CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: dereck

Consider that WitP has at present very little chance of producing a shock to the Japanese like Midway in 1942...

There are some historians who would say that it was the Battle of the Coral Sea and not Midway that was the real turning point of the war.

The reasoning behind that statement was that such light losses by such an apparently aggressive belligerant as the Japanese Navy caused it to recoil so sharply. Even though, by most standards, the Japanese won that battle the Japanese admirals believed their own myth of invincibility so much that the loss of one fairly important ship - the Shoho was not an acceptable risk of war but a serious loss of face. This is despite the fact that the Japanese war planners had budgeted for the loss of 20-30% of their ships when planning for the war.

Whatever caused it the end result was that the victors (the Japanese) acted as if they had been defeated and therefore they were beaten at Coral Sea.

Not just the loss of the Shoho. All the pilots killed in that battle were probably viewed as the bigger shock.

Not sure here. The book just mentioned the Shoho but I can definitely see where you could successfully argue that the loss of the pilots were also a factor.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Hugger. You are wrong. About everything. The "avalanche" you fear and forcast doesn't really happen HISTORICALLY until mid-1943. Things got bad earlier for the Japanese HISTORICALLY because of Midway (an unlikely event in the game). In the real world, wars which are "equally challenging for both players" are very unlikely---people rarely go to war just to test their military capabilities. Especially if they believe the other sides to be "equal".

If you want equality, try chess.

I dont believe for 1 second that this game "simulates" anything. Are you under the impression it does? If so, please tell me. What does it "simulate"?

Mike, let me ask you a question. Why do you play this game?

I play for a challenge. I believe any game should have victory conditions that either player can realistically achieve. Equally. Yes, like chess. Now am I saying that I think the Japs should have just as much chance of parading down Pennsylvania Blvd as the allies have of taking Tokyo? Of course not.

Edit: now since we can do nothing to change what the victory conditions in the game are, the next best thing is to alter the mechanics of the game (production, number and types of weapons on a ship, ect) to make the victory conditions achievable to either player.

But seriously, I really would like to know. Why do you play this game?

Yamato ... before you give yourself an apoplexy you have to remember there seems to be two camps in this game. The "simulators" who want to simulate everything down to transportation of the required rolls of toilet paper to the troops on shore and the "gamers".

My personal belief - and I'm willing to take flak on it - is that this is a game based on history. We can make this game 100% historical up to 6 December 1941. Give the Japanese what production, etc they had then as well as the allies and after that the outcome depends on what they players do.

I don't think there should be any case - except an extremely inept allied player - where the Japanese can actually militarily defeat the allies but the Japanese should be able to win by keeping the allies from achieving their goals within a specified timeframe (unless people play without victory conditions) which would basically simulate the actual Japanese strategy of making it too costly for the allies to recapture territory.

Edit: used "to" instead of "too" in the last sentence [X(]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Hugger. You are wrong. About everything. The "avalanche" you fear and forcast doesn't really happen HISTORICALLY until mid-1943. Things got bad earlier for the Japanese HISTORICALLY because of Midway (an unlikely event in the game). In the real world, wars which are "equally challenging for both players" are very unlikely---people rarely go to war just to test their military capabilities. Especially if they believe the other sides to be "equal".

If you want equality, try chess.

I dont believe for 1 second that this game "simulates" anything. Are you under the impression it does? If so, please tell me. What does it "simulate"?

Mike, let me ask you a question. Why do you play this game?

I play for a challenge. I believe any game should have victory conditions that either player can realistically achieve. Equally. Yes, like chess. Now am I saying that I think the Japs should have just as much chance of parading down Pennsylvania Blvd as the allies have of taking Tokyo? Of course not.

Edit: now since we can do nothing to change what the victory conditions in the game are, the next best thing is to alter the mechanics of the game (production, number and types of weapons on a ship, ect) to make the victory conditions achievable to either player.

But seriously, I really would like to know. Why do you play this game?

While I think this thread has long out lived its purpose - and the original thread starter has said he doesn't even agree with his initial premise and is satisfied with the investigations he has subsequently done. Given the "heat" - that still seems to be here - it seems possibly appropriate to back up and set the stage - if these discussions are to continue.

In the realm of computer games, there are a number of different genres .. one of those is the ( computer ) wargame. Of the companies that publish computer wargames ( and there are fewer and fewer of them each year ) .. Matrix is one .. and at least to mention another ... HPS is another ( and I guess Paradox is another ).

These games differentiate themselves from other genres because they are about military history. Whereas for example MOO2-3 may seem related ( definitely some type of conflict simlulation going on ) but Moo2 is not about history, i.e. not about events that actually occured in the past.

I certainly can't speak for all of us. But I do think I speak for many, that what we expect out of a "wargame" is:

(1) The intial setting should contain the historical hardware, with approximately ( as near as can be done given the limits of time and resources ) the historical capabilities.

