Fair and Balanced...

[treespider]

Read these words in another thread and thought I'd start a thread here on the topic. I think in all of our minds the ideal situation is for us to be able to take data and plug it into an unbiased model so that a result comes out.

Is the WitP model that biased towards one side? Is there routine in the code that identifies an item as Japanese or Allied and gives a bonus to one side or the other? The Japanese do receive the Zero bonus but are there other unseen coded features that give the Japanese or Allies benefits? Do the allies receive a benefit in search routines to account for intelligence?

Does the A2A code or ASW routine or Naval Comabt routine or others look at the devices and determine that one side is Japanese and the other Allied and make decisions based on this? Or do the routines just plug in the raw data fed to them, apply the routine to the data and feed us the results. I suppose a simple test for A2A would be just to swap the data between Allied and Japanese aircraft? I think this was discussed some time ago but I do not know if anyone actually did it.Another test could be to swap Japanese and Allied ship data and devices. I am curious as to what the results would be.

Did the designers craft the model to account for differences in doctrine or other unquantifiable aspects? How does one quantify the "surprise" of encountering a new design which far outperforms your expectations and thus your training, such that your doctrine is ill-prepared to deal with the new type and so doctrine is changed to counter the strength? I would venture this is a fair description of the "Zero-Bonus".

How much of the perceived bias towards one side or the other in this game is the result of other unbiased routines being broken or unwieldy. Early in the game when the Japanese are running amok with there accelerated aims of global conquest I would venture it is the logistics model that allows for this as much as anything. It is this same logistics model that will allow the Allies to have an accelerated reconquest period later in the game...

Anyway just some ramblings from one who may be perceived as a Japanese Fanboy, just keep in mind I was also the one who pointed out that the Japanese carriers really were floating bombs when some got upset that their CV's were being damaged and sunk too easily.

[scout1]

I think this is one that has no true answer. Fair to whom ? Balanced to what ?

If players are expecting historical results, fair enough. But, they need to apply there tactic's historically. Are there things you can take advantage of ? Sure. Overstacking is neither fair, but is balanced as both players can do this. The fact that one player has better offensive assets earlier than the other. Fair, NO. But it is historical.

I will admit that I to have fallen into the "this just doesn't seem right" trap on a number of topics. Would I like it changed to suit my view of the world. Sure. But that doesn't make it fair and balanced for other viewpoints.

So unfortunately, I think the answer to this one is there is no answer.....

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: scout1

I think this is one that has no true answer. Fair to whom ? Balanced to what ?

If players are expecting historical results, fair enough. But, they need to apply there tactic's historically. Are there things you can take advantage of ? Sure. Overstacking is neither fair, but is balanced as both players can do this. The fact that one player has better offensive assets earlier than the other. Fair, NO. But it is historical.

I will admit that I to have fallen into the "this just doesn't seem right" trap on a number of topics. Would I like it changed to suit my view of the world. Sure. But that doesn't make it fair and balanced for other viewpoints.

So unfortunately, I think the answer to this one is there is no answer.....

Agree, WWII was not fair and balanced. But there are enough identifiable 'quirks' in the game model to be worthy of fixing before worrying about the need to balance.

[YankeeAirRat]

No historical simulation or war game can factor in luck. Plain old luck has factored into so many historical events since the time of writing. So in turn game designers have to tweak to a point stats to try and achieve that luck which should fall on a certain side at a certain point.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: scout1

I think this is one that has no true answer. Fair to whom ? Balanced to what ?

If players are expecting historical results, fair enough. But, they need to apply there tactic's historically. Are there things you can take advantage of ? Sure. Overstacking is neither fair, but is balanced as both players can do this. The fact that one player has better offensive assets earlier than the other. Fair, NO. But it is historical.

I will admit that I to have fallen into the "this just doesn't seem right" trap on a number of topics. Would I like it changed to suit my view of the world. Sure. But that doesn't make it fair and balanced for other viewpoints.

