Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

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

spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by spence »

How do you wish to be able to improve as the Allies?

To begin with perhaps the addition of Mk 27 and Mk 28 homing torpedoes (escort killers: in actual use 33 hits/106 fired). Since SONAR is not included as a weapons system at all the high frequency FM SONAR that allowed US submarines to invade the Sea of Japan in spite of heavy mining is another omission. As mentioned previously the Allies were able to adapt to changes in enemy tactics/operations at least as well as the enemy adapted such changes as they adopted.

Japanese ASW doctrine and weapons was very certainly deficient to begin the war and stayed that way throughout the war. They most assuredly could have improved but the game assumes that the Allies would have done nothing whatever to change in response to whatever the Japanese did. That essentially removes the most effective weapon from the Allied arsenal. The Japanese were behind the eight ball re ASW from the start. In innovation they would always start from a position of disadvantage re their Allied opponents.

Also as mentioned previously it is the inability of the Allied Player to respond to the increased emphasis the Japanese placed on ASW. The idea that only one side can get better at what they do in warfare is ridiculous.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by Dili »

There are not many causalities to self mines in game so it is not relevant.
A way for USN to improve their counter-ASW is to change submarines. The ones they have were slow diving and not much depth capable.
But what class designs USN had? snorkel development?
Another would be more AA guns in submarines - something that Germans tried, only with initial success but since surprise was lost it dropped.

The issue is that for Japanese player to get better odds he just needs to give more existing resources to ASW and adopt a convoy system. For Allied player it is more complicated since certainly implies a different industrial effort.
InfiniteMonkey
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by InfiniteMonkey »

ORIGINAL: spence
How do you wish to be able to improve as the Allies?

To begin with perhaps the addition of Mk 27 and Mk 28 homing torpedoes (escort killers: in actual use 33 hits/106 fired).
Talk about ability to react... the best action against these guys is to open your range. At less than 20 (16/19.6) knots and 4k yards max range you have to fire them at point blank range or go completely undetected to fire. I find myself wondering how the effectiveness of these changed over time. I can see these easily gaming out as ineffective over time.

Now... let's take a different tack. You are lamenting the fact that your subs can't carry a war shot which will kill a 215 ton PB 33% of the time. Your subs carry say... 24 torpedoes. So figure 3 torpedoes per escort for the expectation of 1 hit (note kill is not guaranteed). Go for it dude. Load out those suckers on every sub and kill my escorts. I'd rather see them go glug, glug, glug than a TK. Mod those puppies in, just make sure they take up ammo slots on your boats and make sure they run at the speeds and ranges they did historically.
ORIGINAL: spence

Since SONAR is not included as a weapons system at all the high frequency FM SONAR that allowed US submarines to invade the Sea of Japan in spite of heavy mining is another omission. As mentioned previously the Allies were able to adapt to changes in enemy tactics/operations at least as well as the enemy adapted such changes as they adopted.
Japan's mine capabilities are already screwed to begin with:

1. One of the more senseless issues inherited from Scenario 1 is the Mine Tender situation. Many (but not all) of Japan's larger ports get Port size x 50 mines. Japan's 4 largest ports (Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka) get 500 mines. It would require 4 ACM's at start in each port to maintain those mines. Only Hiroshima gets enough ACM, Osaka gets ONE, and Fukuoka and Tokyo get NONE. In TOTAL, Japan gets 18 ACM to start and can convert another 37 in 15 days. Japan needs most of the at start ACM just to maintain the minefields at it's 4 largest ports.

To fully maintain all the starting minefields requires 55 to 80 ACM's. (4 size 10 ports requiring 3-4 ACM each, 5 size 9 ports requiring 3 ACM each, 3 size 7 ports requiring 2-3 ACM each, 2 size 6 ports requiring 2ACM each, 8 size 5 requiring 1-2 ACM each, and 10 size 4 ports requiring 1-2 ACM each). Even if Japan converts EVERY possible ACM, mines will still decay at major ports. That says nothing of the minefields Japan will lay as the game progresses.

2. After the first mine is hit, the likelihood that any mine will be hit goes down drastically because the minefield is detected. The 550 mines in Ominato and Hakodate are far less powerful than they appear because the DL on the minefield goes to non-zero once you hit a single mine.

3. A sub tender located in the Aleutians makes it actually more efficient to enter the Sea of Japan between Hokkaido and Sakhalin where no mining can impact you and aircraft are less likely to see you.
Your perception of risk associated with entering the Sea of Japan is out of kilter. The distance from Midway to Hakodate is 58 hexes. The distance from Attu to Hakodate is 36 hexes. The distance from Attu to Wakkanai it 32.

