Ridiculous

[Tankerace]

Ok, I think I see how you feel about stuff like this then. Not trying to deviate, just wanting to know your opinions before I post.

I personally see Midway as a fluke, in the since that all 4 Japanese Carriers were lost for 1 US Carrier. All of Hornet's planes sans VT-8 got lost, and the strike was extremely uncoordinated. Those were just coincedences (sp). Spruance didn't tell half of CVAG-8 to get lost, and he didn't tell VT-8 to go in unescorted.

Do I think either way Midway would have been a US victory? Absolutely. The Japanese were full of hubris, and looking as far back as the Athens-Spartan wars of 2,500 years ago we can see that spells disaster. Do I think it was a fluke how the US won? You are damned right I do. There were too many little things that either went wrong or majically went right. Call it coincedence, divine intervention, whatever. I just feel that, barring the latter, it wouldn't have happened the same way again.

As to the Hood, granted, she might have blown up each time. But if Holland had got under 20,000 yards before turning, he might have gotten so close that plunging fire couldn't have touched his magazines. However, had he done the same maneuver over again, she probably would have exploded again.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Sinjen
Providence was on our side at Midway. Don't forget the Jap search plane that spotted our carriers and then had a radio malfunction and could not report. From the Soryu I believe. Also our TBM's attacked first drawing off alot of their overaggressive cap. This allowed what were mostly unescorted SBD's to savage their fleet. When our SBD's hit them they had alot of loose ordance sitting on the deck unsecured because they were in the process of switching from HE bombs for midway back to torpedoes.

Of course someone more learned could expound upon whether the above was history or more Hollywood.

My understanding is that this was fairly accurate.

The two biggest things were the Admiral in charge waffling over what to do, back and forth, back and forth. If he had just made a decision and gone with it, things would probably not have turned out as badly for the IJN (planes not on deck to detonate with their fuel and ammo). And of course the Devestators getting devestated - while bad for them - was good for the Dauntlesses, because the Zeros were completely out of position.

I don't know if the scout with the bad radio was true or not, but the other problems were definitely human error.

Not so much luck then as bad decisions. But as soon as human decisions get involved, anything can happen.

It is a legitimate question to wonder what would have happened if the CAP hadn't been drawn off so completely - SBDs probably would have still got a lot of hits in, but would have paid for it more, and probably not been as accurate - and/ or if the IJN had just launched a second wave against Midway without waffling (that is a lot harder to calculate).

But true, that isn't the way it happened. And we can be glad of that.

[sveint]

I'm not saying the result of this carrier battle should be accepted or anything (and looks like it's getting looked at by developers) but I wanted to say one thing to all you Allied PBEM players....

[center]You are FAR FAR FAR too agressive.[/center]

Don't complain if you lose carriers by being reckless.

[neuromancer]

He had said he had expected to lose his carriers too. He just figured that his ships and planes would die gloriously, spitting curses and blood as they fall, their hands on the throats of their enemy.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: sveint

I'm not saying the result of this carrier battle should be accepted or anything (and looks like it's getting looked at by developers) but I wanted to say one thing to all you Allied PBEM players....

[center]You are FAR FAR FAR too agressive.[/center]

Don't complain if you lose carriers by being reckless.

At some point, you have to pick spots of land that are to be defended. Even early. In my game with reiyc Port Moresby is one of those spots. He takes that without a fight it becomes necessary to dislodge him from a major base and makes my abilty to penetrate his defense rings that much harder. I dont even want to get into the threat it poses to Australia. No, allied players shouldnt be aggressive (which my game with xargun should more then prove) but by that same token you cant run forever. I have been studying the situation for a couple of weeks and decided I had to at least try to defend PM from Reiyc. I recognized my carriers were done. There was no getting around it. I still have two to provide that unknown threat and it is march, IM getting stronger every day. It was an acceptable loss. What made it unacceptable was something "gamey" prevented me from even remotely damaging his carriers. i should of at least gotten one full strike off. As it is...I am now screwed in the southwest pacific...(well I do have a few tricks up my sleeve).

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: sveint

I'm not saying the result of this carrier battle should be accepted or anything (and looks like it's getting looked at by developers) but I wanted to say one thing to all you Allied PBEM players....

[center]You are FAR FAR FAR too agressive.[/center]

Don't complain if you lose carriers by being reckless.

While over aggression in the face of overwhelming odds can lead to disaster, the Allied player just can't afford to let PM go without a fight.

[Tankerace]

I'm learning that out right now. I figured, since everyone said even the very hard AI was stupid, that I had nothing to worry about. Suddenly, on April 29th (months ahead of history), Japanese troops come pouring ashore on Buna, and at every island to the west of the canal. So, I am committing everything I can spare (I still don't know where KB is, and I have to protect the Central Pacific) to the area. If I lose PM, then I'll have to abandon the PH->Oz sea lanes, and pull back to the east. PM is too much a critical juncture to risk loosing.

[rroberson]

exactly

PM India Any base is Australia several central pacific islands noumea....you loose these you might as well strike your colors. I will lose PM to reiyc now that Im without my carriers and did not even scratch his. my job just got that much harder in 43.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
As to the Hood, granted, she might have blown up each time. But if Holland had got under 20,000 yards before turning, he might have gotten so close that plunging fire couldn't have touched his magazines. However, had he done the same maneuver over again, she probably would have exploded again.

I guess this is straying off topic but - I believe that Holland DID get the Hood to less than 20,000 yards when facing Bismarck, less than 15,000 in fact. This should have been close enough to avoid plunging fire, which was presumably his intention. I once read - I am not sure where or when - a theory that Hood was hit while turning to bring all guns to bear, and the few degrees of roll were enough to expose her to being hit on the deck rather than her belt. If that is true it was a case of bad luck indeed.

