Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

And of course it, like a lot of other points in the game, makes it a more "balanced" game and gives the JFB's less claim that "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies".

Once again , a paraphrasing of the famous quote comes to mind ..."a game designed by geniuses to be played by.....well , let's just say Non-geniuses". [:D]

No one here is claiming "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies."

This is a discussion about convoys and shipping. Why there is so much sitting around.

I for one who play the Japanese side in PBEM, the Allied side against the AI (so far) think it's interesting that there is a glut of ships. Also that the Babes have addressed this with limited cargo capacity. Obviously they felt it to be an issue, and I do as well.

I think it would be more interesting for Japanese and Allied players to have the constriction of being at the limits of resource hauling ability (maybe only in the beginning for the Allies) with the fleets so it would put more demands on industry, escorting and other logistical planning factors. This would take some of the extremes out of the game for both sides. It would be harder for the Japanese to extend the Empire to unhistorical levels like India. It would be harder to convoy effectively with the dearth of escorts early for both sides. it might push the Allied advance back to later dates with the difficulty getting enough supply, units and fuel to the South Pacific and beyond.

Hopefully that would lead to even more understanding of the situation each side faced in the war while keeping the game challenging and letting each player find solutions to the problem. Maybe even what you term balance.

Might I humbly remind you that this is a game , not a simulation? It is what it is. What we take from it is what we take, we are not likely to find some deep dark secret that generations of historians before us have missed. If it helps you understand the war better (as I think most of us do) that is a bonus , not an intention. The designers have tried to the best of their abilities, budgets, and existing technology (at the time the game engine was created) to do a really incredibly good job of making a "relatively" accurate game that was incredibly fun to play. My comment was meant only to praise those designers, developers , pre-testers, researchers and everyone else that had a hand in this games birth and expansion. If I have any criticism of any body (and anyone knows me knows this is a hobby horse of mine) is those people who continually fault them, thinking themselves smarter. I was not slamming you , or anyone else in this thread, I was simply reiterating my respect and admiration of the design team. PERIOD. [:)]

And there have been many, many, many threads on the subject of if the game was slanted towards one side or the other. I merely cite them, for the purpose of expressing my admiration of how balanced the game is. [:(]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

As for ASW, it and several other naval model behaviors stem from the utter reliance on DL in the models. It's what GG went with so long ago. It works to an extent, but IMO it under-recognizes the true value of wartime advances in sensors that favored the Allies by orders of magnitude. I've read post-war intel team reports on what they found when they tore into IJN ASW suites on their escorts. The disparities with the USN's equivalent systems were stark. In the game the DL can spike from a single air ASW hit and it stys spiked for a phase. In RL it would be minutes, as the circle of probably error spread geometrically with the sub submerged. If there were a modification to the DL code allowing for different behavior for subs versus surface ships it would help, but that's a WITP2 issue. If that one ever comes I hope some sensor modeling could be included. It was really, really important, air, surface, and submerged all three.

In the air and surface models sensors don't make or break the on-map behavior of the assets. In the sub war they do IMO. I have never seen an AAR that describes RL sub victory totals of even half of what was achieved. In some games it's 10%. On balance subs were far more important to the victory than was carrier air, and certainly LBA. But in the game many players treat them as a bother.

Yep. I've learned most of this from your very detailed posts in other threads. Then I went and looked to confirm those things through research and found evidence for those differences in ability to detect subs for each side, the Allied equipment being much more effective.

The escorting ability is something players can choose to change and most often do, so that's also a doctrinal factor that somewhat limits Allied sub warfare. The search, and especially night search, ability are really the bigger factors though, I agree.

Also it seems some of the later US subs that could dive very deep are not modeled well in game. I've not noticed a difference anyway in the ability of ships like the Japanese E to hit any late war US subs.

Not being able to hit the Japanese transport fleet more effectively is a huge drawback in Allied ability in game.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

And of course it, like a lot of other points in the game, makes it a more "balanced" game and gives the JFB's less claim that "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies".

Once again , a paraphrasing of the famous quote comes to mind ..."a game designed by geniuses to be played by.....well , let's just say Non-geniuses". [:D]

No one here is claiming "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies."

This is a discussion about convoys and shipping. Why there is so much sitting around.

I for one who play the Japanese side in PBEM, the Allied side against the AI (so far) think it's interesting that there is a glut of ships. Also that the Babes have addressed this with limited cargo capacity. Obviously they felt it to be an issue, and I do as well.

I think it would be more interesting for Japanese and Allied players to have the constriction of being at the limits of resource hauling ability (maybe only in the beginning for the Allies) with the fleets so it would put more demands on industry, escorting and other logistical planning factors. This would take some of the extremes out of the game for both sides. It would be harder for the Japanese to extend the Empire to unhistorical levels like India. It would be harder to convoy effectively with the dearth of escorts early for both sides. it might push the Allied advance back to later dates with the difficulty getting enough supply, units and fuel to the South Pacific and beyond.

Hopefully that would lead to even more understanding of the situation each side faced in the war while keeping the game challenging and letting each player find solutions to the problem. Maybe even what you term balance.