ORIGINAL: spence
Japanese ASW doctrine and weapons was very certainly deficient to begin the war and stayed that way throughout the war. They most assuredly could have improved but the game assumes that the Allies would have done nothing whatever to change in response to whatever the Japanese did. That essentially removes the most effective weapon from the Allied arsenal. The Japanese were behind the eight ball re ASW from the start. In innovation they would always start from a position of disadvantage re their Allied opponents.
Yup and I listed 15 ways that the IJN player legitimately can place greater emphasis on ASW ... You've given me issues I have a hard time seeing as all that big a deal.
ORIGINAL: spence
Also as mentioned previously it is the inability of the Allied Player to respond to the increased emphasis the Japanese placed on ASW. The idea that only one side can get better at what they do in warfare is ridiculous.
You have 70 years of military technology development to help you: how MIGHT you counter it? The fundamental problem of a WW2 submarine is that it spent most of its time on the surface, running on it's diesels. That means it was subject to aerial(and later radar) detection. Sufficient aerial search in an area would make effective sub patrols difficult because of limited battery life. Even snorkeling, it was subject to detection. Black sky ASW is effective in WitP:AE and it should be. Until you solve the problem of battery power, you can't solve the problem of the WW2 submarine against Black Sky ASW and determined attempts to prosecute sub contacts.

You can, however, mitigate it. It means you have to operate your subs more circumspectly than you might in the face of an opponent that does not seek to improve their ASW efforts.

1. Accept that the JFB that expends more resources on ASW is going to be more effective than the IJN was historically.

2. Understand that the linchpin of IJN ASW efforts is aerial detection and that DL/MDL plays a huge role in that.

3. Further understand that night naval search is critical to maintaining MDL. At the start of each 12 hour phase, the sub's MDL is halved. MDL is much harder to maintain at night when moonlight is low/weather is bad and ops losses are higher.

4. Operate further from airbases. Suppose I have 24 aircraft conducting an ASW patrol. Logically, how many planes search a given hex?

4 hexes from the base? 24 planes / 24 hexes at range 4 = 1 plane that searches the hex.
3 hexes from the base? 24 planes / 18 hexes at range 3 = 1.33 planes that search the hex
2 hexes from the base? 24 planes / 12 hexes at range 2 = 2 planes that search the hex
1 hex from the base? 24 planes / 6 hexes at range 1 = 4 planes that search the hex

5. Operate when moonlight is low. At the top of your game screen, two very important facts are on display: % Moonlight and forecast. Both can play a part in safer operation of your subs. A new moon = 0% moonlight. Full moon = 100% and werewolves. Operate your subs when you don't have to worry about getting bit by a werewolf.

6. Naval Searching (or any air op) in bad weather is less effective and more prone to Ops losses than in good. Operate more aggressively when the weather is bad.

7. See tm.asp?m=4410656 and review the suggestions there for additional hints. Pay particular attention to the points witpqs makes in post 4 which Korvar illustrates in Post #5


RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by RichardAckermann »

Seems most of the complaints is about JFBs ability to better counter AFBs submarines.
Maybe JFBs have more ability to improve than AFBs, because the RL Japanese did make so many more disastrous decisions that are ready to be improved by the JFBs.
Do the allied have other improvements over RL, like low naval bombing, industry bombing from china, or aggressive chinese LCUs? Where can they outperform history?

Don't take me wrong, I am not trying to take a position in this dispute, but just observing the various opinions of everyone.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by obvert »

This thread started as a question about a new WITP 3.

As others have stated, that isn't likely. Keep an old computer active (maybe buy an extra), and keep an old version of MS Windows on it. I'm using Win 8 with a classic shell that simulates Win 7, and that works fine, and should keep working for a long time.

The rest of this thread has devolved into the usual debate about balance. Seems it's coming up a lot lately.

Although I don't have the same vehemence against those who play the Japanese side, I see the validity of points being made about a "beefed up" Japan. This age old moniker of "JFB" is incredibly misleading, though. There are players that trumpet their banzais, play only Japan and use every tool available to enhance the Japanese side past historical possibilities. There are a lot of "JFBs" who play more historically. They use moderate builds and conserve resources, don't push boundaries farther than historical, (and often don't even push as far in some areas) and don't raid extensively.