[pasternakski]

None of these discussions of Midway (or, for that matter, other successes of Allied arms) is balanced by the other side of the consideration, that the Japanese may have lost to an enemy with critical superiorities in command, equipment, planning, and just plain know-how.

I'm really tired of "Ooh, ooh, the Allies only won because they were lucky," or "Wah, wah, if only this or that, the Allies would have gotten their @$$es killed," and the like.

Please. If we're going to discuss history in connection with game design, let's confine ourselves to the historical realities, not subjective opinions about how the side that lost should have won because they were so superior on paper.

That's why they play the games.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Think you'll find that you just got burned by coordination in the worst way.

It sounds like due to high cap settings, you drained away most of your fighters leaving very little for escort. The uncoordination rule bit ... first group happened to be all your escort ... other group failed to meet the minimum cap rule and their mission was scrubbed hence none flew.

Need to see the turn just before if you don't mind just to verify that. Mail 'r to me Rob

That's my guess, which means it needs a look as this should not happen. This is not supposed to represent the present day Canadian military doctrine of democratic command. 'Gee Sarge, why me?-or-"I don't think so, Sarge, I've got rights!' The bombers would have launched assuming they have escort a la VT-6 and VT-8.

Morale and fatigue should not be contributors to whether a strike launches...orders do. Whether or not they are effective due to morale and fatigue is another matter.

[Jon_Hal]

Personally I would love to see the actual histroy of WW2 play out as WiTP AARs. I think there would be so many complaints about strikes not taking off, surface combats screwed up, Air to Air results wacky.. Tojo would really scream over the Midway result! "What, My four Carriers sank and I ony hit one Allied CV! The game system is broken!!" WiTP does a lot of things well and one of the best is it factors in random chance. If a person doesn't want a result that varies from history then perhaps reading a book would be better then playing the game.
I'm not saying there are bugs that need to be squashed or errors that could/should be addressed but I, for one, am just glad the guys at Matrix games made the game I've dreamed about playing for the last 20 years.

Regards

Jon

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Think you'll find that you just got burned by coordination in the worst way.

It sounds like due to high cap settings, you drained away most of your fighters leaving very little for escort. The uncoordination rule bit ... first group happened to be all your escort ... other group failed to meet the minimum cap rule and their mission was scrubbed hence none flew.

Need to see the turn just before if you don't mind just to verify that. Mail 'r to me Rob

That's my guess, which means it needs a look as this should not happen. This is not supposed to represent the present day Canadian military doctrine of democratic command. 'Gee Sarge, why me?-or-"I don't think so, Sarge, I've got rights!' The bombers would have launched assuming they have escort a la VT-6 and VT-8.

Morale and fatigue should not be contributors to whether a strike launches...orders do. Whether or not they are effective due to morale and fatigue is another matter.

exactly. Reiyc suggested my strike failed a morale check...no way...you launch, you might not be happy about it, you might put your bombs into the sea...but you launch.

[pasternakski]

You and me both, brother, you and me both.

[Tankerace]

Like Kamikazis. YOu migh tnot like it, you might bail out over the ocean, or (as in 1 historic case) you might plow your plane into a friendly hangar to save your buddies, but you do launch.

[Mr.Frag]

exactly. Reiyc suggested my strike failed a morale check...no way...you launch, you might not be happy about it, you might put your bombs into the sea...but you launch.

What happened is not going to be a morale check failure as aircraft flew the strike. Flip me the save ... don't even care if it is the replay ... just want to watch it so I can moch up that scenario.

[rroberson]

ok

[Wilhammer]

You deserve it for sending them scouts out on strike missions.

Had you ordered this in the real war, you'd of been removed from command, and besides, it would of been impossible to coordinate any strike comprised of Scouts and Carrier Planes; they simply did not train for it, and the scouts never had it in their handbook.

I'd say the game delivered the correct result.

[Twotribes]

LOL, ya right, the inclusion of a couple scout planes so unnerved and confused the carrier strike force it forgot to launch.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

well 18 dive bombers times four is 72, add 27 torpedo bombers that is 99. So what you are saying is by adding the two stinking scout planes it scuttled my raid. Absolute madness. This needs to be addressed. What is the point of the allied player even bothering before 1943.

Two basic problems, Robbie. 1) the "anti-Death Star" rule, especially in the one-sided
manner it is implemented in now, is STUPID! Either side in such a situation would have
done just what the Japanese did at PH---launched the strike in two waves. The game
doesn't quite handle such tactics, and is far too likely to "lose" squadrons instead of
having them arrive seperately---and it's weighted against the Allies. 2) "Random
Chance in the early war period ISN'T RANDOM. It's heavily weighted in favor of the
Japanese (probably so the AI can give a decent performance when playing them).
But when playing another person, you're are going to get "the fuzzy end of the lolipop"
shoved up an orafice about 90% of the time. Posters yell about the Allies "running away
to hide in the early going"; but what their really doing is complaining that they can't get
their Allied opponant to come out and suffer a one-sided beating while the programming
is stacked wildly in the Japanese favor. Suprisingly, of the five carrier battles in the
Pacific War, the Japanese never WON a single one. Even when they came out a bit
ahead on the overall score, they lost on the strategic side..., and when they lost they got
pounded. The way the game plays, they're the odds-on favorites in any battle during
the first year. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to win, just that it would be nice if
the results didn't seem so "pre-programmed".