Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

...
I've heard of Allied players literally "stripping India" to reinforce Burma, or Malaysia or even the Dutch East Indies. This is totally idiotic given the value of India to the British Empire---but players will swear it's accurate because "the game allows it"? Wake up gang! The designers weren't infallible geniuses. They could (and did) screw up with the best of us. "The game permits it" is a crappy arguement for use by either side. .....

I seldom disagree with you Mike, and I may not be in disagreement now(depending on what you meant above) but as far as I have heard there were 1.5 million more Indian Army troops in India garrisoning it that are not on the OOB. So moving out just about everything that WitP gives you in India - to fight the Japanese in Burma before they can get to India seems to me a valid point of view. Not unlike MacArthur making the battle for Australia in New Guinea.

Just my two cents..
B

If you include the mialtary constabulary and such, that's about right for the theatre command. Which only PROVES the point I was making. India was far too valuable to the Brits for it to be "stripped" to send troops anyplace else---especially with no PP cost. Remember, it was Australian Forces coming Home from the Middle East that Churchill tried to divert to Burma and Malaysia. Why "piss off" the Australians if there were plenty of redily available Indian troops to send? Because India was "The Jewel in the Crown".

Everybody keeps saying they voted for historical accuracy..., but "Fantasyland" keeps gaining ground in the poll. Are the "History Fan-Boys" explaining themselves that poorly? What is keeping us from getting through to these folks that "historically accurate constraints" are simply a necessary "base line" for everybody to have what they want? Nothing in a realistically constructed basic game prevents the "fantasy fans" from building their own "imaginary edifices" on that base. Are they that SELFISH? Do they only want a game which is a farce that caters to their pipedreams? The view seems to be that not only do they want a game that ignores reality in favor of "balance", but that no-one else should be allowed reality either.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Everybody keeps saying they voted for historical accuracy..., but "Fantasyland" keeps gaining ground in the poll.

Ballot Box Stuffing? [&:]

[:'(]

Not exact numbers, mind you, but who would you put your money on,a nation that built 10 aircraft carriers during the war, or the nation that built 40?
Which nation was stretching its' resources, and which was basically stretching its' muscles?
Well, of course somebody does not have a chance to win, (if historical considerations ARE a consideration.)

Methinks some folks would better be served with a good ol' fashioned game of RISK.........[;)]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Not exact numbers, mind you, but who would you put your money on,a nation that built 10 aircraft carriers during the war, or the nation that built 40?
Which nation was stretching its' resources, and which was basically stretching its' muscles?
Well, of course somebody does not have a chance to win, (if historical considerations ARE a consideration.)

Methinks some folks would better be served with a good ol' fashioned game of RISK.........[;)]

This is where the problem arises. MOST of us seem to want a basic game scenario that reflects the realities you mention (actually the US built more like 100 Aircraft Carriers). Make a basic game that reflects this basic truth..., the Allies were going to kick the living hell out of Japan and there wasn't a damned thing the Japanese could do about it. That's reality. The Japanese player can do whatever he can to stave off the inevitable. That's the basis for judging his performance.

Now once that game is built, those who want fantasy of whatever kind can whip out the editor and build whatever kind of scenario they want. Give Japan unlimited trained pilots; double the range of all her aircraft; give the IJN extra ships, and the IJA extra troops; toss in some "midgets"; whatever you want to do. Have a ball! I for one will cheer you on, and enjoy reading the AAR's..., just don't ask me to play it.

Just first agree to let the rest of us have reality..., then you can screw with it any way you like.

Everybody keeps saying they voted for historical accuracy..., but "Fantasyland" keeps gaining ground in the poll. Are the "History Fan-Boys" explaining themselves that poorly? What is keeping us from getting through to these folks that "historically accurate constraints" are simply a necessary "base line" for everybody to have what they want? Nothing in a realistically constructed basic game prevents the "fantasy fans" from building their own "imaginary edifices" on that base. Are they that SELFISH? Do they only want a game which is a farce that caters to their pipedreams? The view seems to be that not only do they want a game that ignores reality in favor of "balance", but that no-one else should be allowed reality either.

I want historical accuracy, too. So, I agree with you. In reality, there should be no way for Japan to win the war. This is a basic as a simple rule. But thats not the point. Historical accuracy so far applies to the data base of the game. Here the first question arises, how do you want to map reality to the data base? You may define as many attributes you like to map so many reality factors as possible - but even at this level of software development you'll have to restrict yourself and thus decide which attributes to implement and which values to assign to them. First of all, the game is a piece of software, and this is its reality. So though you may define a database so historically accurate as possible, the game may still fail being a so called historical simulation as a whole. It depends on the game design and its implementation, on the game mechanics. The other extreme is having a perfect historically accurate game which totally fails as a game, which after all this piece of software is. As I stated above: This game, due to its scope and complexity, requires you so much of your life's time that a functional gameplay is absolutely essential.