So unfortunately, I think the answer to this one is there is no answer.....

one who may be perceived as a Japanese Fanboy, just keep in mind I was also the one who pointed out that the Japanese carriers really were floating bombs when some got upset that

I could be wrong, but I think Treespider is trying to differentiate the "engine" being biased from the "game" being biased. In other words ... it might be ideal to have an "engine" ( the code ) be unbaised while the "scenarios" ( the games ) might be probably unbalanced ( to reflect history ).

[treespider]

I could be wrong, but I think Treespider is trying to differentiate the "engine" being biased from the "game" being biased. In other words ... it might be ideal to have an "engine" ( the code ) be unbaised while the "scenarios" ( the games ) might be probably unbalanced ( to reflect history ).

Yes. In an ideal situation the engine/code would be be unbiased while the scenarios were filled out with whatever forces were available to the opposing sides. In my early post I was essentially asking why some people perceive a bias with the current code.

To me an engine is fair and balanced if given identical forces the outcome is decided 50-50. Now you can bias the outcome by introducing modifers..ie the Zero Bonus, Morale, Experience etc.

So is WitP engine biased or are the modifiers introduced to that engine biased?

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: scout1

I think this is one that has no true answer. Fair to whom ? Balanced to what ?

If players are expecting historical results, fair enough. But, they need to apply there tactic's historically. Are there things you can take advantage of ? Sure. Overstacking is neither fair, but is balanced as both players can do this. The fact that one player has better offensive assets earlier than the other. Fair, NO. But it is historical.

I will admit that I to have fallen into the "this just doesn't seem right" trap on a number of topics. Would I like it changed to suit my view of the world. Sure. But that doesn't make it fair and balanced for other viewpoints.

So unfortunately, I think the answer to this one is there is no answer.....

one who may be perceived as a Japanese Fanboy, just keep in mind I was also the one who pointed out that the Japanese carriers really were floating bombs when some got upset that

I could be wrong, but I think Treespider is trying to differentiate the "engine" being biased from the "game" being biased. In other words ... it might be ideal to have an "engine" ( the code ) be unbaised while the "scenarios" ( the games ) might be probably unbalanced ( to reflect history ).

That would be THE ideal way to do it!

[Alikchi2]

Implicit in this is making sure that as many factors are capable of being modified in the "scenario editor" (or equivalent) as possible. We want to be able to control the game as much as possible.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

Implicit in this is making sure that as many factors are capable of being modified in the "scenario editor" (or equivalent) as possible. We want to be able to control the game as much as possible.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!![;)][8D]

[witpqs]

Well, to the best of my recollection:

- Zero bonus, date modified

- Allied ASW modifier, much better than IJ (I forget the details), changes by date

- IJ use of AK's as AP's until a certain date

- Allied damage control (selectable)

- IJ First move bonus

- Carrier strike size limitations, date modified, favor IJ until a certain date

- Allied aircraft carrier respawn (favors IJ)

- Allied cruiser respawn (unsure which side it favors - that depends on whether the new ships brought in would be in the Pacific or Atlantic if there was no respawn rule)

- MSW respawn (I assume it's equal for both sides but I am listing it anyway because I am uncertain)

That's all I can think of right now. Maybe someone else remembers more?

[RUPD3658]

Maybe what we need is a select button for each of these. That way people could balance the game as they see fit.

I think the game is balanced but is not likly to produce historical results. The Japs can take Indai and China but the US can win the war by the end of 1943. The pace is too fast overall and this ends up being a help and hinderence to both sides.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
- Allied aircraft carrier respawn (favors IJ)

A joke, right?

[Black Mamba 1942]

No joke.
The USN loses CV hulls if they don't squander their CV's in 42.


(didn't edit this post hit wrong button trying to quote it)

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

No joke.
The USN loses CV hulls if they don't squander their CV's in 42.

But if they "squander" their CVs they "lose" those hulls as well, not to mention VPs, so where is the advantage for the Allies?

Edit: Oops. Forgot my second point - I don't see an inherent advantage for the Japanese either - the Allies do have to lose a CV to get a "respawned" one, but that is better for the Allies than losing a CV and not getting a replacement.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

No joke.
The USN loses CV hulls if they don't squander their CV's in 42.

