due to it's length and the player becoming tired of playing. This would be a 'historical' win for the Japanese.[8D]

But isn't really about the choices. WiTP is fun not because it is an exact model but because it is operable enough to see if you could do better. What if the Japanese had good for Canton Island instead of Midway? WiTP lets you find out. What if the Allies chose to isolate Guadalcanal instead of invading? WiTP lets you find out. The game is not perfect nor necessarily historical but it is fun. Isn't that the point.

Now that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fixed if it can be. I have to agree on the Merchies are too hard to kill in the game.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

"But if the modeling is good enough, then in game it would prove impossible (in similar circumstances) as it did in real life."

My point exactly, meaning the model WitP works with is more weighted for gameplay than realism.

As has been stated by the developers: it is a game, not a simulation... people have a really hard timing accepting this, however.

I never thought it would be too much to ask for semi-realistic events to take place in the game similar to how they resulted IRL, though.  If it was suicide for convoys to run through 600 miles of ocean controlled by strong LBA forces IRL, then IMO it should be suicide for them to try it in the game.

John, are you playing RHS or stock?

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I never thought it would be too much to ask for semi-realistic events to take place in the game similar to how they resulted IRL, though. If it was suicide for convoys to run through 600 miles of ocean controlled by strong LBA forces IRL, then IMO it should be suicide for them to try it in the game.

Again - it's a game - not a sim... it will not behave like real events. Aside from the air model, ASW model, naval model, logistics model, the map, and the ground movement and combat model, it is pretty similar to reality, though...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Kid,

The Japanese didn't try and resupply Rabaul and Truk once they were isolated not because they were unwilling to accept the losses, but because it would have been IMPOSSIBLE. The Bismarck Sea massacre proved that for them and they had the sense to realize trying a resupply mission would just result in more losses for nothing gained.

"A proper game should model the physical properties as accurately as possible and then let the player decide what to do with them. If I want to send in a supply fleet that may take 75% losses, then I should be allowed to."

Glad we agree on something, then. However, WitP does not model the real life situation that would have resulted if the Japanese had tried to resupply Rabaul after it was isolated. Can you show me an instance when they TRIED to do what I mentioned earlier and succeeded? Or that they even TRIED, period? If there had been IRL instances where freighters absorbed 20 500 lb bombs and didn't sink, or convoys made it to isolated bases and only lost a handful of ships (hint, 4 ships sunk out of 20 is NOT 75% losses, it's 20%), then I'd have to agree with you that the game is modeling what happened IRL accurately. It does not.

Total Japanese ship losses on the Manila-Ormoc run, TA Nos. 1 through 9, came to sixteen merchantmen of 73,651 tons, three T.1-type naval transports, nine landing ships (T.101s and SS-boats), one light cruiser, eight destroyers, three subchasers, and one each kaibokan, minesweeper and patrol boat. And these figures of course do not reflect the further heavy shipping losses in Manila and Dasol Bays. Nor is it possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the Japanese aircraft and personnel losses.

But despite these losses, the TA convoys managed to land an estimated 45,000 men and 10,000 tons of provisions in the face of all that the powerful American air and naval forces could throw at them -- an accomplishment all the more noteworthy in that it followed directly on the heels of the Imperial Navy's crushing defeat at Leyte Gulf. And while these reinforcements ultimately proved insufficient to enable the Japanese to hold Leyte, they did manage to deny the island to the Americans far longer than either side had ever expected.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/taops1.htm
and
http://www.combinedfleet.com/taops2.htm
and
http://www.combinedfleet.com/taops3.htm

Most of what I have read indicates that the IJA fores that made it from Luzon to Leyte arrived with little to nothing in the way of heavy armaments, so these movements fell more into the "dump and run" style of resupplying an army.

I believe that is an inefficient way to conduct a war. You'll lose several ships and more men than you would have lost if you did nothing. I feel that this should only be used as a delay tactic, and only if the losses allow you the time to create a better defense elsewhere.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Most of what I have read indicates that the IJA fores that made it from Luzon to Leyte arrived with little to nothing in the way of heavy armaments, so these movements fell more into the "dump and run" style of resupplying an army.

