Matrix Games Forums

Veer wrote:My first computer wargame was some DOS based 'Sun Tzus Art of War' or some such thing back in 1990?. Don't remember much about it except that it had three main types - knights, barbarians and archers. Quite a lot of fun though.
Never played board wargames - unless you count Risk and Diplomacy.

If I recall it was entitled something like The Ancient Art of War. Whatever, I bought it in 1989 and had loads of fun playing. There was also an "Art of War at Sea" game by the same people, but I never did try that one.

Mostly at that time I played David Landrey's excellent The Battles of Napoleon and Grigsby's equally engrossing Second Front.

Which is not even to mention Earl Weaver Baseball.

When I lived in Spain I felt kind of isolated (typically American mindset, probably) from my native culture and in my feelings of disassociation found it useful to go to "Earl" for an Americana fix. So I took the MacMillan off the shelf and did some research for the 1952 season and then programmed that into the game. Then I played it out, game by game. My beloved Brooklyn Dodgers won it by something like five or six games over the Phillies, then met and defeated the Cleveland Indians (who nosed out the Yankees with a terrific stretch drive in tandem with some absolutely amazing from by the White Sox, Senators and Tigers against those same damned Yankees! thank you very much Chicago, Washington and Detroit ) in the World Series 4 games to 1. Duke Snider almost won the triple crown, but got nosed out by Stan Musial during the last week for the batting championship.

And you should have seen my stadiums. They were great! Even better when I broke down and bought the EGA version of the game, which offered somewhat better tools for that stuff.

When I returned home in 1991 I started up a BBS in San Francisco called The Earl Weaver Baseball BBS--ran it off my old 386SX Toshiba laptop with a "stacked" 40MB HD if you can believe. More amazing still, at its height that BBS claimed over 2,000 unique users, most of whom called in (their nickel) from all over the United States and from several spots outside the States including Europe, Australia and . . . the far east.

Are we having fun yet?

Mogami wrote:Hi, While I agree hitting a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher is the hardest thing in sports the pitching advantage can not compare with the serve in tennis or the first move in chess. Both of these are "winning" advantages. The server or White in Chess wins the majority of games. Both teams in baseball have pitchers and both teams get the same number of outs. There is no "winning" advantage inherent in pitching. (It's up to the players to prove who the better pitchers are.
In tennis and chess the advantage always goes to the possessor of the serve or the white pieces)

Like the 'Ol Perfessor said, "You could look it up."

Take league average for pitchers, even just for the American League in today's 1930s-ish context of mostly-hit-hardly-pitch and I know you'll find that the advantage pitchers have over hitters overawes anything a server in tennis or the first player in chess have ever enjoyed. And by a wide margin into the bargain.

This is a "winning" advantage, for baseball is all about outs and runs and nothing else at the bottom (everything else, in other words, must eventually translate into one or the other).

But I wuz rong anyhoo. Hiting a gulf bol strate iz much mor hardr still.

HMSWarspite wrote:Which record? Conquering territory - Napoleon was quite slow - look at Alexander. As for losing territory, he was slow at that, he took 2 years to lose his empire, which was not that large in global terms. Look at Persia under Darius (ok I cheated - that's Alexander again!) But also look at Carthage, lost most of N Africa after Zama. Byzantium, lost most of the east and N Africa between c670 and 700. But the champions pre Japan are (I think) the Incas - lost the entire empire in one go.

I don't know. From the fall of 1812 to the spring of 1814 Napoleon lost it all, and "all" was basically Europe right up to and including Moscow. That's a fast loss by anyone's standards. A lot faster than Alexander or the Carthagenians or anyone else I can think of.

As for "largest" empires of all time, I'd guess that goes to the English (or British if you prefer).

Originally Posted by Tristanjohn

As for the Japanese: they never stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Damien Thorn wrote:I totally disagree with that statement. It reeks with the revisionist history of someone who thinks history started with the US being a superpower.

Calm down.