Aside form that, more and more players play both sides. Those players are the ones I trust the most with their opinions on balance. If you've not seen the effects of over-production, wasted resources and overdevelopment of infrastructure in an endgame as Japan, you have no idea how devastating these can be on there ability to wage war from mid-44 onward. The VP system in my eyes is pretty well balanced, too, having seen it on both sides.

That said, I'm disappointed that the cool options Japanese players have available to convert ships, get R & D personalised, use experimental designs and put them into practice, and that there is too much focus on certain historical certainties (like ship withdrawals) limit the personalisations and tweaks an Allied player can make.

Why don't B-26 have the option of being a 2E TB? Why is their no FF Wildcat(fish)? Why can't Langley be converted back to a CVL? Why aren't other experimental plane models added in for flavour and more interesting options for the Allies? Why aren't garrison levels and partizan activities prohibitive for the Japanese taking and holding all of China?

So there are things I wish the game included, but that doesn't mean I'm not happy with it. I think in capable hands, and if the Allies allow a CV combat early, (as they did historically on numerous occasions), even playing stock PDU-off the Japanese could win a decisive battle without doing virtually anything unhistorical. They simply "win" Midway.

Likewise, if the Japanese split the KB, or take risks that the Allies read well and jump on with force, the Allies can deal Japan crippling blows in 42 that they never recover from.

Both of these scenarios have plenty of examples in already played games. So it really comes down to playing the game. Can you as a player take what you know this game allows, and make the most of it against your opponent. That's why we're all still here playing it. [:)]



"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Zecke
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Hitoeton

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by Zecke »

One of the Best players here is Willy (from Holland) (hows¡ the operation ORANGE¿; cabron¡ mira que darme la copy¡[&:]y quedarte el original¡[X(]

En fin¡; Bien¡; willy as allied in the PBME (me japan) risk his Cvs in an earlier 42; and he took control of the pacific; which can do any allied players ; an allied player must risk his Cvs just at the beguining and also bombing any airfirld without escort at the beguning of 42 WITP/WITPAE
Epsilon Eridani


RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by RichardAckermann »

I am not seeing the debate about balance as a devolution of this thread. Balance is an essential topic when thinking about creating a new WITP.
The entire thing seems to be quite delicate to properly adjust.


User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by Brady »

!
[center]Image[/center]



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by PaxMondo »

Brady,

Nice to see you drop by ...
Pax
User avatar
SheperdN7
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by SheperdN7 »

Might be a new IP someday covering the Pacific War, but a continuation of WitP? Not a chance.
Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by Yaab »

Of course there will be another war in the Pacific. Come on, nerds, do you want to play forever?
RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by RichardAckermann »

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Of course there will be another war in the Pacific. Come on, nerds, do you want to play forever?

Game: +1
Real war: -1. Not gonna order that.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by rustysi »

Come on, nerds, do you want to play forever?

Yes.[:D]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
Rogue187
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:51 am

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by Rogue187 »

This topic really spawned a life of its own! As for my two cents, the hard part of any war game is play balance vs reality. Gen. Colin Powell once said in an interview about the Gulf war, "I'm not a boxer. I don't want a fair fight." (I don't remember the quite exactly) This is the problem with any of these games. Do you hobble the strong side to help the weak side? Or do you make it as realistic as possible which will make it hard, if not impossible, for the weaker side to win? In playing AE, I wouldn't want to see unrealistic advantages given to the Japanese or disadvantages given to the Allies. In reality, the war was pretty balanced over all. The Japanese have the early advantage. But as time goes on, it shifts to the Allies. The goal of Japan was not to invade the US, but to create a stable bubble that would protect the home islands as well as provide the resources they needed to fuel their economy. I think the hard part of this game is that it is played with 20/20 hindsight. In the real 1941 and early 1942, things looked very grim. There really wasn't an option to say, "lets not do any offenses in the Pacific until the better stuff comes." You have to do something. You have to fight.

I would rather play as realistic as possible. Not because I want to crush the Japanese every time, but because I want to see that shift from inferior to superior forces. If I were to play the Japanese, I would want to be as aggressive as possible early on in order to make it as hard as possible for the Allies to win. I don't think its possible for a developer to make the perfect war game, but a few come close. I think it all really boils down to a simple question, do you enjoy playing the game?
RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

Post by RichardAckermann »

One of the problems with WITP AE is the fixed OOB, being aggressive as japan does give you overstretched forces, as you only get units that were created due to the real timeline and events. Better economy/industry does not give you advantage in covering areas that were not captured historically.
Anonymous

[Deleted]

Post by Anonymous »

[Deleted by Admins]
Post Reply

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