But if they "squander" their CVs they "lose" those hulls as well, not to mention VPs, so where is the advantage for the Allies?

Edit: Oops. Forgot my second point - I don't see an inherent advantage for the Japanese either - the Allies do have to lose a CV to get a "respawned" one, but that is better for the Allies than losing a CV and not getting a replacement.

Agree if the USN lose a CV in 42 it cost points. However the original post, I believe, meant that the US CV's scheduled to arrive in history will never arrive if the CV's are not sunk. So favors IJ in that less US CV arrive unless your lose all. Points are same because you lose points for CV's whether you respawn or not.

[treespider]

My 2 cents on the respawn, and this was probably debated before.....

While the respawn rule is a "balancing" rule in the code and is probably not "fair" it also strikes to one of the unknown and subjective variables to which I was alluding ...

I agree that some of the Essex class CV's were laid down early and the first 11 ordered in 1940, however perhaps if the US does not lose some of the fleet carriers early, some of the following ships are not laid down, are delayed or cancelled. Per Janes three Midway Class CV's were cancelled in 1945 as well as two Essex's under construction in August 1945 as well as six others in March 1945

Code: Select all

Name        Laid Down      Completed
 Bennington      15/12/42
 Boxer              1943
 BH Richard       2/1/43
 Leyte               1944
 Kearsarge        1/3/44     2/3/46
 Oriskany           1944
 Antietam           1943
 Princeton           1944
 Shangri-La         1942
 Lake Champlain    1944
 Tarawa               1944
 Valley Forge        1944     3/11/46
 Philippine Sea      1944     11/5/46

[Feinder]

Could you say that Japanese production "favors" the Japanese? You can speed up ships after all, and produce far more frames than were historical (Allied airframes also exaggerated).

Frankly, I'd rather have an ACCURATE, but static OB. Dump the CV/CA respawn. Put 'em in if they were in, take 'em out, if they were out. No "producing" ships for Japan, just make it static for everybody (or you could do the +/- days things as option). Same for airframes, find a number is accurate, and stick to it.

Don't know if there are any "what if" CVs on the IJN OB, but if there are, they should either be removed, or the USN "what if" CVs (like the Midway or whatever) should be re-added. Cancelled because the war was over is meaningless in WitP, since it goes until 1946.

Production might be solely for the production of supplies or something like that.

-F-

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Could you say that Japanese production "favors" the Japanese? You can speed up ships after all, and produce far more frames than were historical (Allied airframes also exaggerated).

Agree

Frankly, I'd rather have an ACCURATE, but static OB. Dump the CV/CA respawn. Put 'em in if they were in, take 'em out, if they were out. No "producing" ships for Japan, just make it static for everybody (or you could do the +/- days things as option). Same for airframes, find a number is accurate, and stick to it.

Don't know if there are any "what if" CVs on the IJN OB, but if there are, they should either be removed, or the USN "what if" CVs (like the Midway or whatever) should be re-added. Cancelled because the war was over is meaningless in WitP, since it goes until 1946.

Problem is that per Jane's some US CV's are cancelled in March 1945 well before the war was over.

Production might be solely for the production of supplies or something like that.

-F-

[treespider]

Frankly, I'd rather have an ACCURATE, but static OB. Dump the CV/CA respawn. Put 'em in if they were in, take 'em out, if they were out. No "producing" ships for Japan, just make it static for everybody (or you could do the +/- days things as option). Same for airframes, find a number is accurate, and stick to it.

Don't know if there are any "what if" CVs on the IJN OB, but if there are, they should either be removed, or the USN "what if" CVs (like the Midway or whatever) should be re-added. Cancelled because the war was over is meaningless in WitP, since it goes until 1946.

Problem is that per Jane's some US CV's are cancelled in March 1945 well before the war was over.

After a cup of coffee....Perhaps a better version of the respawn rule would have the repawns replacing late war CV's

[mogami]

Hi, I think the Pacific war was not fair and balanced. That is why the game has victory conditions and levels and allows auto victory. (that balances it) It's going to be a dog pile on Japan if there are no conditions. You can't balance the material.