I believe that is an inefficient way to conduct a war. You'll lose several ships and more men than you would have lost if you did nothing. I feel that this should only be used as a delay tactic, and only if the losses allow you the time to create a better defense elsewhere.

He did ask for an example where they tried a reinforcement.

Sorry, the way our threads ramble on so, I forgot that question was asked... Still, it does show that they tried. You are correct in that statement.

Maybe I should start a new thread, but since this one really seems to be going strong, please indulge me (or ignore me if you prefer).
 
The Japanese goal was to achieve a "technical victory" by making the social, political, economic, human costs of war for U.S. society sufficiently great that they would eventually sue for peace, leaving the EJ with substantial gains, but most notably access to the resources that were being embargoed because of their war on China.
 
Obviously what-if social, cultural and political developments back in the States _could_ have had a serious influence on whether and when such a technical win could be achieved by EJ. But the game does not model those. Social and political events are more or less taken as a given (although the arrival of reinforcments might vary by date, they do not vary within any given mod), though what the theatre commander does with his/her political points is sort of a grey area in a way.
 
Basically, the outcome of the war, whether EJ can achieve anything like its actual IRL goal, is to be determined by developments in the theatre.
 
What in game terms has to happen for EJ to achieve a technical victory?

This one may upset some people....

But 63 years later who really won the war?

Militarily the West may have won, however politically did the East really win?

Divebomber 1 asks:
What is wrong with a Japanese player being able to exceed the Historical results in pbem? Shouldn't that option be in the game? If it is wrong for a Japanese player to exceed the Historical results or the historical time table, is it equally wrong for an Allied player to exceed the historical results and historical time table?

It depends on how the means of exceeding historical results is accomplished. If it's done by overstating the Japanese OOB, or understating the Allies' ability to resist, then it's not really "about WW2 in the Pacific" in any strategically or operationally legitimate sense. Instead it becomes more akin to "Starship Troopers." A pbem player in WitP running the Japanese side isn't being asked to deal with the same operational and strategic constraints faced by the actual Japanese in 1941-1943.

Mosby asks:
Are there a lot of people who want this game to turn into a documentary over the pacific theater?

No, but there are alot of people who'd like a WW2 PTO grand strategic/operational game that does a good job representing the actual capabilities of the combatants. Chez notes that some version will still allow the Japanese to invade Australia etc. My view is that a game that does a GOOD job modeling the strategic reality of the PTO will allow the Japanese to try to invade Australia -- and fail disasterously pretty much every time the Japanese player does so.

Was I to "storyboard" such an event it would run something like this.

"March 1, 1942 Two Japanese divisions land at -- Darwin"
"Locals retreating"
"IJA divisions advancing"
"IJA divisions starving, requesting more supply"
"Supply diverted from campaign in China to campaign in Australia"
"Japanese divisions in Australia starving, request more supply. Japanese divisions in China starving, request more supply."
"Supply diverted from Phillipines garrison to campaign in Australia."
"Japanese divisions in Australia starving, request more supply. Japanese divisions in China starving, request more supply. Japanese divisions in Phillippines starving, request more supply."
"Supply diverted from domestic production in Japan to campaign in Australia."
"Japanese divisions in Australia starving, request more supply. Japanese divisions in China starving, request more supply. Japanese divisions in Phillippines starving, request more supply. Japanese industry starving, request more supply. Domestic insurgency in Phillippines; base force readiness reduced. Phillippine Rebels capture [name small plantation here]"
"Japanese divisions in Australia engaged in heroic last stand, starving."
"2 Japanese divisions in Australia annihilated."
"October 1, 1942......."

It's a game, not a simulation.

Agreed, play the game.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

As has been stated by the developers: it is a game, not a simulation... people have a really hard timing accepting this, however.

A lot of folks are working really hard to make it a pretty good high level simulation. Of course it will still be less than perfect, but all sims are. Also, when you 'play' a sim instead of 'train' with it, it's a game.

The farther WITP goes - AE, -II, etc. - the better a sim it will be. Instead of splitting hairs over game versus sim, let's just help to make it be what we want it to be, as far as the widest consensus we can reach.

Personally, I enjoy gaming with a good high level simulation.

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

Interesting thread. I haven't read all of it but here's a few thoughts. FWIW I mostly play allies, but I've started 2 PBEMs as Japan, 1 of which is still ongoing. I'll try to get the thread back on topic somewhat too.