(2) And from the initial point, the players should have approximately the same choices as the real leaders and commanders - though the players are free to make their own choices within these parameters. Consequences of choices should have some relationship to things that could have happened in the real world, though no one can say with any certainty what would have happened had a different choice been made. War is full of uncertainty. It is up to the designers to determine, based on their research and goals for the game, what they believe is a reasonable effect for a given choice by the players.

This then would be my definition of a ( historical computer ) wargame. Give me the historical toys with their historical capabilities and then let me do with them what I will. Why do we play ? Do see if we can do better than our historical counter parts and our opponents.

It is certainly easier to make a game about spaceships - because we can skimp on the "research" step ... so there must be some reason people make and play games which include a historical component. It is not to reproduce a history book. But to provide a historical stage upon which the players can then write their own "play".

The question at the beginning of this thread was essentially - is the game giving us that historical stage. The objective of CHS ( if I am not mistaken ) has been to provide the historical stage - at least as far as the hardware ( tanks, ships, planes, etc. ) is concerned. The work is not done - and volunteers are more than welcome to help finish this work - but that is the driving force behind CHS ( I think ! ).

It is another question whether the game system - beyond the hardware - gives us something close to real world unit capabilities - I think most of us think it does an amazing job in many many areas - but of course there are those ( and I am among them ) who feel that some areas can be improved - in terms of providing closer to real world capabilities for the units. This does not mean we want to write a history book - it just means we want the historical toys with the historical capabilities - so we can write our own "history book" as we play the game !!!

[worr]

Well the thread is about CHS.

<shrug>

Worr, out

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: worr

Well the thread is about CHS.

<shrug>

Worr, out

It is, but a few posters don't realize that.

For those of you who want 'Play Balance', download 'Iron Storm'. It looks like a cool mod and the author doesn't pretend that it's historical.

This thread is supposed to be about CHS. Historical. The CHS guys have done an awesome job so far. It's much better than the vanilla 15 scenario. However, as Jwilkerson pointed out, there are some areas that can be looked at further. Japanese production is one area that I think needs looking at. At least for PBEM.

[mdiehl]

Mdiehl do you own and play WiTP?

I think I've had this conversation before. With you? This is the part where some cognitively challenged person suggests that "if you have not owned it and played it you cannot possibly evaluate it." The claim is deeply illogical and flies in the face of rational consumer behavior as it plays out in most instances of product selection.

Do you own a Chevrolet Cavalier? When you buy a car, rather than reading consumer reports or listening to the things that various owners say about their cars, or studying their maintenance records, or watching them break down on the highway, do you simply walk into the showroom and purchase the first autombile upon which your eyes rest? Of course not. You purchase a car (or any other product) with a suite of performance expectations and you consider that which is known about the product (and alternatives) before you make your purchase. Can any person possibly imagine that a strategic simulation warrants a privileged exemption to this basic process of consumer choice?

In my opinion the question "Do you own and play WitP" is irrelevent. Anyone who imagines it to be relevant is proferring a red herring. Nevertheless, the answer to the question:

Mdiehl do you own and play WiTP?

Is as follows:

I do not own it. I played it but no longer play it courtesy of a game loaned to me by another. I no longer play it because as a simulation it is no better than (and arguably inferior to) Gary Grigsby's Pacific War (which I also own and played extensively).

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I no longer play it because as a simulation it is no better than (and arguably inferior to) Gary Grigsby's Pacific War (which I also own and played extensively).

I have said it before. Other than the daily turns compaired to weekly in Pacwar, and the ability to go anywhere other than the "hiways" in Pacwar, this is an inferior game.

[Speedysteve]

Thankyou for your polite response. Cognitively challenged person eh? Oh you are so tempting to rise to Diehl but I have more pressing needs.

I don't believe it was me who asked you this before.

I ask on the valid basis that if you haven't played the game then some of your claims are unsubstantiated.

Since you have then your claims are clearly 100% valid and the world is a better place.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Hugger. You are wrong. About everything. The "avalanche" you fear and forcast doesn't really happen HISTORICALLY until mid-1943. Things got bad earlier for the Japanese HISTORICALLY because of Midway (an unlikely event in the game). In the real world, wars which are "equally challenging for both players" are very unlikely---people rarely go to war just to test their military capabilities. Especially if they believe the other sides to be "equal".

If you want equality, try chess.

I dont believe for 1 second that this game "simulates" anything. Are you under the impression it does? If so, please tell me. What does it "simulate"?

Mike, let me ask you a question. Why do you play this game?

I play for a challenge. I believe any game should have victory conditions that either player can realistically achieve. Equally. Yes, like chess. Now am I saying that I think the Japs should have just as much chance of parading down Pennsylvania Blvd as the allies have of taking Tokyo? Of course not.

Edit: now since we can do nothing to change what the victory conditions in the game are, the next best thing is to alter the mechanics of the game (production, number and types of weapons on a ship, ect) to make the victory conditions achievable to either player.

But seriously, I really would like to know. Why do you play this game?

But you DO believe that I care what "you believe"? This game is SUPPOSED to simulate "The War in the Pacific"---hence the name. And the promises of the designers led me to believe this might be the case.
Unfortunately the designers seem to have skipped on some of the research, leading to things like "too many B-17's and too many Tony's arriving too early" and several dozen other "deviations from reality" that posters have pointed out.