Sure, the US could out produce Japan but it takes more than just production to win a war. You have to win battles as well while keeping national will from disintegrating. The US outproduced Vietnam, won every single battle and still lost the war. Imperial Japan was a hell of a lot tougher than Vietnam ever was. If the Japanese attack hadn't been undeclared then the US resolve would not have been nearly as high and the US would have probably caved in long before the Tarawa landings.

Our country (John Q. Citizen) didn't wish to be in Vietnam. I'm not even sure our government did. It's almost as if this nation allowed itself to get sucked into the 19th Century's second- or third-worst nightmare against its collective will . . . exactly how I will never understand . . . and then didn't have the wit to pull the plug on it for a decade.

World War II, on the other hand, offered very real blacks and whites for people to stare at and know clearly which side they preferred to be on, and while it's true the national consensus leading up the Parl Harbor had been in favor of staying neutral (if possible), as 1940 wore away and 1941 rang in a new day that same public began to more and more realize (this is known from Gallup polls and the like conducted back then) that while our historical ties to Japan were long and mainly friendly, that other country was not presently being led and run by the "same people," that very bad things were going down in China, and that "those people" were very much rattling threatening sabers in our otherwise pacifist direction.

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, of course, the nation was enraged. Even had Japan formally "notified" us of its intentions beforehand the nation would have reacted violently to this stimulus.

As for America's potentiality to conduct war vis-a-vis Japan's: the latter country was simply out of its league.

Win battles? That was a snap. Haven't read a serious history of what went down in the Pacific? If not, I suggest you do so. If you have, then I suggest you go back and read it again, only this time try to come away with better understanding.

Why? Is it a racist thing? Most of my friends feel the same way. I guess that's why I am the one who ends up playing the Japanese side all of the time. Actually, in most war games I am happy to play any side except the Americans. The only time I will play the Americans is in a post WW2 scenario against the Soviets.

Why? Is it a racist thing?

Are you given to asking stupid questions?

Well, that's good... as long as you play the good guys. You're not a d@mn Yankee are you?

No, I've rooted against the Yankees all my life. Used to be a Braves fan (grew up in Wisconsin) and also kind of a Brooklyn Dodgers rooter (my mother's best friend was one of those even though she lived in Wisconsin, too--Betty, that's what Mom called her, told me I'd understand one fine day how that could be, and she was right! ) and now I root (if you can call it that any more) for the Giants. At least I get to read about them everyday in the the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mostly, though I'm a Packer fan. Started backing them before Lombardi came to town. They look pretty good this year, too. (And where there's life there's hope. )

Oh, brother. I guess nobody listens. Either that or maybe they've run out of padlocks.

I was browsing the forums and ran across "Wargame Community Polls" so I ducked in for peek. Interesting what I found under "Top 3 things that turn me on about a game": according to 101 respondents the consensus wargame will 1) be a campaign that 2) focuses on "hard factors" (weapons details and the like) and stresses 3) "historical detail, even if one side almost always wins."

No go figure. And here I was being told just a few days ago in this very forum that "most gamers" want their "simulations" to feature "balanced scenarios" above any other possibility in the name of "fun."

Live and learn.

I dont understand what you people are talking about.
You send the USN CV back to Pearl three times, and you train your pilots. You use the LBA to hold off the Japs. Then you put all 6 pre-war
USN CV in one hex and the Jap cannot do much to you.

Lets assume:

He strikes with everything you have all FTR on Cap.

This is the worse case. But he will still lose many planes. They wont be back soon. You will get maybe three CV damaged.

He strikes with 1/2 FTR on escort you have all your FTR on CAP.
You will shred him. The hits he gets wont repay his losses.

He puts all HIS FTR on CAP and doesnt strike. In thise event nothing happens.

The player furthest from a base cannot keep this type of game up.
His pilots will become tired.

In a case of mutual strikes...If he has a 6 CV task force in one hex....
You will damage almost all of them. If you sink one hey thats great.
Damage is a good as sinking really because he will never get them back.

