Is resizing a gamey?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

I don't think of course about programmed resizing. But something like this isn't it?
Most IJN fighter squadrons using the Zero can be resized to size 81, and divided into 27 plane components. Whereas previously I used all three detachments in combat, I'm going to try to keep the absolute best for the front lines.
Mechanics of resizing is for flexibility of aviation groups on aircraft carriers. Game hasn't possibility to freely create air forces.
For example not carrier capable air forces (like army air forces) can't be freely resized. So, IMHO resizing mechanich should be limited. Actions as in the quote (resizing and dividing to to increase the quantity air groups) are especially against the game.
I know that players can agree on each rule. That's not what I meant. I don't write it against any player.
For real I have to limited myself. ;-)
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Yaab »

Even if you resize groups to 181 airfract, it doesn't matter. Nothing will stop the Allied juggernaut.
GetAssista
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by GetAssista »

No, nothing in the engine is gamey per se. There are several AARs going on where everything the engine allows is allowed.
What is gamey is to take advantage of some game mechanics without your partner consent. As long as you both agree all is good
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

GetAssista - you haven't read exactly what i wrote. I know that we can agree to transfer all trops from Manchukuo to China or something like that.
But I asked if that isn't it the use of game mechanisms contrary to the purpose?
Why should we be able to freely develop fleet airforces exclusively, and it is only Japanese?
Even if you resize groups to 181 airfract, it doesn't matter. Nothing will stop the Allied juggernaut.
So probably shouldn't we play at all?
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Yaab »

Play it. You just have to conquer the CONUSA before 1944 or there will be crying and gnashing of teeth.
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

Only once I managed to play outside of 1942. So I have experience here. :-P
But this is not the topic.
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Yaab »

The only gamey aspect is using 81 aircraft as one group. If you resize and use them as three 27-aircraft groups it seems legit.
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

Why? If if you think that resizing is ok then why using groups of 81 aircraft isn't? Both things give an unjustified advantage.
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
User avatar
Korvar
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Korvar »

I believe Yaab is saying that even if resizing the groups to get more total aircraft in service is an unfair advantage, the Japanese can use all the advantages they can get.

Keeping them as one group would be gamey due to the concentration that would allow. With three separate groups, at least there will be the usual coordination considerations if you kept them all at one airfield. 27 aircraft per group falls within the parameters of how the Japanese sized their air groups.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by ny59giants »

My general 'rule of thumb' for re-sizing when playing Japan is not to make them larger than an existing air group. So, IJN fighters go to 45 and DB/TB/LB to 36. I rotate FP groups unto CS to re-size to 24. I remove the second FP group from BB/CA and re-size. The Allies have very few groups that can re-size.
[center]Image[/center]
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

I saw it and I last time used something similiar.
The Allies have very few groups that can re-size.
They also don't always have free planes. Also we can't freely resize army airforces.
These are the points why I have doubts to freely resizing.
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
etsadler
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:41 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by etsadler »

On the other hand, why, if I have sufficient aircraft and pilots, should I not be able to create as many new air groups as I want to and/or make them whatever size I want? If there is a penalty in the engine for group size then I would be properly penalized, etc.

I expect to hear "because that isn't what happened". On the Japanese side that also contributes to "that may be why we lost", so why not have the option to go beyond the poor decisions made by the real actors?
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by spence »

The game engine works to allow a specific squadron to perform its function according to squadron regardless of size. Thus, only because of the game engine, all 81 of your Japanese fighters would be allowed to take off at the same time even though no Japanese or American carrier could physically spot (and warm up the engines of) 81 aircraft on their flight deck simultaneously. Perhaps the Americans in 1944-45 could do more than a "deck spot" since they could open up their hangar decks to the air but according to "Shattered Sword" the enclosed hangar decks of all Japanese CV (types) required that the Japanese had to warm up the engines of their aircraft on the flight deck and 81 aircraft would completely fill that flight deck to the extent that there would be no take-off run whatsoever.

I always resize the UK carrier air-groups to fill up the carrier capacity (to 110%) and make the squadrons larger to a more useful size (can't imagine why anybody would have an attack squadron of 6 air-frames but I guess that worked in the Med against the Italians)
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Why? If if you think that resizing is ok then why using groups of 81 aircraft isn't? Both things give an unjustified advantage.

