B17 Losses too heavy

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
...Since you are so sure you're right and won't do any research on your own to answer your own questions - I will do the research. My memory of...

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but since you started this thread... [;)]

Is research actually the problem here? It is admitted that model doesn’t take into account aircraft performance based on altitude nor does it give an advantage to massed bomber formations, both of which were important historically in the fighter vs. bomber equation. Since the model doesn’t simulate the historical limitation ahistorical results are the outcome. So… what is the answer? It seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to re-write the subroutine to include altitude performance and other such factors, so…

What would you like to see and what do you think is practical?

First I'd like to agree with TommyG ( we two are the players in the game that generated the result that started the thread ) this thread should be over.

But since I posted that, I'll add an answer to your question.

Air-Combat is extremely difficult to model at "this level" .. which is on the one hand - the whole Pacific Theater .. and on the other hand containing individual aircraft and for single person fighters, that single person is also modeled ! Air combat is an activity which can have highly variable results. But, if we look at the totality of missions flown by B17/24 historically in all theaters of WWII and the opposion they faced and the results obtained ... it is clear that they were the first step towards a breed of bombers that had some survivability in the face of fighter opposition ( even when unescorted ).

B17s should be more survivable in the game ( though there should we way less of them .. and their accuracy against ships should be reduced ). How to accomplish all these things most easily ?

+1 to durability might help .. I think Nik is trying this. But I'm not sure it will work , since my theory is that the problem is more related to large defensive fighter formations being too powerful ... than to B17s being too vulnerable. Accuracy against ships .. a house rule, not allowing B17 to be on Naval strike might be one option ( they will still strike ships one off when on Naval search ) .. less of them should be easy for those who can change the production and replacement numbers. The tough one, is the vulnerability against massed fighters .. that might require rework of Air Combat model ... and that isn't likely .. so work arounds, such as +1 to durability ( or armor ) may need to be tried instead.

The reason research is important, is to try to convince those who can change things, that things should be changed, based on the research. But as you say - research itself is not the problem.

So I promise TommyG and myself not to post to this thread again ! Amen ![&o] if someone has a related topic - please start a new thread !!!

( Thanks to all those who posted ... though I think we got a little out of hand on occasion ... but these results where another step on the road of discovering and trying to fix issues with the game ... and hence I hope the thread will bear some fruit .. though that remains to be seen ! )

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
You're mistaken. WitP has much in common with Risk at the core. The results from Gary's game are not historic, or even close to historic, in far too many areas, the same as Risk. It's true that WitP offers "detail," but in fact this "detail" amounts to so much chrome because it is not 1) all-inclusive but presented arbitrarily, and 2) is fed unintelligently into the various models--plus, from all I can tell and from what has been described to me, these models do not even operate all the time as was intended…

Risk… Chrome… arbitrarily… unintelligently… [;)]

An interesting choice of words.

At 32,000 ft B-17 are being lost at a rate that is not historically accurate, so…? The aircraft combat model is an abstraction and was not meant to produce a historically accurate simulation of air combat in the Pacific during WW2. What effect does this higher that historical rate loss have on the outcome/flow of the game? From what I have read in AARs and seen in the game, the Allied player/AI simply ships in more as production, pilots, and maintainability are high… much higher than historical. So while I see very heavy losses of B-17 at 32,000 ft does it really alter the ‘course’ of the overall game play? Not from what I have seen.

Now I am not saying I wouldn’t like to see the whole thing tweaked to better represent history (that isn’t likely to happen at this late stage), I don’t see this as really being a game killer.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

At 32,000 ft B-17 are being lost at a rate that is not historically accurate, so…? The aircraft combat model is an abstraction and was not meant to produce a historically accurate simulation of air combat in the Pacific during WW2. What effect does this higher that historical rate loss have on the outcome/flow of the game? From what I have read in AARs and seen in the game, the Allied player/AI simply ships in more as production, pilots, and maintainability are high… much higher than historical. So while I see very heavy losses of B-17 at 32,000 ft does it really alter the ‘course’ of the overall game play? Not from what I have seen.