"What does it simulate?" It simulates the War in the Pacific. It just does it far more poorly than many of us had hoped. And I play it for the challange..., the same reason I play any game. It would just be far more challenging if it were more accurate. All you seem to want to do is turn in into a Fan-Boy Fantasy.
And you seem obsessed with "victory conditions"; especially in finding a way for Japan to "win" an unwinable situation outright. I'll bet you would really love a game that allowed Luxembourg to conquer Europe. Just give them 20,000,000 troops and unlimited jet aircraft. Might be "even", and it certainly wouldn't be called a "simulation". You should love it. I mean "Who cares if it makes any sense, or has anything to do with reality"? As long as it's "fair and balanced" it's a great game..., right? Just don't sell it under the title of "The War in Europe"...

Also please note that this is posted in a thread devoted to the "Combined HISTORICAL Scenario". Obviously something for people more interested in the realities of the war than whether or not the victory conditions are achievable by either side. So my question is why are you HERE? Obviously this is NOT your "cup of tea". I play this game because I still have hopes of it getting to what I thought was being offerred when I bought it. I was the one suggesting they INCREASE the price to get the time and resources to do it right. They didn't, and we got a flawed result. But you embrace the "flaws". So why are you posting here at all?

[doktorblood]

I want this thread to DIE!

[mdiehl]

Cognitively challenged person eh? Oh you are so tempting to rise to Diehl but I have more pressing needs.

Then I beg your forebearance. I have been asked this question (before, a long time ago, in re Uncommon Valor) and when the question was asked it was implied that not owning it or not playing it must disqualify any judgements about its merits based on comparisons of 3rd party AARs and historical results.

Naturally, if it was not your intention to imply same, then "cognitively challenged" is not directed at you. But if it seemed so, I ask your foregiveness and apologize for the apparent lack of clarity.

[testarossa]

DIE thread, DIE!!![:D]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

But you DO believe that I care what "you believe"? This game is SUPPOSED to simulate "The War in the Pacific"---hence the name. And the promises of the designers led me to believe this might be the case.
Unfortunately the designers seem to have skipped on some of the research, leading to things like "too many B-17's and too many Tony's arriving too early" and several dozen other "deviations from reality" that posters have pointed out.

The following is cut from WitP offical site:

“ War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945™ ” is a completely new strategy game, based on the award winning “Uncommon Valor” game engine. The scale is 60 miles per hex and losses are individual vehicles, aircraft, guns and squads. Since half the planet Earth is covered by the titanic Pacific struggle, the game is massive in scope, covering thousands of ships tens of thousands of aircraft. Virtually every ship, air group and battalion sized or larger troop formation is covered in exacting detail. Massive, yet simple to play, as the computer tracks all the factors and the interface allows the player to concern himself with only the degree of detail he prefers. Phases are one day, composed of two 12-hour impulses. A turn is composed of 1 to 7 phases, at the player’s discretion. He may also choose continuous play and may interrupt that by pressing a key.

War in the Pacific has detail never before achieved in a game of this scale before.

Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything. Read the introduction in the manual. Tell me where to look to see where it says "simulation". Read the cover of the manual: "GAME MANUAL".

Mike, it is a GAME!!!! It will NEVER be anything other than a GAME!!! It was never ment to be anything else! I dont know where you get the mis-guided notion that it is or ever will be anything else.

Also please note that this is posted in a thread devoted to the "Combined HISTORICAL Scenario". Obviously something for people more interested in the realities of the war than whether or not the victory conditions are achievable by either side. So my question is why are you HERE?

I dont care if the title of the thread is "tea and crumpets: not just for afternoons anymore!". Look back on page one and you will see that my first comment was to derick when he said that any truely "historical" game the Jap wouldnt stand a chance of winning.

Edit: My opinion is my opinion. If all you care about is your opinion, then that begs the question: why are you here?

Obviously this is NOT your "cup of tea". I play this game because I still have hopes of it getting to what I thought was being offerred when I bought it. I was the one suggesting they INCREASE the price to get the time and resources to do it right. They didn't, and we got a flawed result. But you embrace the "flaws". So why are you posting here at all?

I dont embrace "flaws". I embrace "play balance". I embrace a GAME that is challenging and fun for both players.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything.

War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything.

War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945

“ War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945™ ” is a completely new strategy game

I have a book on my bookshelf right now entitled: "The story of World War II". Am I to believe they could tell the complete story of WW2 in 124 pages? God gave me common sense.

[worr]

When is a book not a game? For fifty points.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: worr

A book isn't a game..

A game isnt a simulation. Thank you [:)]

[worr]

Nonsense isn't common sense.

[doktorblood]

Please ... make it stop!

[mdiehl]

Please ... make it stop!

Ummm, ya could always stop reading and contributing to the thread if it doth annoy you so.....

Hey Testarossa, love the avatar. "Look at my head look at my head everybody look at my head." [;)]