"Mod"-est request/proposal

[m10bob]

Several really talented people got together and provided the WITP community the "CHS" mod specifically to try to improve the historical aspects of the game.
More units of all types have been added to the game for all nations, and arrival dates have been recreated (as much as is known), and many people have been allowed to continue to provide evidence of other inaccuracies (which have also been corrected or improved on in the CHS mod, (as a now ongoing project).
Other WITP gamers have gotten in the CHS threads and made requests for "play-balance" to be improved and "what-if" units to be implemented "to give the Japanese a fighting chance".
I think it should be remembered the CHS team intentionally was going for *historical accuracy*, and not mass gamer approval, (as a commercial enterprise might).
The game has been sold with an editor, and many gamers out there have the same intelligence and creative imagination to create "mods" to benefit nearly any scenerio, with enough empty slots to create nearly any military arms mix you might imagine.
Respectfully suggest you keep this in mind when posting in the CHS specific threads..

[el cid again]

I think it should be remembered the CHS team intentionally was going for *historical accuracy*, and not mass gamer approval, (as a commercial enterprise might).
The game has been sold with an editor, and many gamers out there have the same intelligence and creative imagination to create "mods" to benefit nearly any scenerio, with enough empty slots to create nearly any military arms mix you might imagine.
Respectfully suggest you keep this in mind when posting in the CHS specific threads..

There are two unrelated problems with this:

1) There are NO SLOTS WHATEVER in some critical databases - for example Japanese ship names.

2) "historical accuracy" is somewhat a matter of opinion. I think that what actually happened is nothing like what was PROBABLE - and many decisions were made in the context of specific events that may not apply in a simulated world. For example, what if there is no battle of midway in a game? Would Shinano been converted to a carrier? Not likely. What if the Pacific Fleet is not put out of action on Dec 7, Kimmel remains in command, and there are lots of battleships to play with. Do the existing building plans still get changed in the same way? Not likely.

In my view it is more "historically accurate" to saddle both sides with the EXISTING construction plans when the war began - and NOT the modified plans that depend on events that are not likely to occur in the hypothetical world of the game. You may disagree, but it does not mean I am not as much interested in "historical accuracy" as you are. Maybe I am even more interested in it?

Another way of looking at this is "what are we simulating?" IF players are bosses - why do they not have the power to make choices like real leaders did? And why should players have the comfort of being SURE what the enemy is building - because they know history - when the real leaders DID NOT KNOW? Recreating uncertainty may be better simulation than rigidly insisting everything has to happen exactly the way it did happen.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think it should be remembered the CHS team intentionally was going for *historical accuracy*, and not mass gamer approval, (as a commercial enterprise might).
The game has been sold with an editor, and many gamers out there have the same intelligence and creative imagination to create "mods" to benefit nearly any scenerio, with enough empty slots to create nearly any military arms mix you might imagine.
Respectfully suggest you keep this in mind when posting in the CHS specific threads..

There are two unrelated problems with this:

1) There are NO SLOTS WHATEVER in some critical databases - for example Japanese ship names.

2) "historical accuracy" is somewhat a matter of opinion. I think that what actually happened is nothing like what was PROBABLE - and many decisions were made in the context of specific events that may not apply in a simulated world. For example, what if there is no battle of midway in a game? Would Shinano been converted to a carrier? Not likely. What if the Pacific Fleet is not put out of action on Dec 7, Kimmel remains in command, and there are lots of battleships to play with. Do the existing building plans still get changed in the same way? Not likely.

In my view it is more "historically accurate" to saddle both sides with the EXISTING construction plans when the war began - and NOT the modified plans that depend on events that are not likely to occur in the hypothetical world of the game. You may disagree, but it does not mean I am not as much interested in "historical accuracy" as you are. Maybe I am even more interested in it?

Another way of looking at this is "what are we simulating?" IF players are bosses - why do they not have the power to make choices like real leaders did? And why should players have the comfort of being SURE what the enemy is building - because they know history - when the real leaders DID NOT KNOW? Recreating uncertainty may be better simulation than rigidly insisting everything has to happen exactly the way it did happen.

Exactly...
The "history" I refer to is the historical event which we know happened, not that "probable" which "might have happened".
For your examples, I again refer you to the game editor, and I believe the "stock" slots do provide many openings.(The CHS slots are filled, as they should be as the CHS crew really knocked themselves out to provide as much as they could find)....

[jwilkerson]

Also a seemingly tiny - but actually huge ( in my mind ) question regards the start of the war. How far back do we go ?

Personally I prefer historical start because it minimizes a lot of variables. And I'm not sure the game engine can accuracy handle a non-historical start. What if PH is not attacked - what if P.I. is not attacked - what if US is not attacked period ? No "Rosie the Riveter" effect on production ? Sure Roosevelt will get us into the war somehow - but it might be quite different - and American desire to hit back - at the back stabbing Japanese would not have been there. We might have seen it has fighting the Brits war for them again - to help them preserve their Asian Empire. Production and morale could've been very different - at least for a while.