Now I am not saying I wouldn’t like to see the whole thing tweaked to better represent history (that isn’t likely to happen at this late stage), I don’t see this as really being a game killer.

Sure, but this part of the air combat model seemed to work better in UV... (and no, no game killer but annoying).

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

At 32,000 ft B-17 are being lost at a rate that is not historically accurate, so…? The aircraft combat model is an abstraction and was not meant to produce a historically accurate simulation of air combat in the Pacific during WW2. What effect does this higher that historical rate loss have on the outcome/flow of the game? From what I have read in AARs and seen in the game, the Allied player/AI simply ships in more as production, pilots, and maintainability are high… much higher than historical. So while I see very heavy losses of B-17 at 32,000 ft does it really alter the ‘course’ of the overall game play? Not from what I have seen.

Now I am not saying I wouldn’t like to see the whole thing tweaked to better represent history (that isn’t likely to happen at this late stage), I don’t see this as really being a game killer.

Sure, but this part of the air combat model seemed to work better in UV... (and no, no game killer but annoying).

I agree it is annoying.

I believe the question now is: if the air combat model is not going to be rewritten, what can be done to better simulate historical realities without unbalancing some other section?

PS. To be honest, I never understood this focus on large scale B-17 raid losses as these type raids are completely ahistorical. I always thought those trying to make their point would be better served by looking at large scale B-24/B-29 raids and loss rates, which might show the same high loss rates (which I expect). If the Allied player is losing +70% of a B-29 raid in the game it can be compared with historical results and it will be a powerful argument. IMO

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

I agree it is annoying.

I believe the question now is: if the air combat model is not going to be rewritten, what can be done to better simulate historical realities without unbalancing some other section?

PS. To be honest, I never understood this focus on large scale B-17 raid losses as these type raids are completely ahistorical. I always thought those trying to make their point would be better served by looking at large scale B-24/B-29 raids and loss rates, which might show the same high loss rates (which I expect). If the Allied player is losing +70% of a B-29 raid in the game it can be compared with historical results and it will be a powerful argument. IMO

I don't know if it would be necessary (or possible) to rewrite the air combat model. Currently it seems that problems are largely coming from too efficient CAP. But only the developers/programmers know how the air combat model really works, thus many comments in this thread are mainly based on speculation (including my own comments).

Ahistorical large scale B-17 raids: The (potential) problem with B-29 raids later in the game was always the issue that worried me much more than current results with B-17s (I want to play until 1946!). But players are doing ahistorical things all the time, reducing aviation support and cutting down B-17 production (if less were produced than in the game, have no data about this) seem to be a better solution in every case.

And I don't understand why this seemed not to be a problem in UV. If I remember correctly, there were simply not enough heavy bombers available in 1942 to conduct 100+ plane raids then and losses to CAP were not that heavy when starting big bombing campaigns vs. Rabaul in 1943.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
PS. To be honest, I never understood this focus on large scale B-17 raid losses as these type raids are completely ahistorical. I always thought those trying to make their point would be better served by looking at large scale B-24/B-29 raids and loss rates, which might show the same high loss rates (which I expect). If the Allied player is losing +70% of a B-29 raid in the game it can be compared with historical results and it will be a powerful argument. IMO

I've tried to present this argument earlier on in this thread (and was ignored [:)]), then tired to do the same in ADavidB's "Playbalance achieved thread" (and was ignored [:D]). Anyhu, what I'm trying to say is basically that reasonably good data exists on the B-29 raids and, to mimick Culiacan Mexico, it would strengthen the B-17 case if the problems can be reproduced with the B-29's.

Ultimately, presenting a case based on solid (ie statistically valid) samples from RL and from the game while trying to build a consensus here is more likely to produce lasting results then merely venting one's frustation.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

I agree it is annoying.

I believe the question now is: if the air combat model is not going to be rewritten, what can be done to better simulate historical realities without unbalancing some other section?