So, what I want to say is that not every one which calls for historical accuracy in a game does mean the same kind of mapping of reality to the game data base and mechanics.

By the way, I hope the my English is understandable enough.

Even being an IJN fanboy I have to admit that after the attack on PH, there was no chance for Japan to win the war, neither with conditional surrender nor with breaking the US's will to fight.

BUT what if a proper DOW has been made? What if there was no sneak attack? (see surprise off). After losing say 4-5 out of the available US 8 CVs, many BBs plus almost everything in the Pacific + SRA, why it would have not been enough for the public to call it off? I dont say that after dealing with Germany things would have stayed the same but for 1941-1945 the war would have been over in the Pacific.

Sorry one more thing I am for historical what ifs. If an IJN player wants to invade West Coast why not? Is he able to bring enough troops and secure the supply? Probably not but let him blood out himsself trying it. Same with US landings in early 42. IMHO no invasion force should start without at least one week of supply. No one would send his troops into starvation willingly.

My 0.02 $.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


...................................

Just first agree to let the rest of us have reality..., then you can screw with it any way you like.

The problem is everyones reality is different.

People want the situation as it was Dec. 7 1941 - but they only want some of it. Rather than being restricted by the situations the real commanders faced they want to do anything they can think of and justify it by "If I wanted to repeat history I'd read a book instead." Or "They could have done this or that." Or "One time it happened during the war so why can't I do that?"

From what I've seen on the forum people want a tactical game/sim they can play "what-if" the way they want instead of a strategic game/sim they can play "what-if".

ORIGINAL: Sonny
The problem is everyones reality is different.

People want the situation as it was Dec. 7 1941 - but they only want some of it. Rather than being restricted by the situations the real commanders faced they want to do anything they can think of and justify it by "If I wanted to repeat history I'd read a book instead." Or "They could have done this or that." Or "One time it happened during the war so why can't I do that?"

From what I've seen on the forum people want a tactical game/sim they can play "what-if" the way they want instead of a strategic game/sim they can play "what-if".

It's not about the "situation", it's about the physical mechanics. It took every fleet oiler the Japanese had to get Kido Butai to PH and back---but the game allows the Japanese player to hang around for weeks hunting cripples and raiding merchant pipelines. REALITY wouldn't allow that..., but the game does. I took Buna from Pt. Moresby via the Kokada Trail over the Owen Stanley's. Took my troops over a month to walk that trail. Yet the turn after I took it I had 1,000's of supply and fuel points magically projected from Pt Moresby to Buna. Reality no..., Horseshit...absolutely! But it's in the game. There are dozens of things like this making a joke of the idea of "historical simulation".

How you use the forces SHOULD be pretty much up to the player. But the forces themselves, and the mechanics of the game which govern their use need to be as accurate as is possible to the actual capabilities of those forces. That's what the folks pushing for REALITY are asking for. Use your forces as you wish...., as long as the rules and capabilities of those forces are held to the same basic physical realities as those of your real life counterparts.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Not exact numbers, mind you, but who would you put your money on,a nation that built 10 aircraft carriers during the war, or the nation that built 40?
Which nation was stretching its' resources, and which was basically stretching its' muscles?
Well, of course somebody does not have a chance to win, (if historical considerations ARE a consideration.)

Methinks some folks would better be served with a good ol' fashioned game of RISK.........[;)]

This is where the problem arises. MOST of us seem to want a basic game scenario that reflects the realities you mention (actually the US built more like 100 Aircraft Carriers). Make a basic game that reflects this basic truth..., the Allies were going to kick the living hell out of Japan and there wasn't a damned thing the Japanese could do about it. That's reality. The Japanese player can do whatever he can to stave off the inevitable. That's the basis for judging his performance.

Now once that game is built, those who want fantasy of whatever kind can whip out the editor and build whatever kind of scenario they want. Give Japan unlimited trained pilots; double the range of all her aircraft; give the IJN extra ships, and the IJA extra troops; toss in some "midgets"; whatever you want to do. Have a ball! I for one will cheer you on, and enjoy reading the AAR's..., just don't ask me to play it.

Just first agree to let the rest of us have reality..., then you can screw with it any way you like.

ORIGINAL: kafka


"I want historical accuracy, too. So, I agree with you. In reality, there should be no way for Japan to win the war."

I'm not so sure, based on Victory conditions set by the players in advance. That's why we have wargames!

"By the way, I hope the my English is understandable enough."

Your English is fine!![;)]

What "balance" means to me is you get the OOB and scenario as historically accurate as possible. You make the model as reasonable as possible (lots of things can be corrected here), then you try to make a balanced game out of those tools that is fun to play for both sides.

Does it mean you make it so Japan can conquer the US? Of course not. But you can give them objectives that will in game terms extract a peace settlement....which is what Japan wanted historically anyway. It means that if the players are in the role of strategic commander, we ought not to be forced to make the same stupid mistakes Japan did.