Might I humbly remind you that this is a game , not a simulation? It is what it is. What we take from it is what we take, we are not likely to find some deep dark secret that generations of historians before us have missed. If it helps you understand the war better (as I think most of us do) that is a bonus , not an intention. The designers have tried to the best of their abilities, budgets, and existing technology (at the time the game engine was created) to do a really incredibly good job of making a "relatively" accurate game that was incredibly fun to play. My comment was meant only to praise those designers, developers , pre-testers, researchers and everyone else that had a hand in this games birth and expansion. If I have any criticism of any body (and anyone knows me knows this is a hobby horse of mine) is those people who continually fault them, thinking themselves smarter. I was not slamming you , or anyone else in this thread, I was simply reiterating my respect and admiration of the design team. PERIOD. [:)]

I'm with you there. I'm not interested in this game as a simulation. But like the designers I do value it's relationship to the history.

I also recognize that a portion of the design team are still working on the game, and improving it in many ways to fit the history better. Or at least as well as can work with the old code. The DBB mods are simply an extension of the previous design work and show a deeper understanding and revision of the game. I'm pretty excited to use them in my next game.

There are quite a few genius players out there too, though. Whether you mean to or not, the cryptic nature of your previous comment did seem slanted toward highlighting that the 'JFB' think it's slanted to the Allied side. This is a theme you introduce where it didn't exist in this thread. It isn't needed.

This is a theme you introduce where it didn't exist in this thread. It isn't needed.



Please forgive me all to hell. [:@] I'll be sure to confer with you next time I comment on "your" thread...oh...that's right. It isn't yours. [:D]

Telling someone what is needed or not needed is to me somewhat suggestive of being a censor or editor. If I ever find I need either , I'll call Terminus. He's better at it. [:D]


I had made an observation. You called me on it. I explained it. Let's leave it at that. Unless someone is posting something that violates forum policy I do not see any need to tell anyone what is or is not needed. Because all you are doing is giving your opinion on a opinion. And that's fine. If that's what you are doing. If on the other hand , if what your saying is "shut up"....well lets just say I don't appreciate that. [:(]

Back to convoy size - Although I rarely put more than 20 merchies in a TF, I always run them as AMPHs. That way the receiving port size won't force me to micromanage unloading them. Granted I will always be shipping 20% less than what I could, but I find that to be an advantageous trade-off.

Also, this is from a strictly AFB vs. AI point of view.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was to respond to Spence on why a lot of ships might be in port. If the Highway is used extensively it saves hundreds of loads, at least.

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

If it didn't work well enough for you that's fine, but it has for others. And even when Japan goes the way you did it requires further non-historic tactics such as you employed. Massive investments in air ASW primarily (which your opponent has spoken to many, many times.) I have my own feelings on the submarine portion of the game, but I've related them elsewhere. Even with the investments you made there would not have been the huge number of sinkings you've achieved.

And I also pointed out that using the Highway is not cost-free. It requires a pristine route be maintained for several thousand miles. That works for the mid-game but it offers the Allies a new set of pressure points in the end.

Got it.

I would still disagree that there are a lot of players using this resource highway and trying 'not to wave it around.' Who are these players that it worked for not waving? Pax is the one I know of who can make it work regularly. I'd love to see how someone else worked it out in a PBEM game and how that went, simply so I can understand the game mechanics better. I am now committed to shipping for myself. It's one of those things that I just think is right, and it's also a lot of fun to manage.

I just find these comments suprising from someone who advocates so strongly using the game as the designers constructed it. These things are in game right? The same as so many non-historical things that are more often talked about.

The non-historical ASW air coverage I've used has been used by most other Japanese players and is also part of game design. I think subs should be less easily hit by ASW air from both sides. They should be less vulnerable to Japanese DCs. Radar should work to get the sub under before it's nailed. But it doesn't.

The game is abstract. As you've stated, you either have HRs and battle over the lines drawn, or you don't and you both trust the design as created and use it as you wish. Right?

As a Japanese player I was able to get resources to travel between Sinapore and Shanghi. In a PBEM. There is no 'secret' to it. if you understand how supply is distributed between land locaked bases, the same process applies to Oil an Resources. The 'trick' if there is one, is that a high demand for X needs to be created someone where you want the stuff to flow to. For suppy you increase the supply level at a base. For Oil you send a tanker fleet to a port and have it set to staythere until it is full.

If there is no oil there at all to start with and you are pulling a long way, then the TF will need to sit there a long time before anything shows up. Most people give up before it starts to work as it can easily take a month or more for it to work.

The reason it takes so long is that each base along the path needs to have stuff pulled/pulled to them one base/turn. So if there are 30 bases between your Oil TF and the supply, it will take over 30 days before the first oil get there. If your TF pulls out before the 'path' is completed, then everything either sits where it is or travels somewhere else where there is demand.

Unfortunately increaing the amount of demand will NOT increase the throughtput of the path. But having a high demand will make sure the maximum is passed along every turn.

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What you might be seeing are the dregs of the Japanese navy - the little xAKLs that can only carry like 82 tons of cargo - they are not worth building, but some people build them and sit them around as decoys - they absorb shells, bombs and torpedoes just as well as useful ships. I know in my current PBeM I have stopped most of them from building, they only cost 1 point a turn but I see no use for them - even barges have a better use than the 82 ton cargo haulers.

