Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

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

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Canoerebel »

What if we could introduce uncertainty and pressure and surprise in ways that would reduce the impact of foreknowledge in the game?

The foreknowledge that both sides have at the start of the game - and throughout the game - has been much discussed. It dramatically affects play - allowing the Japanese player to move farther faster - PM, for instance, is easily taken as is Lunga, Luganville, and probably Noumea. The same for the Allied player - he knows what's coming at him in the DEI and Malaya and Burma, and he doesn't really fret over the security of the West Coast.

What if at the start the game generated a set of "key objectives" for the Japanese? What if the Japanese player would gain a significant number of points for taking - and then holding at some length - these objectives?

The objectives could be randomly assigned from a pool of ten or fifteen possibilities - the Aleutians, the Line Islands, the Societies, Pago Pago and Suva, New Caledonia, North New Zealand, Ceylon, Calcutta/Diamond Harbor, etc. Perhaps to give the Allies some idea what might be targeted (after all the Allies new likely targets in the real war) they could get some kind of assessment or info after awhile that would help them pinpoint the area at risk.

This would create an incentive (and pressure) on the Japanese player to maintain a vigorous offensive in '42 while giving the Allies incentive to fight in '42.

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by freeboy »

ok, PM is easily taken? ask my pbem oponent !
I think the game really has great FOW, I just ran bombing and recon for 9 months before invading RB, and the troops there where about 4 time more, granted they are in tough shape, than my recon estimated.
If you are playing a person I totally do not agree that the players can simply not worry about things.. heck I sank Kaga 3 times per reports but she still sails and every time my oponenet had his carriers vanish in the first 9 months I would worry.. everyone can have there opinion, but the game allows great freedom within limits...
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by tocaff »

Everyone knew that the Japanese needed raw materials for their war machine and so do we.  That makes objectives fairly easy to predict so our knowing it doesn't hurt.  War planners know what targets are of value so you can predict certain attacks, but as to the how and when....  What the Japanese player goes for other than the SRA is up to the individual and that adds an element of surprise.

The Allied player can hurt himself by being to passive or to aggressive so there are choices to be made as to where to fight, bases to build, etc.

What we can't eliminate is knowing that given ships, plane types and LCUs are going to appear within a certain time frame. 

The FOW works pretty good as to the dispensing of misinformation so this to adds the element of the unknown.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
jb123
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:49 pm

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by jb123 »

I think what you're suggesting would be a different game. But I would play it. The problem is logistics for the japanese. They need the DEI, which makes PM and Rangoon obvious targets with the Aleutians not so clear an objective.

posted at the same time.
User avatar
vonTirpitz
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
Contact:

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by vonTirpitz »

Uncertainty should only happen once [:D]

The scenario editor can introduce new uncertainties with some effort and the additional scenarios being produced add a lot of enjoyment to the game.

That being said, each side is under pressure to perform throughout the game either as the aggressor or the defender. Otherwise, unless the US is dramatically weakened or Japan is given a huge industrial boost the results of the war will always be the same. A hypothetical scenario where the US strikes first would only accelerate this fact.

The next best thing I can currently think of to produce the results you suggest would be to create fictional campaigns where any of the following are true:
- locations of the oil/resources are.
- make the US resource and/or oil poor and give Japan the job of defending the DEI.
- make all of China occupied
- take India out of the war because England capitulated and Australia/NZ go it alone.

In theory, I should (as the Japanese player) be able to NOT attack any US assets on 7 December 1941 and force the US to stay neutral for a few more months or years. Now THAT would change it up a bit. [8D]

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

- G.S.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Chickenboy »

[This is a bit 'out there'] Tired of the same old coastlines and island chains dictating your strategic approach? What about a randomly generated map? A cross between WiTP-AE and CIV with its continents. Alternatively, relabel the map of Australia with "JAPAN" and vice versa (you'd have to force fit the respective IJ production and cities onto the map so that Brisbane would now be Osaka, Sydney=Tokyo, etc.). Wouldn't Japanese expansion and the war look different now?
Image
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by DeriKuk »

What about a war on a different planet? Screw history.[8|]

[sarcasm off]
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by JeffroK »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What if we could introduce uncertainty and pressure and surprise in ways that would reduce the impact of foreknowledge in the game?

I used to play with reinforcements set at +-60day variability, no more counting down to the arrival of Essex.


The foreknowledge that both sides have at the start of the game - and throughout the game - has been much discussed. It dramatically affects play - allowing the Japanese player to move farther faster - PM, for instance, is easily taken as is Lunga, Luganville, and probably Noumea. The same for the Allied player - he knows what's coming at him in the DEI and Malaya and Burma, and he doesn't really fret over the security of the West Coast.

What if at the start the game generated a set of "key objectives" for the Japanese? What if the Japanese player would gain a significant number of points for taking - and then holding at some length - these objectives?