Because of inability for the engine to deal with these what-ifs - for me at least - a "historical" scenario - needs to begin with a "historical" start.

Now for those who want to play "lunacy in the Pacific" I have no problem with that. They acknowledge that no attempt is being made to be historical - they are playing "Space men in the Pacific" ... I have played MOO and MOO2 and MOO3 myself .. there is nothing historical about those games. So non-historical is fine. Historical is fine. As long as we say what is what.

And, I think it would be nice to have the historical game allow the players to vary their production according to events as they unfold - unfortunately again - we are limited by the engine. The Japanese have a small ability ( larger if PDU on ) to "re-prioritize" but the limits within what they have to choose from a fairly severe. The Allies have virtully no ability to react to game events as they unfold - and within our ability to change data in the editor, we have little ability to change that. For example we can add more ships on the Japanese side ( within the limits of the slots available ) and the Japanese can choose between them - and having played until late 43 at least in one PBEM I can say that it is certainly possible to give them Japanese more choices than they can build - there are constraints on Japanese production ( resources ). But on the Allied side we have to either add the Montana's and the Midways for example or not add them. There is no way to provide a "choice". So allowing the Japanese another 4 Yamatos and another 4 Taihos, begs the question of whether we should then also add Montanas and Midways. I am not aware of an intent on the part of CHS to go down this road. But Andrew is calling the ball on these items at this time.

But WITP does not have a full strategic choice production system like HOI2 or even GGWAW - it just isn't there hence the main choice is between following history ( more or less ) or creating an alternate history scenario like WPO or Iron Storm.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think it should be remembered the CHS team intentionally was going for *historical accuracy*, and not mass gamer approval, (as a commercial enterprise might).
The game has been sold with an editor, and many gamers out there have the same intelligence and creative imagination to create "mods" to benefit nearly any scenerio, with enough empty slots to create nearly any military arms mix you might imagine.
Respectfully suggest you keep this in mind when posting in the CHS specific threads..

There are two unrelated problems with this:

1) There are NO SLOTS WHATEVER in some critical databases - for example Japanese ship names.

2) "historical accuracy" is somewhat a matter of opinion. I think that what actually happened is nothing like what was PROBABLE - and many decisions were made in the context of specific events that may not apply in a simulated world. For example, what if there is no battle of midway in a game? Would Shinano been converted to a carrier? Not likely. What if the Pacific Fleet is not put out of action on Dec 7, Kimmel remains in command, and there are lots of battleships to play with. Do the existing building plans still get changed in the same way? Not likely.

In my view it is more "historically accurate" to saddle both sides with the EXISTING construction plans when the war began - and NOT the modified plans that depend on events that are not likely to occur in the hypothetical world of the game. You may disagree, but it does not mean I am not as much interested in "historical accuracy" as you are. Maybe I am even more interested in it?

Another way of looking at this is "what are we simulating?" IF players are bosses - why do they not have the power to make choices like real leaders did? And why should players have the comfort of being SURE what the enemy is building - because they know history - when the real leaders DID NOT KNOW? Recreating uncertainty may be better simulation than rigidly insisting everything has to happen exactly the way it did happen.

Not to be critical, and indeed I suppoert some of what you propose, but some aspects of the game are built on historical events. What comes to mind are the naming of US Destroyers commissioned after the war. Most of these were named after men who had died in combat in the war began. A goodly number of the Sumner class DD's, for instance, were named after sunk destroyers. How would you handle this, or does this rise to the level of historical accuracy you are seeking??

[Aawulf]

...Now for those who want to play "lunacy in the Pacific" I have no problem with that. They acknowledge that no attempt is being made to be historical - they are playing "Space men in the Pacific" ... I have played MOO and MOO2 and MOO3 myself .. there is nothing historical about those games. So non-historical is fine. Historical is fine. As long as we say what is what....

Thanks to technological advances, we can pretend we are doing something much different than playing with tin soldiers.

In that what we believe to be historically accurate is revised or forever lost every day, the best that a war gamer can hope for is an abstraction of an historical event that offers enough depth and detail to make it seem as realistic as possible. There will never be a game engine capable of modeling the infinite variables that could have turned the tide of a single engagement or the war.

In the end, we are all just playing a game with our tin soldiers that we can feel free to call "Space men in the Pacific", historically accurate or whatever is appealing to one's own needs. Some are getting the added enjoyment by doing research to make the game feel more realistic, some are getting the added enjoyment of digging into the mechanics and numbers and some are getting the added enjoyment of exercising their creativity. Hopefully, everyone is enjoying some aspect of this gaming experience otherwise we should question the sanity of the time divested from the other responsibilities and pursuits of our lives.