Point being that you dont need to sink his ships. You simply need to make it not possible to use them.

What is so hard about this?

With 6 USN CV in one hex, only a coordinated strike from a large base
with over 100 Betty + escort, has any real chance of actually HURTING
the US CVs.

Jap CV are useless if they dont have any planes on them.

Tristanjohn wrote:Like the 'Ol Perfessor said, "You could look it up."

Take league average for pitchers, even just for the American League in today's 1930s-ish context of mostly-hit-hardly-pitch and I know you'll find that the advantage pitchers have over hitters overawes anything a server in tennis or the first player in chess have ever enjoyed. And by a wide margin into the bargain.

This is a "winning" advantage, for baseball is all about outs and runs and nothing else at the bottom (everything else, in other words, must eventually translate into one or the other).

But I wuz rong anyhoo. Hiting a gulf bol strate iz much mor hardr still.

Hi, Your thinking that a pitcher getting a batter out is winning.
The problem with this of course is a pitcher can get 20 batters in a row out and still lose the game. While the other pitcher gives up a hit to every other batter and wins. Unlike a tennis serve where points can be scored without any chance for the opponent to act.
The serve in tennis equals a win so often that to win a match you only need to break serve one time. The first move in chess is the only difference between the players. All the pieces are equal and the starting position is equal but still the first move leads to a win in over half the games (and does not lose the other half) And the results can always be traced back to the first move. White dictates the game. (black has no chance unless White loses his first move advantage by wasting a move later and then he has only equal chances. Black cannot afford the same error. Being already a 1/2 move (a tempi in chess) behind if he loses any further tempi his position is much worse.)

In using the first move to apply to Japan I think it is important to realize the people in the know(Allied) (High military leaders and such) were not worried about losing the war. They could look at the preparations already underway and know at some point they could hold the line and begin the way back. The population like always react more to the moment.
The Japanese never had a consensus on what they needed to do to achieve a favorable end to the war. It's really pretty amazing that national leaders would follow such a course without any clear long range goals or plans for achieving them. I can't find any plan Japan made prewar for what they intended after they secured the SRA.
The porcupine notion (dig in on some outer defense ring) was disproved before the war even began. Yet they seem to have thought they would be able to declare war. Seize what they wanted and then negotiate a settlement. Not very realistic but nothing about Japan from 1920 on follows a rational path. Could they win the war?
Certainly not a war where victory required them to destroy the enemy completely.
The US and their Allies would have had to really fought the war poorly to have allowed Japan to survive much longer then they did in the actual event.
(Things like actually chase the PH strike force with the 2 USN CV in separate unsupporting TF's)
WITP does not allow the magic miracle conquests that are possible in PacWar.
Just compare maps. Units do not teleport from one base to the next in a week (and conduct combat the same turn they move) It might take 2-3 weeks of marching to move from 1 base to the next (and then your troops arrive tired and out of supply)
No I don't think anyone will conquer China or India, or Australia, or land on US West Coast.
It will be a war of attrition in the air and at sea. As Japan wins the early battles but bit by bit loses strength till before the end of 42 or early 43 at latest she can not field a force strong enough to prevent the allied advance. Operational air loss alone add up over time. USN submarines and long range aircraft. Growing power at sea. And the ability to choose the target and bring enough force to win.
Japan some how has to be able to meet these threats, and win complete victory every time.
But still, planning the period after March 1942 is a lot of fun. It's a real nerve wrecking experiance to try to beat the Allies into a position they have to beat their heads against a wall trying to break.

Mogami wrote:
It will be a war of attrition in the air and at sea. As Japan wins the early battles but bit by bit loses strength till before the end of 42 or early 43 at latest she can not field a force strong enough to prevent the allied advance. Operational air loss alone add up over time. USN submarines and long range aircraft. Growing power at sea. And the ability to choose the target and bring enough force to win.