Not really, it is much easier to get three 81 plane air groups to coordinate that to get nine smaller units to do so. That is my biggest complaint about resizing. Basically I am not opposed to resizing as long as it is not beyond historical patterns. So I do create a few more 42 plane Allied carrier fighter groups and expand a lot of nine plane torpedo squadrons to 24 or 27 but object to creating large 80-90 plane air units.

BTW if you are playing a hard fought PBEM then the Allies just do not have the surplus planes to do much of this but with control of production the Japanese can. So within reason......
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Why? If if you think that resizing is ok then why using groups of 81 aircraft isn't? Both things give an unjustified advantage.

Not really, it is much easier to get three 81 plane air groups to coordinate that to get nine smaller units to do so. That is my biggest complaint about resizing. Basically I am not opposed to resizing as long as it is not beyond historical patterns. So I do create a few more 42 plane Allied carrier fighter groups and expand a lot of nine plane torpedo squadrons to 24 or 27 but object to creating large 80-90 plane air units.

BTW if you are playing a hard fought PBEM then the Allies just do not have the surplus planes to do much of this but with control of production the Japanese can. So within reason......

My 600+ Hellcats in the pools would disagree... and 800+ FM-2's...

I mean, I don't have that many in the pools anymore, but I did at one point.

Same with the 1200+ TBM's.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My general 'rule of thumb' for re-sizing when playing Japan is not to make them larger than an existing air group. So, IJN fighters go to 45 and DB/TB/LB to 36. I rotate FP groups unto CS to re-size to 24. I remove the second FP group from BB/CA and re-size. The Allies have very few groups that can re-size.

Actually the Allies have a ton of groups that can resize. Every CVE carries 18 fighters and 9 torpedo bombers, and all of these groups can be resized. When you consider that the Allies get close to 100 CVEs then... And, not to mention the groups that come in on the dozen or so CVLs that the Allies get. Then you have British carriers. You are probably talking 200 units that can resize. However, as I said above, until around 1945 the Allies just do not have enough planes in their pools to go crazy with resizing. I tend to resize some CVE units to bring them up to 27-30 planes but in 4/44, my pools are too thin to have done it with more than a dozen units or so.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

I expect to hear "because that isn't what happened".
But you won't hear it. "Because it give unjustified advantage for Japanese side" is answer. Only Japanese side can produce any number of aircraft. And also you can do it for navy airforce only but not for army. It's ridiculous.
I always resize the UK carrier air-groups to fill up the carrier capacity (to 110%) and make the squadrons larger to a more useful size (can't imagine why anybody would have an attack squadron of 6 air-frames but I guess that worked in the Med against the Italians)
I think that this mechanism was conceived just for such situations. But not for multipling air groups.
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

On the other hand, why, if I have sufficient aircraft and pilots, should I not be able to create as many new air groups as I want to and/or make them whatever size I want? If there is a penalty in the engine for group size then I would be properly penalized, etc.

I expect to hear "because that isn't what happened". On the Japanese side that also contributes to "that may be why we lost", so why not have the option to go beyond the poor decisions made by the real actors?

Well, it is hard to argue against this. But having gone deep as the Allies in two games there is a price to pay by the Japanese
player producing too many planes and creating too many air units. So few games go deep but it is very possible to run the Japanese economy into the ground with over production.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Anomander Rake
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:48 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Anomander Rake »

Well, it is hard to argue against this.
I don't think so, it's easy. Look above.

I think that resizing gives advantage to Japanese side especially at the early moment of the war. And maybe gives this advantege to allied side when they produce a lot of aircraft. So it acts against the game, strengthening always the stronger side.
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Is resizing a gamey?

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake
Well, it is hard to argue against this.
I don't think so, it's easy. Look above.

I think that resizing gives advantage to Japanese side especially at the early moment of the war. And maybe gives this advantege to allied side when they produce a lot of aircraft. So it acts against the game, strengthening always the stronger side.

This is a farily accurate statement. I agree with you and think for play balance (and for historical accuracy) there should be some limit on group resizing. However, that is my opinion, and others have differing opinions. Whatever your opinion is, you should agree on a rule, even a rule as vague as "reasonable" limits to group resizing, with any PBEM opponent. Ultimately, the Japanese are limited by supply and heavy industry. The allies are limited by air-frames. Resizing does not break the game, so long as massive squadrons of fighters are not used to gain a completely unrealistic numbers advantage.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”