Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Guys-that approach isn't called for...come on now. [:-]

I couldn't agree more![:(]

Why can't you do a Midway scenario and expect different results? We have Coral Sea and the Kiska/Attu invasions. And you definately won't get those to come out as in real life. (In fact if you try it in the Thousand Mile war , you'll definately get your head handed to you!). I for one would like to see a lot more short sceanrios. And I applauld anyone making them. [&o]

Let's see what the game actually does. Ney?

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The problem with any Midway scenario is that the RL results were predicated on Yamamoto's plan being executed flawlessly. The prime facets of that plan that didn't go Yamamoto's way was that the USN was laying in wait for the IJN CVTF when they arrived off Midway. They were supposed to be at PH and only sortie either right before or immediately after the island fell into Japanese hands. Ergo, the first strikes from KB went to neutralizing Midway's AB. As players using a "Midway" scenario, we would know the except dispositions of both fleets. It would be highly unlikely that you could achieve even a draw for the USN under those conditions.

You can achieve Midway like results in AE but the will need to be set up in a similar situation: USN surprises the IJN by being some where they were not expected

Nimitz, knowing the Japanese fleet dispositions, expected a draw. Hughes's analysis is similar. Given enough replications we can see how balanced the game really is and identify the sources of imbalance.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The problem with any Midway scenario is that the RL results were predicated on Yamamoto's plan being executed flawlessly. The prime facets of that plan that didn't go Yamamoto's way was that the USN was laying in wait for the IJN CVTF when they arrived off Midway. They were supposed to be at PH and only sortie either right before or immediately after the island fell into Japanese hands. Ergo, the first strikes from KB went to neutralizing Midway's AB. As players using a "Midway" scenario, we would know the except dispositions of both fleets. It would be highly unlikely that you could achieve even a draw for the USN under those conditions.

You can achieve Midway like results in AE but the will need to be set up in a similar situation: USN surprises the IJN by being some where they were not expected

Nimitz, knowing the Japanese fleet dispositions, expected a draw. Hughes's analysis is similar. Given enough replications we can see how balanced the game really is and identify the sources of imbalance.

Harry,

I respectfully disagree. AE was a game designed to simulate the entire PTO in WWII. The relevant parts of the Battle of Midway started at 0430 when the scouts were launched and ended at 1705 when Enterprise's SBD's hit Hiryu. Asking a simulation that is designed to cover 1346 days (or more) of the war to accurate portray less than thirteen hours is not rational. Basically you seem to be saying if AE cannot accurately reflect the events 1/2 of one turn that it needs to be modfied. I respect your right to hold that opinion but it seems not to be reality based in my mind

I respect your opinion, but if that's what you want to play, I can recommend Mark Herman's Empire of the Sun or Victory Games Pacific War.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well, I guess it sounded like you're saying you can't really tell who'd have won the Battle of Midway based on the operational plans. If that's what you're saying, then we don't agree. Yeah, small things could have been different, but absent throwing the entire Japanese operational plan into the toilet and coming up with a completely different plan, the overwhelming central tendency would be (in any similar situation) for the USN to win. Not because it's the USN, but because the Japanese operational plan stunk.

Their recon plan stunk because their CVs did not do their own recon. ONE USN CV could mount more search a.c. as a matter of doctrine than the entire Japanese strike force at Midway, and the USN had three carriers and the PBYs and B-17s to draw upon for that purpose.

Changing the Japanese recon plan requires that you imagine that Japanese did not use CVs and CAs, together, at all the way that they trained to use them for decades. So you're entering the realm of, IMO, implausible fantasy. Kind of like "what if the USN torpedoes had all been extensively tested so that all air and sub torps were as reliable as the British or Japanese ones" assumption. It's an interesting "what if," but it's really outside the parameter of things like operational planning and general strategy. So, there's "scenarios" in which you get to change all of that. But from a historical pov they are, in my view, implausible.

So when you say "change 1 float plane's search result and you get different results" then we agree. But in my view the range of plausible variation, at Midway, on that date, with the forces and plans as intended, the overwhelming central tendency would be a crushing US victory. That the US won, there, comes as no surprise at all, to me.

Then I have another anecdotal observation. Apart from Midway, the USN and IJN had carrier clashes in three battles in 1942. In *none* of them did the Japanese walk away with a victory of any kind. They lost more A6Ms to F4Fs in head to head engagements between the two types. They failed in all of their strategic objectives. And the Japanese received crippling setbacks to their CV and pilot force in EACH of those engagements to force the substantial withdrawal of carrier support in contested theatres. In every instance the US was able to maintain a working carrier in the area, despite being outnumbered, deck-wise, in every battle.