Unless they convert (PBs) . Can't have enough of those running about.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

I did say that puting more effort into China should have also meant increasing additional upgrades to other areas. I was not implying this capacity was available in the real war because Japan did not have the capacity as you point out. But as a player, if I increase my operations in China, then I am 'pretending' if you will, that I AM upgrading the capacties so this kind of transportation is doable. Even though the game has no method to actually do this.

Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option [:(] At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development [:)]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option [:(] At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development [:)]

In the geography in question Japan did not, in game or real life, have any ability to build fuel-moving infrastructure on the scale needed. Even today it would take many years to build a pipeline from Singers to Shanghai. Decades probably. The Germans couldn't have done it either.

to go back to the thread title: am I wrong to say that 1-ship TFs are much more likely to go unseen by naval search?

ORIGINAL: duettoalfa

to go back to the thread title: am I wrong to say that 1-ship TFs are much more likely to go unseen by naval search?

In my experience less likely, but not zero. Of course, they carry a lot less too. No freebies.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

I did say that puting more effort into China should have also meant increasing additional upgrades to other areas. I was not implying this capacity was available in the real war because Japan did not have the capacity as you point out. But as a player, if I increase my operations in China, then I am 'pretending' if you will, that I AM upgrading the capacties so this kind of transportation is doable. Even though the game has no method to actually do this.

Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option [:(] At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development [:)]

It would NOT be possible, no matter what you would do. Building the infrastructure from Singapore to Shanghai or even further into Korea would take far longer than the war lasted, it would even take longer nowadays,
let alone 70 years ago and Japan had NOT the capabilities to do so, no matter what you think or have done in the game. There is so much fantasy in Japanese gameplay but trying to justify the magic pipeline from
Malaya to Japan is close to total BS, sorry. The argument alone that you "are upgrading the capacities" makes it obvious that you are not really into infrastructure building of real life when you think that bringing
additional troops and support into China to kick ass there would create a magic pipeline plus an additional modern railway system to transport the ressources too.

It just wouldn't happen, fact.

The various Russian natural gas pipelines to Europe seem to take ~5 years to build (I think the quickest was 3)

they are 1-2000 miles long, and of varying capacity.

Its a huge undertaking.

Getting the UK end of the PLUTO network took most of the war to get it ready to deliver. Even then it couldn't keep up with military use, let alone anything for industrial use.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

I did say that puting more effort into China should have also meant increasing additional upgrades to other areas. I was not implying this capacity was available in the real war because Japan did not have the capacity as you point out. But as a player, if I increase my operations in China, then I am 'pretending' if you will, that I AM upgrading the capacties so this kind of transportation is doable. Even though the game has no method to actually do this.

Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option [:(] At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development [:)]

It would NOT be possible, no matter what you would do. Building the infrastructure from Singapore to Shanghai or even further into Korea would take far longer than the war lasted, it would even take longer nowadays,
let alone 70 years ago and Japan had NOT the capabilities to do so, no matter what you think or have done in the game. There is so much fantasy in Japanese gameplay but trying to justify the magic pipeline from
Malaya to Japan is close to total BS, sorry. The argument alone that you "are upgrading the capacities" makes it obvious that you are not really into infrastructure building of real life when you think that bringing
additional troops and support into China to kick ass there would create a magic pipeline plus an additional modern railway system to transport the ressources too.

It just wouldn't happen, fact.

I thought it was pretty clear that I was PRETENDING all this upgrade was happening. So that should indicate that I undersatnd that the RL capabilities were much less than in my PRETEND world. I did not ever say it was accurate portral of the RL capabilities for Japan, China, or anyone else.

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45 [:(]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45 [:(]

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego. [:)]

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45 [:(]

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego. [:)]

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

[&o][&o][&o] What he said! What he said! (Except I want TWO Seawolfs!) [:D][:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45 [:(]

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego. [:)]

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

I guess that is because a lot of JFBs don't play to the end? I played into '45 and I can tell you that the beatdown I was getting lasted a LOT longer than what I did in '42 [:D]. And it IS worse for JFBs because you KNOW there is NOTHING you can do to stop it. Occassionaly you can slow it down, but there is no way you can hold something the Allies really want.

No matter how bad things get for the Allies in '42, at least you know you WILL be able to stop it and then retaliate. A huge difference imho anyway.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45 [:(]

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego. [:)]

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

I guess that is because a lot of JFBs don't play to the end? I played into '45 and I can tell you that the beatdown I was getting lasted a LOT longer than what I did in '42 [:D]. And it IS worse for JFBs because you KNOW there is NOTHING you can do to stop it. Occassionaly you can slow it down, but there is no way you can hold something the Allies really want.

No matter how bad things get for the Allies in '42, at least you know you WILL be able to stop it and then retaliate. A huge difference imho anyway.

Not if the Japanese get a AV. I've played many GC's. I've never , ever gone to 1945 in a PBEM. As I usually play as the allies in the GC , that means 2 years of misery with no chance of "payback". [:(]