WitP historically correct?

[Rainer]

There are many postings here where people claim that WitP is "historically incorrect".
Some are fairly involved about this.
While I can agree with most views I suggest sort of a fresh view.
First of all there has to be a certain degree of "correctness".
To begin with the geography should be correct, including railroads, bridges and roads. And, of course, the location of cities, villages, ports and airfields.
Alas, here the trouble starts. Because of the "flat" WitP map (unavoidable I think) which covers about a third of the globe, certain distortions creep in. As a result some distances are not "correct", and can't be.
Then there should be the "historically correct" disposition of forces at the beginning of a scenario. And those forces should consist of the "correct" manpower, but also include the "correct" equipment (guns, aircraft, tanks, ships etc). WitP is fairly good at that (some will disagree).
The military equipment and weapons should also be "correct" in the sense that they should perform closely to available data. WitP here also is reasonably good (some will disagree).
Of course, some data don't match reality (the range of the Hudsons for instance).
Some people are upset about this and demand this to be corrected. Well, that's a fair request I think.
Some go even further and demand that each battle and encounter has to come to the "historically correct" result.
Here is where I disagree.
WitP is a computer war game, or, as I prefer to call it, a computer war simulation.
The designers included a variety of random factors, and they did that for a purpose.
They don't want the game/simulation to be too predictive.
That's a good thing, at least for people playing against AI (no, I'm not going to comment on the cleverness of WitP AI here [;)]).
Furthermore, certain "bugs" and "irregularities" of the game engine can even contribute to that level of unpredictiveness.
What I am trying to say is this: playing (playing?!) WitP can be great fun, if the player accepts that he/she is trying to plot his/her strategic and tactical skills against either a human opponent or against the build in AI.
Players trying to recreate history will not only fail, but probably be disappointed.
Conclusion? A call to all to clearly distinguish in their messages bugs in the game engine from what they think is "historically incorrect".
That way the brave people dealing with forthcoming patches and further improvements will have an easier life.
Maybe ...

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

...(some will disagree)...

I love it...[:D]

[RUPD3658]

Oooh. This could be as good as the sunk/scutted thread.

The man does speak the truth however.

[Halsey]

I agree completely.

A player can add a certain level of historical accuracy by not using known design flaws as doctrine.
Limiting themselves to rules that will restrict the usage of weapons systems will also increase the enjoyment that this game has to offer.

[Cpt Sherwood]

Too bad the OPs first asumption, that the geography is correct, is in error. It is certain that the roads, railroads, etc. are not correct. And the building that took place during the war is not modeled. But, I agree mostly to what he is saying.

[Cap Mandrake]

Wait! Do you mean the land combat in China is less than rational? <swoons>

Still...you have to ask yourself..could you model the land/air/naval combat in the entire Pacific/CBI theater by writing compter code?

[Rainer]

I said the geography should be correct [;)]

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I said the geography should be correct [;)]

Play on AB's map. Like you said, distortions are unavoidable in any flat map, but AB's map is a vast improvement over stock.

CHS has done a very good job at improving the OOBs as well. The OOBs will never be 100% historically correct - if only because they changed during the war but won't change in WITP. But it's a far better representation than stock IMO.

BTW - I agree with you. I like the fact that each battle doesn't have a "historically correct" result. There were many battles IRL that had unlikely outcomes, just looking at the balance of forces. Savo Island & the Battle off Samar are two. It's frustrating at times - I painfully remember losing 3 IJN BBs to Force Z in December '41 for next to no damage in return. But I'd vastly prefer that randomness to a game that's only an exercise in mathematics.

[AmiralLaurent]

A simulation should not force you to replay the history but should confront you with the same problems than were met by historical commanders.

Logistics problems in WITP are only 10% of what they were IRL, so enabling players to do many many things that were not possible not because of commander choice, but because of geography (like for example attack with 500k men on a jungle trail) or logistics (like having 400 B-17E jump from base to base and blast everything on the way).

By the way WITP is an excellent game and was designed like that IMOO. Japan was given enough unhistorical advantages to allow for a better balanced game.

But it is an awful WWII simulation.

[m10bob]

To be geographically accurate, a map would have to be a "peeled orange" type.

To be historically accurate, every move would need to be made by the AI, both sides, in order to follow the historical unit.

I'm happy to be able to contribute to getting the units and times right.[;)]

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

To be geographically accurate, a map would have to be a "peeled orange" type.

With todays computer technology, you are no longer confined to the Mercator Projection or the Gall-Peters Projection or others for a map.

Make it a rotating globe! There was a huge discussion about this on the Matrix general forums several years ago so the seed has been planted. Now all Matrix has to do is start working on WitP II and water that seed.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

A simulation should not force you to replay the history but should confront you with the same problems than were met by historical commanders.

Logistics problems in WITP are only 10% of what they were IRL, so enabling players to do many many things that were not possible not because of commander choice, but because of geography (like for example attack with 500k men on a jungle trail) or logistics (like having 400 B-17E jump from base to base and blast everything on the way).

By the way WITP is an excellent game and was designed like that IMOO. Japan was given enough unhistorical advantages to allow for a better balanced game.

But it is an awful WWII simulation.