Japan some how has to be able to meet these threats, and win complete victory every time.

But still, planning the period after March 1942 is a lot of fun. It's a real nerve wrecking experiance to try to beat the Allies into a position they have to beat their heads against a wall trying to break.

That's what I'm looking forward to, basically. I dream at night when I'm feeling giddy of an entirely new system, but I more realistically expect PW warmed over with a tad longer hair, and if worse comes to worst I guess I can live with that. Gary does design fun games, and as this is likely to be the last one on this subject I'm going to see in my gaming lifetime then I guess I'll have to. (Of course I hope I'm wrong about that. )

Hi, You can always learn C++ and program the system of your dreams.
I've been testing WITP and I like the feel of the game.
There is not a built in Japanese factor that results in victory. (it's being able to bring more force to bear)
When I run the allied side I always wipe out the Lagespi landing and stop the Japanese outside Clark Field. Wake always puts up a good fight. (in my last game as Japan. I thought I sent overwhelming force but Wake repulsed the attack (I sent an entire Bde)
(The Bde begins the game already loaded. However to capture Wake I've found I need to disembark from the large transports and reload the force onto smaller ships (rather then 6x3k 12x1.5) So they unload faster.
Wake kills landing Japanese troops quite rapidly and if you don't outpace this you lose.
The coastal defense units scattered about the map cause havoc among Japanese tranports. (Over half the transports I send out on Dec 7 return badly damaged)
It does not take much playing WITP to see that had there been a few more units here and there. A bit more supply and fuel and what not that the Japanese could quickly have bogged down.
Also sending force Z is a big mistake. It is much more effective if it moves to Java and operates under allied aircover. (waiting to ambush landings at Balikpapan.)
There are many things the allied player can do that will punish an unwary over eager Japanese player.
By May 42 I think the allied player will be conifident he has established a line he can hold. (It's only the great distance he needs to move forces over that eats time.)
If he pays attention and knows where and when the Japanese are headed he should be able to stop them.
So as Japan the problem is to reduce the time it takes for any operation and in the meantime have everything ready for the next. Then you have to be able to operate where the allies believe you won't or can't. (gets harder as time passes since the allies can prepare more areas)
There simply put are not enough Japanese to try to do too much. (failure in just one operation can cause the whole plan to derail)
The Japanese are multitasked to a degree that clearly illustrates the war was beyond them. Still thats what makes it fun being the Japanese.
You know you can't make a single mistake and have to be ready to pounce on every allied error.

Mogami wrote:
When I run the allied side I always wipe out the Lagespi landing and stop the Japanese outside Clark Field. .

This exactly what I am concerned about regarding the ground combat system. I am all for the Allies being able to put up a good fight in the PI and maybe even being able to hold the line with a little luck and poor play by an opponent, but I fear the ground combat systems over reliance on shear numbers will make it impossible for Japan to repeat its historic success in the PI and Malaya unless he grossly overcommits. Specifically he will never have the requisite 2:1 odds in those places useing the historical OOB.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for the game making it very difficult for Japan to repeat it historic success in the SRA. IMO, the historic time table should be close to the best a player could hope to achieve not the default average. The average should be more on the lines on Japans original time estimates for the completion of the campaign.

Finally, just curious how are you "always" wipeing out the Legaspi landings? Are you just guessing well or are the PA troops too powerful at this point in testing.

Regards

Update on the test scenario:

1) The editor is awkward to use, to say the least.

2) Thus far the Japanese squadrons in Rabaul have only bothered to target PM port, ignoring the transport and CV TFs around Guadacanal.

3) Not that it matters necessarily as I doubt commander ratings do much (I'd be amazed if all of those ratings are even wedded to game functions), but I've been unable to assign Turner to command of the transport TF and Yamada, who is supposed to be in charge of an airgroup at Rabaul doesn't show up. How to place all this stuff correctly is a mystery to me. Hell, we had better editors to work with from third-party vendors with for PW.