1. I don't consider the "Sir Robin" gamey. However I do think it's bad strategy.

2. "Sir Robin" seems to be based on a common perception that the IJN is invincible in the first few months of the war. While the IJN can concentrate more force in any one location than the allies early war, they can't do that everywhere. There are inevitably opportunities to slow Japan down. Especially if they try to conquer everything at once.

3. There also seems to be a perception that the fall of the SRA is inevitable. If Japan concentrates on it, sure. If they don't and try to take India, Oz, the South Pacific, etc. before the SRA it's not. I've seen several AARs where Java was never lost by the allies - even played one myself.

4. By early or mid-43 the allies don't need a single unit that could be rescued from the SRA. Once the large offensives are started the prime limiting factor is assault shipping, not LCUs. Might be nice to have a few more LCUs, but it's not essential.

5. If the allies don't fight for the SRA it will make Japan's 1st Operational Phase much shorter and give them much more time to expand during their 2nd Operational Phase.

"Sir Robin" seems to mean saving units or cadres as the first priority. IMO it's better to delay the Japanese as the first priority and only save units once they no longer have any utility in delaying the Japanese.

Anthropoid asks:

What in game terms has to happen for EJ to achieve a technical victory?

If the Japanese player has a 4:1 points lead in 1943, or a 3:1 lead in 1944, or a 2:1 lead in 1945, then he wins an autovictory. This is the way the game represents the loss of will to fight by the allies. Some people accept this as the end of the game, some don't (the game allows you to choose whether or not to continue playing after autovictory has been achieved).

Chez notes that some version will still allow the Japanese to invade Australia etc. My view is that a game that does a GOOD job modeling the strategic reality of the PTO will allow the Japanese to try to invade Australia -- and fail disasterously pretty much every time the Japanese player does so.

Personally, I think invading Darwin IRL in the spring of 42 was doable. Then one has to ask, "What would be the point?" IMO, the point would be to delay any expected offensive from that quarter into the SRA. The allies would find it harder to supply any offensive aimed at recapturing Darwin than the Japanese would have in resupplying Darwin.

Now if one tries to invade and conquer the eastern seaboard of Australia in AE.... well, good luck. A player may succeed in capturing some territory but then your storyboard becomes appropriate.

Chez

It depends on how the means of exceeding historical results is accomplished. If it's done by overstating the Japanese OOB, or understating the Allies' ability to resist, then it's not really "about WW2 in the Pacific" in any strategically or operationally legitimate sense. Instead it becomes more akin to "Starship Troopers." A pbem player in WitP running the Japanese side isn't being asked to deal with the same operational and strategic constraints faced by the actual Japanese in 1941-1943.

Okay, let me restate the question:

What is wrong with an Allied player being able to exceed the Historical results in pbem? Shouldn't that option be in the game? If it is wrong for an Allied player to exceed the Historical results or the historical time table, is it equally wrong for a Japanese player to exceed the historical results and historical time table?

Okay, I'm being a smarta$$, but why do you and so many other people appear to be focussed upon the potential for the Japanese side to be skewed when there is an equal opportunity for the Allied side to be skewed?

For example, I can't see the difference between an Allied player grouping 300 4Es to hit a single target in April 1942 and a Japanese player grouping 300 2Es to hit a single target in April 1942 (other than the obvious fact that 300 4Es will cause significantly more damage than 300 Japanese 2Es). Neither situation happened in History, but both players can and regularly do this sort of thing.

An Allied player can invade Hokkaido in early 1942 - something that couldn't happen in History. Why then do people get upset if a Japanese player can invade Ceylon in early 1942?

Right now both sides can go outside the bounds of History, which from my perspective makes this an interesting Game. If the Game is changed to the extent that little or nothing can be done outside of what happened in History, then the Game will become an uninteresting disappointment from my perspective. If the Game is changed so that only one side can do things outside of what happened in History, then the Game will become a failure from my perspective.

I don't think that you're giving the historical crowd the benefit of the doubt there, DB. The vast majority want both sides to be restricted to what they could historically do. However, your previous question was focused on the Japanese POV, so that also coloured both the answers you received and the way you percieved those answers.