This could be handled like the AI script generator, on a restart the VP's are shifted around

The objectives could be randomly assigned from a pool of ten or fifteen possibilities - the Aleutians, the Line Islands, the Societies, Pago Pago and Suva, New Caledonia, North New Zealand, Ceylon, Calcutta/Diamond Harbor, etc. Perhaps to give the Allies some idea what might be targeted (after all the Allies new likely targets in the real war) they could get some kind of assessment or info after awhile that would help them pinpoint the area at risk.

This would create an incentive (and pressure) on the Japanese player to maintain a vigorous offensive in '42 while giving the Allies incentive to fight in '42.


IMHO, too many players know an infinate amount more than the Commonders did IRL.

Pre war, you no how to conter the Zeke/P40, you know when your opponent will receive Musashi/Essex and whether it best to commit to Tony/F6F-5 Hellcat and that the F4U beats everyone, sometimes.

Some of the LCU problem can be handled by garrision or restrictions. But what if the Red Army was ready in August 44??

Maybe the best way to handle some of this is via mods, but you can always peek and see whats there, plus then you know whats happening in the mod [:(]
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by DeriKuk »

That's like peeking at the solution to a crossword puzzle. You're only cheating yourself.
User avatar
Windfire
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:24 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Windfire »

In theory, I should (as the Japanese player) be able to NOT attack any US assets on 7 December 1941 and force the US to stay neutral for a few more months or years. Now THAT would change it up a bit.

Additional flavor could be added by having a Russian/Japanese conflict kick off at about the same time.

Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Mike Scholl »

Of course, you could always play a live opponent.  They tend to do all kinds of strange and unexpected things. [:D]
User avatar
P.Hausser
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:24 am

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by P.Hausser »

I think that opening the game "as allies" to see what they have is gamy, and think that the individuals "fair play" feelings should prevent anyone from doing that.
However, once a player have played the game a few times, he more or less knows what the enemy has in the very early part of the war,  and it is very hard to come around that.
 
I would defiantly be in favor of a "vary setup" button,  to randomize the default setup.

 
User avatar
vlcz
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:18 am
Location: Spain

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by vlcz »

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser
I would defiantly be in favor of a "vary setup" button, to randomize the default setup.

I agree this paired with the actual non-historic first turn will make lots in "re-playability" capacities and (subjetive) be even more "historic" making the player face the uncertancies of the moment.


xj900uk
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by xj900uk »

how about this for a random element?
Suppose (this would only work against a 'live' IJN opponent) that there is a reasonable chance the US will NOT declare war on Dec 7th if PH is not attacked and a very good chance that it won't enter play if the PI aren't attacked in any way.
This reflects the politicial situation that if it were not for PH,  there was virtually no chance Roosevelt could have got a declaration of war through Congress mereley to 'back up European Colonial interests in the DEI and Indian subcontinent'  (words of 'America First' pressure group)
Now,  if the Japanese player then knows he has time (not sure how much, add some uncertainty in) to finish off the Dutch and British first before he can turn his sights on the PI and US...
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Canoerebel »

In part, my suggestion is meant to:

1)  Help the Japanese by giving them points for taking certain strategic bases and holding them for a set length.  As the game is now, the Japanese don't get any points for taking a base if they don't hold it at the end of the game.  Except for purposes of an auto-victory check, the bold Japanese player who takes Noumea or Auckland or Pago Pago doesn't benefit.  He should have to take and hold it for awhile - I'd say through the end of '42 or perhaps sometime in early '43.

2)  Creating strategic targets of this sort will give the Japanese real incentive to push further and harder.

3)  It will serve as a disencentive to the Allied player to employ Sir Robin.

4)  It reduces some of the foreknowledge that is unavoidably part of a game based on historic events and capabilities.

5)  It wouldn't change the fact that the PI, DEI and Malaya are crucial - it would just extend that "need to seize" element deeper into the game in ways the Allied player could not predict as accurately.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Q-Ball »

It would be fun to be able to set-up some forces before the first turn, within certain guidelines and maybe only certain units. This of course would favor Japan more, so that idea probably won't catch on, but it would be fun.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

[This is a bit 'out there'] Tired of the same old coastlines and island chains dictating your strategic approach? What about a randomly generated map? A cross between WiTP-AE and CIV with its continents. Alternatively, relabel the map of Australia with "JAPAN" and vice versa (you'd have to force fit the respective IJ production and cities onto the map so that Brisbane would now be Osaka, Sydney=Tokyo, etc.). Wouldn't Japanese expansion and the war look different now?

Actually, your suggestion is not as out there as you think. [:)] A variability feature for WitP has been suggested as far back as mid-life cycle for Stock WitP. Added to the suggestion was hidden SPS values that required players to scout undeveloped base areas in order to find the best locations for airfields and such. This would help prevent the inevitable hindsight moves both on offense, and esp on defense (for example, its typical for a Japan player to advance into the Solomons/NG area and find the key bases already stacked with Allied LCU's long before they became points of contention in RL or even game wise by the presence of strong Japanese assets.)