Anyone have ideas?

Tristanjohn wrote:I don't know. From the fall of 1812 to the spring of 1814 Napoleon lost it all, and "all" was basically Europe right up to and including Moscow. That's a fast loss by anyone's standards. A lot faster than Alexander or the Carthagenians or anyone else I can think of.

As for "largest" empires of all time, I'd guess that goes to the English (or British if you prefer).

I never count Napoleon as having got Russia - 6 weeks in Moscow does not an empire make! He only really lost Poland, North Germany, and France. The Incas lost something rather bigger.

You are right about the British though (largest on land area and % of worlds population!)

Hello...

1) Be amazed. All of the commander ratings are wedded to the game functions.

2) There were pretty good third party editors for PacWar, but no first party editor was released. It was functional, I know, because I used it for the PacWar patch that we did. But, it was not release quality. The editor we released, without support, was the one we used to make the game. We decided not to release it, but changed our mind at the last minute. I wrote the editor, by the way. But, I wrote it for in house use.

3) The editors (two of them, one for data and the other for scenarios) we will release with WIP will be a lot more functional. We have spent goodly bit of time externalizing data that was hard coded, so that the end user (that is you, gentle reader) will be able to make complete scenarios. I believe we will be offering some support, in the way of a "how to" bit of documentation.

Bye...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________________

Tristanjohn wrote:Update on the test scenario:

The editor is awkward to use, to say the least... Not that it matters necessarily as I doubt commander ratings do much (I'd be amazed if all of those ratings are even wedded to game functions), but I've been unable to assign Turner to command of the transport TF and Yamada, who is supposed to be in charge of an airgroup at Rabaul doesn't show up. How to place all this stuff correctly is a mystery to me. Hell, we had better editors to work with from third-party vendors with for PW.

Anyone have ideas?

Mike Wood wrote:Hello...

1) Be amazed. All of the commander ratings are wedded to the game functions.

I'm suitably amazed. Is this documented anywhere? If not, care to explain what an "Administrative" rating does where and what the effects are likely to be?

2) There were pretty good third party editors for PacWar, but no first party editor was released. It was functional, I know, because I used it for the PacWar patch that we did. But, it was not release quality. The editor we released, without support, was the one we used to make the game. We decided not to release it, but changed our mind at the last minute. I wrote the editor, by the way. But, I wrote it for in house use.

My complaint wasn't directed toward Matrix, Mike. Something's better than nothing. This post of mine was just an attempt to get a test scenario successfuly off the ground with the help of other grognards.

I've been lead to believe that this project will entail a steep price for the finished game system. I wouldn't balk at that in the least, would probably pay twice whatever you eventually ask. Thing is, I'm sure that in the main the people you sell this game to pretty much feel the same way, so why not bite down on a proverbial bullet and plan on a well-written spiral-bound planned-for-ahead-of-time hard-copy manual with a comprehensive index and just figure in the cost of this extra bit of fluffery as an additional game cost that is charged (appropriately) back to your loyal and understanding client base?

Thanks for your time, Mike.

"If I recall it was entitled something like The Ancient Art of War. Whatever, I bought it in 1989 and had loads of fun playing. There was also an "Art of War at Sea" game by the same people, but I never did try that one."

Broderbund was the publisher, you can probably pick up copies for free at www.the-underdogs.org

"No go figure. And here I was being told just a few days ago in this very forum that "most gamers" want their "simulations" to feature "balanced scenarios" above any other possibility in the name of "fun.""

Considering there are something like 25 scenarios planned for WitP, it should be possible to make most people happy. One thing missing in UV is a full length scenario which does have Midway occur.