I think Midway was no fluke. No quirk. No complex adaptive system highly sensitive to small perturbations etc. IMO it was the most likely outcome, BY FAR, given the forces deployed in that place and at that time. I can easily see the Japanese losing all 4 CVs and the US not losing a single one or even having one substantially damaged. A substantial victory where the IJN sinks three or even two USN CVs for each Japanese CV sunk strikes me as so implausible as to be not worth modeling.

All I'm saying is that you can never know the outcome until it is resolved.

However, it is possible to predict the outcome in game due to the mechanics involved.

the game mechanics cannot reflect the actual tactical realities.

ORIGINAL: Bill Durrant

I respect your opinion, but if that's what you want to play, I can recommend Mark Herman's Empire of the Sun or Victory Games Pacific War.

Excellent = where are the forums for these games so we can discuss the issues there. Meantime, back to WitP AE

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

the game mechanics cannot reflect the actual tactical realities.

Sure it could. It just has not attempted to do so very well.


With all due repect, I beg to differ.
Game mechanics, in a 24 hour period, will reflect the tactical situation as a series of die rolls. modified by such factors as weather,a variety of leadership and experience factors, fleet composition, airgroup composition, search arc results, etc. Predictable game results will have the USN CV's suffer sorely at IJN hands.
This does not reflect very well that the US CV's had a 2+(?) hour jump on the IJN before being discovered.
The IJN was then only minutes away from being clobbered.
The crux of the USN plan; jump the IJN CV's before being discovered, cannot be implemented with any reliability in a standard WitP CV face-off.
Of course I realize the game is strategic in nature. Some tactical components, specifically timing, spotting, weather, and such variables, are predicated on dice rolls, not planning.

ORIGINAL: jeffs

I think what Herwin and mdiehl are (in my opinion) trying to correctly state is the game does not simulate strategic surprise (or the allied use of superior intel) well.

The US prepared an ambush that in spite of short comings of the US CV fleets of its day (mid 1942) succeeded. The US limitations are fairly well modeled in the game (strike coordination is bad).

The issue seems to be that IJN limitations
A. Poor recon
B. Stupidly falling into a trap

Are not effectively modeled in the game.

It seems pretty obvious that this is true. In 1942 the allies, even if well set up, can rarely pull off a Midway like positive result.

It can be asked that given the complexity of the war (and the nature of the simulation where carrier warfare is just 1 bit of a much larger picture) is it even possible to do much better than AE in simulating
the war overall.

That said, it would seem pretty much impossible to pull a midway in the game unless we are dealing with an IJN idiot (ie, no CAs do seach...At all!)

ORIGINAL: jeffs

I think what Herwin and mdiehl are (in my opinion) trying to correctly state is the game does not simulate strategic surprise (or the allied use of superior intel) well.

The US prepared an ambush that in spite of short comings of the US CV fleets of its day (mid 1942) succeeded. The US limitations are fairly well modeled in the game (strike coordination is bad).

The issue seems to be that IJN limitations
A. Poor recon
B. Stupidly falling into a trap

Are not effectively modeled in the game.

It seems pretty obvious that this is true. In 1942 the allies, even if well set up, can rarely pull off a Midway like positive result.

It can be asked that given the complexity of the war (and the nature of the simulation where carrier warfare is just 1 bit of a much larger picture) is it even possible to do much better than AE in simulating
the war overall.

That said, it would seem pretty much impossible to pull a midway in the game unless we are dealing with an IJN idiot (ie, no CAs do seach...At all!)

ORIGINAL: jeffs

I think what Herwin and mdiehl are (in my opinion) trying to correctly state is the game does not simulate strategic surprise (or the allied use of superior intel) well.

The US prepared an ambush that in spite of short comings of the US CV fleets of its day (mid 1942) succeeded. The US limitations are fairly well modeled in the game (strike coordination is bad).

The issue seems to be that IJN limitations
A. Poor recon
B. Stupidly falling into a trap

Are not effectively modeled in the game.

It seems pretty obvious that this is true. In 1942 the allies, even if well set up, can rarely pull off a Midway like positive result.

It can be asked that given the complexity of the war (and the nature of the simulation where carrier warfare is just 1 bit of a much larger picture) is it even possible to do much better than AE in simulating
the war overall.

That said, it would seem pretty much impossible to pull a midway in the game unless we are dealing with an IJN idiot (ie, no CAs do seach...At all!)