PS. To be honest, I never understood this focus on large scale B-17 raid losses as these type raids are completely ahistorical. I always thought those trying to make their point would be better served by looking at large scale B-24/B-29 raids and loss rates, which might show the same high loss rates (which I expect). If the Allied player is losing +70% of a B-29 raid in the game it can be compared with historical results and it will be a powerful argument. IMO

I don't know if it would be necessary (or possible) to rewrite the air combat model. Currently it seems that problems are largely coming from too efficient CAP. But only the developers/programmers know how the air combat model really works, thus many comments in this thread are mainly based on speculation (including my own comments).

Ahistorical large scale B-17 raids: The (potential) problem with B-29 raids later in the game was always the issue that worried me much more than current results with B-17s (I want to play until 1946!). But players are doing ahistorical things all the time, reducing aviation support and cutting down B-17 production (if less were produced than in the game, have no data about this) seem to be a better solution in every case.

And I don't understand why this seemed not to be a problem in UV. If I remember correctly, there were simply not enough heavy bombers available in 1942 to conduct 100+ plane raids then and losses to CAP were not that heavy when starting big bombing campaigns vs. Rabaul in 1943.

Theoretical discussion here, I'm not really seeking changes, as I think the overall effect of the game is historical enough and thats plenty good for me. (I still prefer WitP to HoI2, which I consider to the best non-grognard WW2 game out there).

I think one issue is the "270 av support will let you park infinite a/c at one base" and the fact that the game rewards concentration of aircraft.

I dunno about other people but one tactic of mine is to park 200+ fighters at a base near something important, and then add a couple of Fortresses - not many, just enough, low level night bombing will score the odd hit - and start plinking oil or whatever. It may not be spectacular but after a month or two it'll get results, and it draws the enemy in, and then your 200 fighters in defensive CAP can chop the enemy to ribbons.

The Battle of Britain suggested the opposite, that massive defensive CAP didnt work for all sorts of reasons (the Big Wing theory), and I would hazard that Dowdings air defence network was superior to the hastily cobbled together air defence on some Pacific atoll. While I'm no uber-grognard I would hazard that my tactic of the 200+ fighter cap and luring him in to bounce off it is totally ahistorical, both logistically in squeezing them all onto a makeshift airbase and keeping them aloft, and tactically in the sense that even when the battle occurs it would not work particularly effectively.

In a related gripe, from what I can read of the Betty as used in the war it was a dire torpedo bomber as it was simple too vulnerable to use such an exposed attack profile as sailing along at 200' to be flak gunned - but thanks to speed in the medium bomber role it had the ability to get in, drop bombs and get out again before the CAP could even rise to meet it - which is kinda the exact opposite of what WitP models where it is a lethal ship killer (apparently on the back of the Betty's single spectacular success) but meat for the beast when it comes to penetrating CAP with its naff defensive armament and paper durability means that when the Warhawks meet the Betties it hurts real bad.

In my dream air combat routine I would have CAP suffer penalties when it got beyond a certain size, in the same manner that huge taskforces suffer an AA penalty. (To be absolutely ideal, fast bombers would cut CAP effectiveness more than slow bombers, give the Schnellbomber theory an airing, it apparently worked for the Betty at least partially). Defensive fire from heavy bombers would likewise be improved when the bombers were in large formations, with possibly a "Squadron X breaks formation!" result in the combat resolution when fighting experienced fighter pilots which negates that bonus to reflect experienced bomber formation breaking pilots letting the bombers get picked off.

In my dream OOB and logistics model there would be less heavy bombers, and air unit command (SEAC, ABDA etc) would have more restrictions, and av support would not be so lenient as smacking down a base force and an av support unit, making such big formations difficult to arrange - though of course possible if a human player is willing to suffer the logistical pain and PP point cost of setting it up, thats a valid tactical decision. You shouldnt rule out anything, even the difficult things, merely make them difficult.

This is just rambling, curious what others think of the above. And again, I'm not asking for changes, WitP is plenty accurate enough, I get to fight Guadalcanal, the Marshalls campaign etc. pretty much as happened, I make the same sort of choices Nimitz had to make - and so from my point of view as a player playing a strategy game, being in Nimitz's chair is the ultimate goal so I'm happy.