That's what "balance" means to most of us. Apparently we aren't allowed to seek a fun game from a historically accurate model because that is "fantasyland". [8|]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


What "balance" means to me is you get the OOB and scenario as historically accurate as possible. You make the model as reasonable as possible (lots of things can be corrected here), then you try to make a balanced game out of those tools that is fun to play for both sides.

Does it mean you make it so Japan can conquer the US? Of course not. But you can give them objectives that will in game terms extract a peace settlement....which is what Japan wanted historically anyway. It means that if the players are in the role of strategic commander, we ought not to be forced to make the same stupid mistakes Japan did.

That's what "balance" means to most of us. Apparently we aren't allowed to seek a fun game from a historically accurate model because that is "fantasyland". [8|]

This is why many of us have advocated the use of optional switches, as used now for sub doctrines. Want to make the game more balanced or fun? Throw a few switches!!

However, if the game is not historically accurate to begin with, it is hard even with extensive modding to get it to resemble anything historical (Thread knows people are trying, though...) If the game is historical to start with, you can always (relatively) easily modify the game to handicap a player or give advantage to another.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


What "balance" means to me is you get the OOB and scenario as historically accurate as possible. You make the model as reasonable as possible (lots of things can be corrected here), then you try to make a balanced game out of those tools that is fun to play for both sides.

Does it mean you make it so Japan can conquer the US? Of course not. But you can give them objectives that will in game terms extract a peace settlement....which is what Japan wanted historically anyway. It means that if the players are in the role of strategic commander, we ought not to be forced to make the same stupid mistakes Japan did.

That's what "balance" means to most of us. Apparently we aren't allowed to seek a fun game from a historically accurate model because that is "fantasyland". [8|]

You are over-looking the auto-victory options, it seems????

Why not just weigh the players achievements vs the historical counterparts? This of course means getting rid of all the bizarre design assumptions and free for all nature of many models, be they logistic or combat, and get them more in line with reality. Then there is no reason why the Japanese player can't win the game while losing the war.

Losses are a great measuring stick. Territory I'm not sure should have VPs attached to them as bases are simply a means to an end. Final territorial possesion would be important to "modify" the end total VPs. This is where the game seems completely backwards...players just ram units into the breach in a wanton lust for real estate. If losses were the main deciding factor, and more appropriate VPs assigned to units, the game would be much different and players would not be so, well, gamey.

Given the historical capability, supply, weapons, command orginization, force level, etc you should be able to reporduce (or very close to) historical solution by making the same decisions as were historically made. But you would abe llow you to make different decisions as wanted. This would be like having a different commander in charge ie no Nimitz in the Pacific and/or no MacAuthur but with the same material and supply restrictions.
I think the hardest part would be giving 'realistic' supply capability. The US did not start the war with a valid supply system for the Pacific, it had to be developed, so historically the first six months to a year the allies should be forced to concentrate on developing a system to supply materials to the far flung areas of the Pacific.


my 2 cents


Oh yea historically the war was balanced, Japan knew the US would be out of it for about six months and they had better be ready for a major a** kicking after that, and they though they could do it.

Why not just weigh the players achievements vs the historical counterparts?

Some players need the flashy "victory" cut scene.

A player can look over the deployments of his units, his "units destroyed" screen, and so on, and think to himself "I am doing better than the historical dudes did".

But emotionally, that is not satisfying enough. They want the game system to acknowledge the leet-ness of their playing. Babes, like the ones from beer comercials, sighing my, er, our names...

Again, that is some players, not all.

I, for one, don't have a problem with weighing against history. However, the trick is how one measures it. I'm not particularly satisfied with how the game does it currently, but I also have no better alternative at the moment. That makes that an observation, not a complaint.

i want a historically accurate game (as much as feasible) that is also balanced...that is why if *I* was designing a game of this scope, i would include variable victory conditions which were different based on a bidding system that two players would go thru before starting the game. a total point systsem could be generated in which geographic, manpower/material/ship/plane losses and political objective subtotals would be added together. these could be updated each year of the game to allow for auto-victories. for example, japan decides that by the end of 1942 he can control cities x,y,z with no more losses than x manpower, y planes/pilots and z ships and with an invasion of australia, he increases the first two totals by some multiplier to pay for the political impact of invading austraila. the allied player makes a similar bid and they are compared to come up with an auto-victory situation for that year. who cares who wins the war...the players have agreed to a set of objectives that will determine victory. think of it like making the "contract" in a game of bridge before playing the hand.

of course this is a very basic description of how the VC's would be generated, but the point is that the two players playing the game decide what victory looks like for THEIR game. otherwise, there could be playtesting til the cows come home to try and come up with "balanced" VC for a campaign game.

(edited for grammer and speling [;)])

That's an interesting concept. Reminds me a little of the Empires in Arms system.