It seems like people discussing in this thread have fundamental differences in what they are looking for in a wargame/simulation. Which of the following would each of you prefer, and explain why (if you feel like it):

A. A game which, if all the units present were the same, conditions (weather/leaders/morale etc) the same, would consistently produce exactly historical results for a battle. I.e., if you fought the Coral Sea battle Japan had both carriers damaged almost exactly the same levels and lose a CVL, Americans lose one carrier and the other is damaged

B. A game which, if all the units present were the same, conditions (weather/leaders/morale etc) thesame, would produce varied results, but nothing unrealistic/impossible. I.e., any number of possible outcomes to the Coral Sea battle, but the more extreme the results in one direction or the other from history the less likely they occur.

C. A game which, if you had the same units which were historically available, after 6 months or a year of playing you would have roughly the same losses as your historical counterpart for that time period, if you conducted similar operations.

D. A game which it is more important that any particular battle from the period can be recreated exactly (no matter how strange it was)

E. A game where the scenarios are balanced by victory points rather than adjustments of OOBs

My point is, people have different ideas of what is important and what the ideal wargame is...which doesnt make one person right or wrong, just a matter of taste in my opinion.

Mogami is one of my heroes too, for the record. Even though he told everyone that I wear pajamas with feet on them.

Hi, UV does have a full Midway scenario. Only it starts after the battle of Midway (the only way it can be done. What if the USN player lost both CV in May. He would still get the Midway victory. The only fair start date for Midway scenarios is August. (The USN decides as a result of Midway to launch Watchtower. The delay is the period required to move assets to SoPac)

I'm sorry about the Pajama thing. At least I never mentioned Ms Wigglesworth. (Sniggies stuffed sheep pillow)

As it turns out I have no problem with different people wanting different things from their games. I haven't told anyone around here that they're "stupid" just because they don't see things my way as to how this game ought to be designed. I do shake my head, though, when I'm repeatedly told that as a simulation the UV model is accurate.

As far as simulations go, or, should you prefer, wargamers per se, it isn't enough that they render more-or-less historical casualtiy totals after a year or two of play. That misses the point entirely. It is far more important to model the mechanics correctly of the period studied. Get those right and at the least the play experience must be beneficial to that extent as far as "learning" goes. A soldier turns left, he ducks at the very last instant, he takes a third sip of coffee . . . all of those events could easily figure into whether the bullet passes him by in the night or rips through his head. Chaos theory.

And I see nothing wrong with pajamas with feet in them. In fact when I bought this apparel for my duaghter I was always looking around to see if they anything similar in a larger size. But then I hate being cold at night.

Tristanjohn wrote:As it turns out I have no problem with different people wanting different things from their games. I haven't told anyone around here that they're "stupid" just because they don't see things my way as to how this game ought to be designed. I do shake my head, though, when I'm repeatedly told that as simulation the UV model is accurate.

As far as simulations go, or, should you prefer, wargamers per se, it isn't enough that they render more-or-less historical casualtiy totals after a year or two of play. That misses the point entirely. It is far more important to model the mechanics correctly of the period studied. Get those right and at the least the play experience must be beneficial to that extent as far as "learning" goes. A soldier turns left, he ducks at the very last instant, he takes a third sip of coffee . . . all of those events could easily figure into whether the bullet passes him by in the night or rips through his head. Chaos theory.

And I see nothing wrong with pajamas with feet in them. In fact when I bought this apparel for my duaghter I was always looking around to see if they anything similar in a larger size. But then I hate being cold at night.

Sadly TJ from what I have seen in this forum, the majority of the respondants fight any suggestion that there should be any change in UV.
Even when shown AAR that clearly and unambiguosly show a bias, it makes no impression.

They want a game, that gives the USN a ahistorical edge, and at the same time handicaps the IJN. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Chiteng wrote:Sadly TJ from what I have seen in this forum, the majority of the respondants fight any suggestion that there should be any change in UV.
Even when shown AAR that clearly and unambiguosly show a bias, it makes no impression.

They want a game, that gives the USN a ahistorical edge, and at the same time handicaps the IJN. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Chiteng, if you read the entire thread you will see Tristanjohn is arguing that the IJN has been given an ahistorical edge in UV...among other things.