Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

And just to put the "they were not spotted"-discussion to rest once and for all. (Not that it is in any way relevant to the topic, but anyway)

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?

That is indeed a different question. One that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the question about the amphibious assault combat routine. Which of cource makes it completely irrelevant and pointless in this discussion. Get it?

Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost.

Funny though that everyone seems to agree that the CD results are BS. And that was the entire point of this thread and discussion. IS there a problem with the CD-routine? Most tend to agree there is. Your posts about other irrelevant stuff really does not contribute to that discussion at all.

ORIGINAL: Rob322

Exactly. This result puts up a red flag that should be studied further before we decide whether this resulted from poor code or poor play. Has this happened in other games?

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Unfortunately No.


Every turn takes around 4 hours o my time. I am a working father with the cutiest 2,5 years old lady home.

PLUS: It will still be a very interesting game. No doubt about it.

P.S.
My troops are very well supplied. Whole island chain have best supplies in the whole pacific region.
Troops were disorganized thanks to weeks spent on board of ships. This is why I have been so quiet for last two days. Coming very fast down (like 50 points down in 2 days).
With no loses, No fatigue (Nearly all set in a reserve mode), No disorganisation...
I would have taken this base. No doubt.

ORIGINAL: Rob322

Exactly. This result puts up a red flag that should be studied further before we decide whether this resulted from poor code or poor play. Has this happened in other games?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The actions by the Allied player to allow 350+ ships to arrive undetected at Oahu, with apparently massive air and logistic suppport already next door in the Hawaiian Islands, is what's "wrong." The systematic destruction of Allied power is what's "unbalanced", and that was accomplished by a better player playing well.

What has that got to do with the combat routine for amphibious assaults?

I have been trying to avoid getting into these discussions because I really dont see what relevance they have to the question if the results of the amphibious assault is reasonable or not. Is it reasonable to be able to invade Pearl Harbor, without any prior bombardment from air or sea, with 350+ ships, land 75 000 men in one impulse, and only lose 1000 causualties and a handful of PBs?

What relevance has Wake, Midway or Johnston Island to that question? And the Jap ships were spotted before they invaded.

A different question:

What would have been the invasion results if you had placed three surface TFs in the PH hex continaing, in total, 6-8 CAs, 5 CLs, and 30 DDs?
Whining about CD results, when other results are obtained elsewhere with different force balances, misses the point. When you rely on CD to stop an invasion, you've already lost.

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

OH LORD,

Knowing the Rules of a game and its mechanics is not an exploit.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

WIPPL is a very nasty player who knows how to exploit the system. Don't mean that in a negative way. I learned a few tricks from the whipping I got.

He'd make a good playtester. I'm sure he can find many of the flaws.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl




WITPPL. As I said before, I'm not knocking your play or your planning. Your opponent seems to have bungled badly, and your scheme was inventive and well carried out.

Nevertheless, you should have been butchered if the game's programming had been up to the task. Not your fault..., and you may have uncovered a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. So thanks for your efforts..., and the ball is now in the designer's court for correction.

ORIGINAL: Rob322

Bullwinkle,

well ultimately the developers would be the ones to study it and decide if there's truly a problem or not. What my point was is that it's silly to make substantive conclusions on the basis of one turn. It could be the game, it could be the players, it could be just random luck that is not indicative of a problem with the game itself but just circumstance. Logically one data point is just that. You've provided a counter data point with your landing that has more expected results. In part that's why I asked if others were seeing this as if there's a problem with the program then this should pop up more.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Pretty interesting thread and example. A few thoughts about this issue, in no particular order.

1) If someone wants to find out how the invasion would pan out, the players might consent to send that person a save game and their passwords.

2) I wonder how effective the CD's will be as artillery on the landed troops their first day ashore, before they have dug in? (You might have gotten this far, but I didn't see any mention of it.)

3) CD's should most definitely be engaged by even small escorts with the assault TF's. Arguments might abound about how much bias a CD gun would have to shoot at an escort that is shooting at it (regardless of size), but IRL there were plenty of times when an escort took a CD gun under fire the CD gun responded to the attack. Thinking that (in a game meant to provide realistic capabilities) we can give orders to the contrary is wrong.

4) We need to be careful about breaking the CD code for 'normal' sized invasions just to fix this extreme case. The results here might simply be due to the scale of ships + CD guns being beyond what the algorithms coded into the game handle well.

5) Further to number 4, if the devs see a problem here they might want the save game to step through the turn execution and see what the algorithms are doing.

6) The notion someone (or ones) mentioned about, in my words, the big CD guns being basically sniper weapons (one shot, one kill) on small escorts (or AK's) simply isn't born out by RL. Yes, in many cases one shot might have doomed a small ship. Yes, in some cases one shot might have immediately incapacitated or sunk a small ship. However, history is full of examples where small ships kept fighting after even multiple hits from battleships. Sometimes those shells exploded and sometimes the didn't. They almost always caused meaningful damage, but the target kept on fighting.

So what is a CD to do when the target is still afloat and moving? What's the doctrine they are operating under? Do they engage each target in range with one shot only? I find it most likely they shoot the target until they believe it's done.

7) Directors were mentioned - how many guns are controlled by each one? So, even if one has, say 28 guns, they might only have 7 directors. This is just further to number 6 - you aren't going to knock out 28 ships with each salvo. At most you will hit 7, often less, and knock out even fewer.

8) Given the size of the invasion fleet, I just can't see the invasion area being too small, or else landing craft/boats would be all over each other traffic jam-wise.

9) Looking at the game situation on the day of the invasion - if that happened IRL - I just do not believe that the invasion would have been wiped out with laser beam-like efficiency. The IJ player did a masterful job of setting it up. Here's the thing. Even though he was as human as anybody else, Yamamoto ordered planning for the invasion of Hawaii. He believed that Oahu's defenses could be overcome with proper preparation. IMO this game invasion would, IRL, have gotten ashore with substantial forces. How much? I don't pretend to know the 'right' answer, but I'm certain 99% ashore is wrong. Although quite bloody, I do believe it would be a lot more than 1% ashore, given the size of the invasion! Some beaches would have gone better than others. Some would have benefited more from smoke than others, and so on.

10) Adding in the land combat, would the invasion have succeeded (if this were a RL invasion)? I don't know. The land combat model might not be up to the task of modeling this one realistically. Remember too that RL gives a range of results. There is usually no one right answer - there is a percentage. 'IRL your chances are good.' 'IRL your chances are poor.' and so on.

Those are some of my thoughts after reading this far.