It's fixable. If you want a better balanced game, see my War Plan Orange scenario. Japan can attack Hawaii and get the historical scenario, or she can behave in a more civilised manner and make it very hard for the Allies.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

ORIGINAL: m10bob

To be geographically accurate, a map would have to be a "peeled orange" type.

With todays computer technology, you are no longer confined to the Mercator Projection or the Gall-Peters Projection or others for a map.

Make it a rotating globe! There was a huge discussion about this on the Matrix general forums several years ago so the seed has been planted. Now all Matrix has to do is start working on WitP II and water that seed.

Amen, brother.

The main hassle is calculating great circle movements for ships taking into account the presence of land and air zones of control. It's not so hard for aircraft.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

A simulation should not force you to replay the history but should confront you with the same problems than were met by historical commanders.

Logistics problems in WITP are only 10% of what they were IRL, so enabling players to do many many things that were not possible not because of commander choice, but because of geography (like for example attack with 500k men on a jungle trail) or logistics (like having 400 B-17E jump from base to base and blast everything on the way).

By the way WITP is an excellent game and was designed like that IMOO. Japan was given enough unhistorical advantages to allow for a better balanced game.

But it is an awful WWII simulation.

It's fixable. If you want a better balanced game, see my War Plan Orange scenario. Japan can attack Hawaii and get the historical scenario, or she can behave in a more civilised manner and make it very hard for the Allies.

Any mod may change things but won't change the biggest simulation problems (port and beach of infinite size, infinite number of troops in any hex possible, 250 AS can support infinite number of AC, supply may be changed in everything you need, land battles a all or nothing thing, air balance numbers appearing on map, fighter units engaging all enemy units until exterminated, AA guns covering 60miles hexes, torpedoes available easily, and so on).

As for the map a globe will be a good idea. But then how to divide the map ? Hex won't be very practical... the simulation will be far harder to manage. As for the "air control" areas they currently have zero influence on the choose of a path by the AI. Allied convoys sailing from West Coast to NG will sail trough Japanese-held Marshalls...

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

A simulation should not force you to replay the history but should confront you with the same problems than were met by historical commanders.

Logistics problems in WITP are only 10% of what they were IRL, so enabling players to do many many things that were not possible not because of commander choice, but because of geography (like for example attack with 500k men on a jungle trail) or logistics (like having 400 B-17E jump from base to base and blast everything on the way).

By the way WITP is an excellent game and was designed like that IMOO. Japan was given enough unhistorical advantages to allow for a better balanced game.

But it is an awful WWII simulation.

It's fixable. If you want a better balanced game, see my War Plan Orange scenario. Japan can attack Hawaii and get the historical scenario, or she can behave in a more civilised manner and make it very hard for the Allies.

"As for the map a globe will be a good idea. But then how to divide the map ? "

Longitude and latitude?

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
But it is an awful WWII simulation.

I see this complaint often (and have been guilty of it). But on this scale and with this scope, it is in a class of it's own. Certainly no other wargame comes close. I would argue the game forces you to make many more historical decisions than not.

If it was better (debate how much if you like) they could start trying to sell it to military command colleges around the world. But we would still bitch about 'unhistorical results'. Because being the biggest grognard in the world still doesn't make you a competent fleet admiral or the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (the opposite however, hmmm...). The players will inevatibly screw up in a 1000 ways that the designers never anticipated, or just simply won't accept the effects of dumb luck.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
But it is an awful WWII simulation.

I see this complaint often (and have been guilty of it). But on this scale and with this scope, it is in a class of it's own. Certainly no other wargame comes close. I would argue the game forces you to make many more historical decisions than not.

It is not a complaint, it is a state of fact. By the way I wanted a game and I am very happy with what I have, and with the support still provided by Matrix.

As for having to do "historical decisions", I disagree with you. WITP is simulating some of the problems that the real commanders had but is ignoring some (political pressure, inter-service rilvalry, international cooperation, civil war in China, needs of civilian economy) and reducing the other (climate, logistics, planification, need for reinforcements, port size) to allow things that were not possible in the real life (like a major offensive in the Northern Pacific, or a Japanese Blitzkrieg in China) or to accelerate 2 or 3 times things that were possible.

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
As for having to do "historical decisions", I disagree with you. WITP is simulating some of the problems that the real commanders had but is ignoring some (political pressure, inter-service rilvalry, international cooperation, civil war in China, needs of civilian economy) and reducing the other (climate, logistics, planification, need for reinforcements, port size) to allow things that were not possible in the real life (like a major offensive in the Northern Pacific, or a Japanese Blitzkrieg in China) or to accelerate 2 or 3 times things that were possible.

If you insist that 'awful' isn't a subjective term, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't attach so much importance to some of the things that aren't right. Some I prefer to be my own choice (like inter-service rivalry) or I just control myself with house rules (like the Aleutians). I think in some cases a more accurate simulation would make for a worse game - complicating the logistics for example could quickly make the game unplayable in any reasonable time frame by a single person. How to 'fix' it isn't always that obvious.

[Nikademus]

funny how many people play and continue to play it for such an awful game/simulation/excursion/waste of time (that last from GF unit)

[Charbroiled]

Lets see.....air units don't attack when I tell them to.....LCU don't go where I tell them to....ship don't do what I expect them to.....

How realistic can you get!!!!!