ORIGINAL: pauk
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
This is not the "main problem" with the game. This is the flavour of the month. Problem is that there are soooo many major problems with the game as is. Hopefully we will have enough time to play the monster of a game enough to highlite them before WITP becomes so passe that no further support is forthcoming.
well, depends how you look at the game. For me, it is big problem.... like for you is overrated BB bombardmet. I guess we are different typs [;)][:D]
I think that alot of compromises must be made in the CHS, or any mod for that matter, in order to handle problems in with different circumstances. Max Flex we used to say in the Army.
In my current match with Mogami using a stock scen 15 scenario I have shown that the supply model is too generous and really screws up the situation in northern Australia, and of course the entire DEI as the Allied player can ahistorically turn the northern bases into a viable jumping off point for adventures into the DEI.
Andy Brown's wonderful map mod, a centerpiece of the CHS mod, reverses many errors regarding historical infrastructure (removes the Autobahn running around OZ for example) making supply an issue for the bases in the Northern Territories and their use as jumping off points for invasions questionable. But we need to go further than simple supply in order to deal with the B-17/B-24 issue.
Once a base hits size 6, these bombers are so easily maintained that continuous ops at 90+ operational aircraft levels are possible in the game, something not possible IRL due to wear and tear, lack of spare parts, the equatorial weather etc. So what to do? I think many bases should be cut down to size as I think the approach taken regarding base size has been too generous and/or generalized. Instead of making these bases capable of becoming size 6 (which in reality WAS possible), the game mechanics demand that we don't allow then to get to this size because if they do, it allows ahistoric performance of 4E bombers.
So, in the pursuit of historic results, sometimes we have to sacrifice historical accuracy (physical base size) to achieve the more important historical performance and allow for variance.
Uber CAP, Japanese ability to coordinate long range naval strikes, instantaneous air transfer are other things which need some help as Spence abley points out. Soooo many problems based on assumptions and lack of adequate research. The fact that so many design aspects/assumptions of previous games in the genre make it into later projects, be it by the same designer or simply games which basically started the genre and as a result have been used as flawless tomes of knowledge, is really frustrating. The RN withdrawl requirement is an example of this. Why only the Royal Navy ships? Oh, because that's how they did it in Avalon Hill's "War in the Pacific". I'm pretty sure the perceived Japanese strike coordination bonus has been passed on from game to game, entrenching itself in lore rather than being born out of fact.