I am not sure why I felt compelled to respond to the above comments as though they were offensive, as it is clear that they were not intended to be. Perhaps I am suffering some guilt for my Bushido Bomber that carries 200 x 4,000 lb and 200 x 4,000 lb Incendiary or maybe it is guilt over my scenerio where I have tens of millions Chinese, Russian and Japanese infantry duking it out for mainland Asia. Seriously, I never play more than a few turns because my greatest enjoyment comes from exploring the mechanics of the game engine and databases.

[m10bob]

Well said Aawulf.........

[el cid again]

Also a seemingly tiny - but actually huge ( in my mind ) question regards the start of the war. How far back do we go ?

Personally I prefer historical start because it minimizes a lot of variables. And I'm not sure the game engine can accuracy handle a non-historical start. What if PH is not attacked - what if P.I. is not attacked - what if US is not attacked period ? No "Rosie the Riveter" effect on production ? Sure Roosevelt will get us into the war somehow - but it might be quite different - and American desire to hit back - at the back stabbing Japanese would not have been there. We might have seen it has fighting the Brits war for them again - to help them preserve their Asian Empire. Production and morale could've been very different - at least for a while.

On the other hand, not having the entire Pacific Fleet (sans carriers) out of action - and not losing the "largest concentration of strategic bombers in the world" out of action - could not have hurt that much. You are absolutely correct we were going to war - See The Cruise of the Lanokai (USNI) - written by her captain - only a LT at the time - but he made Rear Admiral. I have similar material from USS Isabel - and there was a third vessel in the President's plan.

I think there are lots of ways the war might start. Lets turn your question around - what game is BETTER to look at them???

I like to start games at mobilization - in July - and let the Japanese pick the start date for operations. I don't think this system is up to doing that - but it clearly is up to starting at any date NEAR the historical one. And I do NOT like that awful first turn move. I think it is much better to start from historical positions rather than jump thousands of miles. Create scenarios - even the historical ones - from the positions of Dec 6 (or whatever date you pick).

Japan had plans to invade Hawaii dating to 1910. They also decided to go for it at Midway (if you read the Japanese official history, which is not in English - and takes a bit of time - no English encyclopedia is that big). But it was doomed by then. Clearly an alternate option that MIGHT have been viable is to do the same thing at the start of the war.

[el cid again]

Now for those who want to play "lunacy in the Pacific" I have no problem with that. They acknowledge that no attempt is being made to be historical - they are playing "Space men in the Pacific"

I think it might be better to think of the Historical campaign as Lunacy in the Pacific!!

If you want a sensible Japanese nationalistic expansionistic war, see the Russo Japanese War. It was a war with a plan, INCLUDING an exit strategy, and downright chivilry on the part of IJA (better behavior on average than the finest English speaking armies of the modern era). They won kudos from the Russian Red Cross, and even provided POWs with women (Japanese women) for the obvious purpose - not something you get in an American POW camp! The exit plan - implemented the DAY they committed the 55 year olds (the last draft) to the Battle of Mukden - won US President Roosevelt (the first one) a Nobel Peace Prize. And the economic ratio between Russia and Japan was almost exactly the same as between the US and Japan in 1941 - ten to one.

I believe that a similar campaign - a fictional one - might have been possible for WWII - due to the great distances involved for the Allies but not for Japan - interior lines - and exploitation of genuine anti-colonial sentiment in Asia. Whatever it might be called it would not be as much lunacy as what they did do - turning real friends into enemies - etc. [A PRO Japanese Supreme Court Justice - named Santos - was exectuted in the Philippines - because Col. Tsuji could not forgive him for accepting office under any colonial regime!]

[el cid again]

The Japanese have a small ability ( larger if PDU on ) to "re-prioritize" but the limits within what they have to choose from a fairly severe.

Because the Japanese did a better job than Germany did at economic production relative to their economy (see The Air War for comparisons of all wartime powers in aircraft production as an example) this is not too severe. Japan can elect not to build battleships and instead to make tanks. We can give them Yamashita's plan too - if we want - in some scenario. Game players have better control over an economy than any tzar would have - no problem getting cooperation at all! This is a good game to play if ONE player likes to mess with economics - one of the few.
And it can contribute to operational surprise for the allies. There is never much operational surprise for Japan. Historically Japanese intel ALWAYS predicted the next Allied attack correctly. On the day the war began one Japanese captain told his daughter "we will surely lose - and I will die - but our friend" (an American naval captain) will come and find you when the war is over." Although the two officers had NO communication, the Japanese officer was exactly right: Japan lost, he died, and the American officer searched high and low for his child. Finding her in a rice paddy, he introduced himself "I am capt xyz" She replied "I know - my father told me you would come."