[tabpub]

I had always thought that the simplest system was the old 'Flattop' boardgame coordination system for strikes; then, if the strikes were staggered the cap in that engaged in sequence; with the cap first fighting the escort and survivors/excess getting the opportunity to go after the strike A/C. Though, I think even that game had some of the ratings on the planes that were ill conceived. In witp though, mass enough forces and Air HQs, etc and you can get 200 planes over the target with no problem, apparently.
Ach, who knows; personally, I would prefer to send in smaller groups, as they seem to avoid combat with the defensive fighters; I had 2 Martins that were continually slipping past 9-10 Zeros to go after ships in the Batavia region. Though, eventually, the odds caught up to them and they got caught....[:(].

One final note: Bombers do not gain air superiority, fighters do. Until your fighters can go up and deal with those of the enemy on a consistent basis, you haven't won the air fight. Until then, bombers are just targets that the enemy can shoot at if they desire.
The circumstances over Japan in 45 are based on the situation at that time; massive Japanese air attrition in prior campaigns, the unknown (to the Japanese) capability of the B-San, etc. Now, in the game, you will never see that. The IJ knows what is coming and when and how far they can fly.

Also, that certain models of fighter are better suited to the anti bomber role and concentrate on building them up earlier and in greater numbers. So, when the research is done on them, the factories are ready to go full bore on production; there is no break in period or experience loss (always felt that there should be loss of exp. in swapping planes; B17 was supposedly MUCH easier to fly than a 24, like a big truck with/without power steering) If a fighter group lost 25% of its experience, you would see less of a hurry to upgrade and a slower commitment of the new planes to the front by the owners; as in Tonies arrive in Aug 42, but not seen at the front for 4-6 months after that IRL.

I don't know if there will ever be a happy medium when it comes to things like this however; its almost like the TomAto- Tomahto debate on pronunciation, so let's call the whole thing off.....[:)]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

By the way, the Japanese enjoyed the advantage of being on the offensive during these raids, and in fact pumped up their figures on one occasion when they bounced the boys at Cactus.

I believe it was the Americans on the offensive here. The Japanese were responding to an American invasion and in case you didn't know, invasions normally denote offensive action, not defensive. I'll assume you meant to say that the Japanese were the attacker. Either way, it was hardly an advantage to fly a long way to the target, engage in air combat with an enemy who has been alerted and waiting for you, then hope you have enough gas to get home (assuming you aren't all shot to he!!, in which case you probably won't make it home anyway), and then turn around to do it all again the next day.

It was a wearisome journey down from Rabaul to Lunga Point, no doubt. But nervertheless the Americans were defending and the Japanese were attacking. That's an extremely simple point, yet you seem reluctant to yield even on that. Hardly a useful attitude, Steve.

As for who and what one chooses to believe: one's always free to believe whatever, but that doesn't necessarily make this a wise choice. In this particular case it would be most wise to believe in roughly equal and then begin the search of other "truth" from that reliable data point. Should one not proceed thusly, the result of the consequent research will likely be confused. That might please you no end, and if so great, but it will never improve the game, and the latter's all I care about.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Japanese flak (responsible for 60+% of all US AC combat losses) hasn't worked ever, and no one even noticed...which says alot for game balance.

Not that I necesarily disagree, but I'd advocate some caution with this number. If indeed 60% of all US AC combat losses were to AAA (sounds about right to me), that doesn't necessarily mean that 60% all US AC combat losses were to AAA throughout. As the US gained air superiority from '43 onwards, fewer aircraft would've been shot down by Japanese fighters. That alone means that AAA will be weighted heavier in the statistics. Furthermore, the US flew far more missions against many more targets in the latter half of the war. AAA is naturally only effective if you actually attack the target its defending, and by exposing more aircraft to more AAA guns, one would expect the AAA proportion of kills to rise. These two factors probably explains why losses to AAA appears proportionally heavy, but it doesn't follow that what holds true for 1945 is also the case for 1942. Statistics provide the "what", not the "why".