Game wise, the only real way to defeat these kinds of hindsight moves is to lunge ahead to the fringes of one's defense (or offfensive schema) and then work one's way back which in RL is backwards but gamewise, it works.

Ultimate problem, besides the complete rewrite of substantial portions of the code, is that it would hopelessly confuse the AI which is based primarily on scripts. So it remains a wonderful dream, but only a dream.

But the idea of "randomizing the battlefield" to keep things fresh and kill hindsight is as old as 8 bit wargaming.


User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In part, my suggestion is meant to:

1)  Help the Japanese by giving them points for taking certain strategic bases and holding them for a set length.  As the game is now, the Japanese don't get any points for taking a base if they don't hold it at the end of the game.  Except for purposes of an auto-victory check, the bold Japanese player who takes Noumea or Auckland or Pago Pago doesn't benefit.  He should have to take and hold it for awhile - I'd say through the end of '42 or perhaps sometime in early '43.

2)  Creating strategic targets of this sort will give the Japanese real incentive to push further and harder.

3)  It will serve as a disencentive to the Allied player to employ Sir Robin.

4)  It reduces some of the foreknowledge that is unavoidably part of a game based on historic events and capabilities.

5)  It wouldn't change the fact that the PI, DEI and Malaya are crucial - it would just extend that "need to seize" element deeper into the game in ways the Allied player could not predict as accurately.

Excellent Thread Dan. Michael and I have been talking about this exact issue.

As a capable Japanese player I KNOW what the Allies have and can--to some extent--exploit it in the opening month or two. After that time the foreknowledge is worth less and less.

The Editor is FRIENDLY to use. If I can do it ANYONE can! [:D] Since my plans for my upcoming first campaign (opponent yet to commit) are different then the actual Japanese, I have been experimenting with moving the Fleet to different starting locations, the creation of new TF, and movement of some units to different jumping off points. It would be a similar but different opening start for Japan.

Why not allow this for the Allied player? How about allowing the Allies to reposition a limited number of Victory Point starting units? What about allowing the Allies to be able to place an Australian Regiment/Brigade, American RCT, and/or New Zealand Regiment/Brigade at a different starting point? Imagine the Allies realize that Port Moresby, Suva, and Pago Pago need reinforcements NOW! That would certainly change things a bit. I'd have no problem with this.

Add the +/- 60 Day reinforcement factor and it could be a VERY different game from the outset.

Going further the suggestion of raising victory points at certain bases/objectives is very interesting. As an aggressive Japanese player I KNOW where I am going and I want to hold the live as long as possible. Others don't play the same way. Why not bump up the VP for Noumea, Suva, Pago Pago, Aleutians, and New Zealand or the Societies? A larger plumb might really encourage Japanese and Allied moves allow the Sea Lanes between the USA and Australia.

For the Japanese player those VP SHOULD go up for the longer they are held. For me this is a GOOD idea in that it would force the Allied player to begin the counter-offensive much farther away from the Home Islands and provoke me into WANTING to fight for Pago Pago in 1943...

Food for thought. I'd be open to playing this EXACT idea against any capable Allied player.

Fleet Admiral Cochran

PS I HATE SIR ROBIN!!!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by topeverest »

I think the suggestion is a good vairiant.

Those with military leadership backgrounds know that scenarios and scenario variants are played over and over again. In other words - practice makes perfect. I also agree with the comments that experienced Japanese players usually will far outstretch historic holdings, including PM. Experienced Allied players tend to use hit and run tactics early, becasue a guadalcanal style campaign in the first few months typcially will result in a serious dent in the allied cause.

At its core, I think this suggestion implies Japanese political pressure to achieve some geographic objectives not specifically defined in the current VP assignments. These geographies could have a combination of choice and assignment. That in turn drives VP's.

I discount the assumption that the Allies will run a significantly different war once they gain the initiative. There are only a few options for the Americans to get bombers in range of Japan. It could; however, significantly affect the early war.

Regarding the the chances of the West Cost invasion scare. It was just that - a scare. Top military minds of the day would have cherished an attempted Japanese invasion of America. Considering the supply lines / logistics and opportunity costs elsewhere in the empire, it is a loser from start to finish.

At present, it would be up to the initiative of the individual players to create such a variant - one scenario per variant. Allied uncertainty of those Japanese objectives would be an additional realism, if the locations could be kept secret for a period of game time.
Andy M
bradfordkay
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Introducing Uncertainty into the Game

Post by bradfordkay »

C'mon guys, Sir Robin is virtually non-existent in AE, what with the DEI and PI forces being permanently restricted to those regions. The most the allied player can hope to do is to concentrate a few of those forces in defensive redoubts, but the removal of large numbers of troops for use in the defense of Australia or New Guinea is out of the question now. 
fair winds,
Brad
Post Reply

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