A rough computation of figures from the USAAF digest demonstrated the above:

FEAF losses by cause, 1942-45:

EA/AAA/Operational:

1942: 264 (96%)/6 (2%)/6 (2%) <- recorded op.losses clearly too low. 6 aircraft for the entire year???
1943: 395 (73%)/25 (5%)/119 (22%)
1944: 216 (24%)/245 (27%)/449 (51%)
1945: 67 (9%)/270 (35%)/432 (56%)

This shows how A2A losses dwindle proportionally while other kinds of losses go up. However of A2A losses, of a total of 943, 666 (71%) occur 1942-43. By contrast, only 31 (6%) of 546 AAA losses occur 1942-43.

Another way of looking at it is by comparing the no. of sorties with losses. It demonstrates the same general trend, but suggests that this holds true not not only in absolute terms.

Percentage chance of being shot down on any given sorties airborne, by type and year, FEAF:

Aircraft/AAA = Ratio:

1942: 1.85%/0.04% = 46:1
1943: 0.38%/0.02% = 19:1
1944: 0.13%/0.15% = 1:1
1945: 0.05%/0.20% = 1:4

The overaching point is of course that the 60% losses to AAA (or whatever the figure is) isn't necessarily a function of the qualitative effectiveness of Japanese AAA or lack thereof, but rather linked to operational factors. That said, I've already stated my personal opinion of in particular groundbased AAA elsewhere in this thread.

Tom

Source: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

That strikes me as logical. It's a thoughtful analysis, anyway. Whether it's true or not is anyone's guess without the corresponding data to prove it, but if I had to bet one way or the other my money would lie on your color.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
...Since you are so sure you're right and won't do any research on your own to answer your own questions - I will do the research. My memory of...

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but since you started this thread... [;)]

Is research actually the problem here? It is admitted that model doesn’t take into account aircraft performance based on altitude nor does it give an advantage to massed bomber formations, both of which were important historically in the fighter vs. bomber equation. Since the model doesn’t simulate the historical limitation ahistorical results are the outcome. So… what is the answer? It seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to re-write the subroutine to include altitude performance and other such factors, so…

What would you like to see and what do you think is practical?

This is such old ground that in a manner of speaking it hurts to reply.

How many times have thoughtful people offered useful corrections to Gary's scheme running all the way back to shortly after UV was published? Countless times. And how many of these suggestions have been implemented? Not many, is the answer. And of those suggestions that were acted upon, it turns out these were relatively minor tweaks. In one case at least, a change applied in isolation only hurt the simulation in the overall scheme of things.

The fatigue rate of pilots was toned down. So far, so good. Pilots used to get fatigued to the point of uselessness within a week just flying CAP. Now they don't. Problem is, this tends to increase the speed of the air model.

I can just hear Frag now:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But you whined that fatigue was too high! So we fixed it!

Well, yes. But we also whined that the air model was too fast and too bloody in general, and to only adjust the fatigue routines hardly "fixed" that. So in fact, by more correctly adjusting the fatigue routines, which certainly needed adjustment, while letting everything else sit there as before, only served to aggravate the larger problem--that the air model is too bloody and runs too fast. And so in effect this change didn't help but hurt instead, because now the model runs faster than ever!

Is research the problem? Research is one of the problems. Bad research was apparently conducted by everyone associated with this project--that, or whatever better research was offered was ignored. This is seen almost everywhere within the game. Worse, whatever research was conducted, and whatever its perceived quality, the fruits of that research were applied arbitrarily.

Example: in the game there is just one airplane affected by altitude, that being the P-39/P-400 (and at that they haven't even got the right altitude, another mistake that was pointed out). Why? If one plane can be affected by altitude, why can't all planes be affected by altitude? Why aren't all planes affected by altitude? Don't tell me that's because the engine is "worn out" and "stretched" and can't "take it" it anymore. (How many times have we been treated to that excuse?)

NOTE: I wrote that all planes except for the P-39/P-400 are not affected by altitude. This is not the case. I wrote that for convenience. In point of fact all planes are affected by altitude all the time within the game. How can that be? For the simple reason that the model wants to ignore altitude to begin with, but by doing so only skews combat to an even greater degree. This enforced ignorance of altitude (i.e., lack of appropriate application of the relative effects of altitude from one airplane to another) automatically upgrades the relative performance of some aircraft while it simultaneously subtracts from the performance of other aircraft. The result of this model misconduct must be and could only be bad. If anyone has a problem with that concept, I'll be happy to explain further, but it ought to be clear what I'm driving at.

Would this routine for altitude penalties need to be rewritten? I don't know. At the very least it ought to be applied to other aircraft, don't you think? It's there. If it can used with the P-39/P-400 it could just as easily be used with Zeros and Wildcats and any other aircraft. Could it not?

Why does everything run so fast? Everything runs too fast because the logistics model is a joke. (And we're not just talking about supply and fuel, but the maintenance of bases, use of ports, etc.) Why even have such a model in the game if it doesn't serve to (severely, in the case of the Japanese) limit one's strategic and tactical choices?

All I get out of the logistics model is more eye candy. It's quite useless chrome from my perspective. Others probably see this differently.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oooooo. It has a logistics model. This must be an accurate simulation.

Why include any feature in a game which doesn't serve good purpose? If Gary's intent was to let players do whatever they wanted whenever wanted anywhere on the board then why not drop the logistics model altogether? Why invest any development in time in it? The old title Gettysburg from Avalon Hill didn't have a logistics model and it sold okay in the midwest. Isn't that true?

Anything that slowed this game down would be an improvement. But of course, just like with the case of pilot fatigue, such change would need to be applied universally and evenly across the board and throughout the entire game system. In a word, this change would need to be applied intelligently. Otherwise the result would be uneven, the result would be bad.

Whatever their motivation, the companies involved chose to serve up what amounts to a rehash of Gary's earlier games on the subject, and Matrix has since engaged in denial that much of anything is wrong to begin with. And we're just beginning to scratch the surface of the game, as it requires so much time to get very far into it. What else is wrong in there? Plenty, probably.

Finally, somebody in this thread, as usual, keeps chattering away about how "all" wargames are inaccurate. Well, that's about as useful as saying "nothing in life is perfect." This is true. This is also what's called an inanity.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Finally, somebody in this thread, as usual, keeps chattering away about how "all" wargames are inaccurate. Well, that's about as useful as saying "nothing in life is perfect." This is true. This is also what's called an inanity.

Most importantly, if you don't strive for perfection, you will never even get close. And you are settling for mediocracy.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

I agree. WitP is mediocre.
I bought it around 1.3.
I swiped it from my HD until 1.4
then I swiped it off again.
A friend told me about 1.5 patch.
I was interested enough to see if it was much better.
I still don't have a game going.
How mediocre is that!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

All I get out of the logistics model is more eye candy. It's quite useless chrome from my perspective. Others probably see this differently.

Oooooo. It has a logistics model. This must be an accurate simulation.

You consistently paint those who hold a point of view different than yours as idiots. Enough is enough.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Finally, somebody in this thread, as usual, keeps chattering away about how "all" wargames are inaccurate. Well, that's about as useful as saying "nothing in life is perfect." This is true. This is also what's called an inanity.

Most importantly, if you don't strive for perfection, you will never even get close. And you are settling for mediocracy.

Exactly so. I'm forever using the example of the archer who must aim at a point higher than he intends his arrow to eventually strike. The law of gravity demands this correction, and so it stands to reason. Same same for quality. If you don't aim high the result will be unsatisfactory to some.

What irks me are the people who constantly write that they don't see any problems. The game's okay. Everything's fine. [8D] (Anyone around here old enough to remember the old cartoon panel "There Ought To Be A Law"?)

[doktorblood]

I think the game is ok. Everything is fine. [:)]

[Toast]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

What irks me are the people who constantly write that they don't see any problems. The game's okay. Everything's fine. [8D] (Anyone around here old enough to remember the old cartoon panel "There Ought To Be A Law"?)

So it irks you that people have different opinions than you? It irks you that some people agree with some of the decisions made by the designer of the game and not with you?

Ultimately any wargame is the deisgners interpretation of history. I have been gaming long enough to realize and to realize that some designs will emphasize things that I am not interested in or flat out don't agree with. Some designs will not let me explore some aspects of history that I would like to. But i accept it. I play the game if it has value to me and don't if it doesn't. But I don't get mad at people who find value in the game or agree with the designer.

I am not saying this game is perfect or that I agree with all the decisions made. I think because of the complexity of the design and the interaction of all the elements, some of the consequences all out of whack with reality and out of whack with what the designer had on mind. And I think Matrix/2by3 have done a great job of trying to supprt this game and make changes when the results are not what was intended.

But I don't get irked by people who disagree with my opinions and I don't call anybody an idiot because theu disagree with me and I don't insult the people who have worked hard on this game.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

All I get out of the logistics model is more eye candy. It's quite useless chrome from my perspective. Others probably see this differently.

Oooooo. It has a logistics model. This must be an accurate simulation.

You consistently paint those who hold a point of view different than yours as idiots. Enough is enough.

Did you never read National Harpoon? If you did read that magazine, did it offend you, too?

Whatever, you are factually mistaken. I only represent some points of view which happen to run counter to my own as being idiotic. At other times I'll respond to one person or the other that while I don't happen to necessarily agree with their point of view I can nevertheless follow the thought process and see the logic behind it, and recognize that there's room for reasonable argument.

Is your contention that no points of view are idiotic? How about the term "senseless"? Maybe that works better for you. If so you ought to use it instead of idiotic.

This game make very liittle good sense on its face. It comes draped in the trappings of World War II, but it all begins to break down immediately one starts play. The game is off in almost all ways and forms. And it isn't just a "little bit" off but quite a ways off in all too many respects. Also, we don't just address a "few" problems but rather many problems.

Now it's perfectly all right with me if you (just for example, not trying to pick on any individual) care to say that you like this game and enjoy playing it. I can live with that. No problem. But please don't imply the game has no problems, or that what I write makes no sense. Because what I write usually makes a lot of sense, and when I do make a mistake my habit is to come back and say to whomever, "Thanks for catching my error."

Meanwhile, part of what I write in this forum is that this game has known problems, what you'd have to call a truism, and I'd like the company to fix those problems. I have a right to make this request for the reason I paid for the game. We're not talking about shareware here.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I think the game is ok. Everything is fine. [:)]

Well, then I guess that's fine then, isn't it? You're fine, I'm fine, everyone's fine. [:)]

That game, though, unhappily to say, has problems.

[marovici]

Well I have only had the game for perhaps 1-2 months and I have enjoyed it tremendously. On principle I tend to prefer if games were as close as possible to reality regardless of game playability which of course might be counterproductive for the game developer.

Although I agree with a lot of points raised here and the poster's right to raise the points unfortunately I find it hard to believe that those things will be introduced as I am not sure if it makes economic sense beeing that some of suggestions seem to require a lot of work.

So why did I post? Only to express agreement with the opinion that B-17's do seem to suffer too much damage which historically was not the case, that there are a lot of things in the game that do not follow history, but that nevertheless I am happy with this game and will continue to play it until another one comes that gets closer to history than this one (Even if in some people's opinion this might as well be RISK at least to me it provides an ilusion of reality).

Another curious thing that just struck me is that in all the discussions that I have read so far it seems to me that people always use history as evidence. Although that is perhaps because people that are just interested in game are playing it and are not bothered with game not following history I salute all of you who are working hard to point the weaknesses in the game and are expending the effort in research and time to have them fixed. Although I would like to see the game follow history closely (I am aware that even what is historical will be debated as we can see in this thread) I am neither dissilusioned with the game or disapointed with it as I frankly do not know of any game that does better what witp does (ww2 in pacific). If you do please let me know and I'll check it out and in the meantime I will continue to hope that someone will create a game or mod of witp (I just started playing CHS and it seems like a great mod) that will improve upon it, until then I am more than happy with what I purchased for 80 bucks.