Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition



Message

bradk -> Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (3/16/2011 6:32:09 PM)

I've been working on a revision of Tora Tora Tora that addresses many of the things identified on this board as problems. I consider it to be a high functioning Beta version at this point. If you'd like a copy, please PM me.

Features:

Airgroups activate with current aircraft, not aircraft to be available for production at a future date.

Dutch, Commonwealth, and British airgroups can use the P39, P40, and B25 in a PBEM game.

IJ resources a consideration. IJ's resources typically in the 15,000 to 25,000 range against a penalty threshold of 10,000, instead of running past 1,000,000.

Aircraft production desgined for an astute human rather than AI. Production decisions affect the game. No functionally infinite supply of aircraft.

Cost and benefit considerations in aircraft production decisions. Better aircraft have a higher cost.

Control and production scoring lowered to be similar to SSI system so kill points are relevant. There is an incentive for both players to obtain good value for their losses.

Manual scoring (a very easy calculation) using the SSI system results in a slight uncertainty about an Allied victory, as is the case in SSI scenarios. Perhaps not completely realistic, but I think it makes for a better game.

Scenario intended for PBEM with human factory control. Will not work if factories on computer control.

Can be played against AI if player handles AI aircraft production and airgroup upgrades. Requires the following settings

Human/Human
AI HQs on full computer control
AI subs on computer control
AI aircraft factories on human control (Alt-N changes control)
Player checks AI factories and airgroups at 4 to 8 turn intervals and makes changes
Help or Max Help for AI recommended (note that Matrix recommends Max Help for AI for all its scenarios)

If IJ is AI, since you're there checking on factories and airgroups, you might as well round up the TKs and send them to Nagoya. The reason AI runs oil doiwn to almost zero early 1942 is it insists on grabbing the TKs for Combined Fleet Replenishment TFs instead of using AOs, and sometimes sends mutliple TFs each with multiple TK units.



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (6/18/2011 9:16:50 PM)

I'm into late 1943 with this scenario in a game against a human player.  Its working correctly and more realistically than Matrix scenarios.

(Space reserved for comments by my opponent, positive or negative. <G>)



zeke99 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (6/26/2011 11:49:46 AM)

Like to test, cheers



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (6/27/2011 6:13:23 AM)

Hey, Zeke, got a PM from you but when I tried to respond it said PM disabled. ???

Please send a PM with your current e mail address and I'm mail you a zip.  Version slightly modified based on experirence with my current PBEM game, which is into early 1944.



zeke99 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (6/27/2011 12:04:05 PM)

Hi Bard, just updated my email, should work now. Sending PM anyway ;)



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (6/28/2011 5:01:39 AM)

Received your e mail address and forwarded a zip with the scenario and documentation.  It needs a new aircraft icon file, which I haven't done yet.  Ought to work though, as its predecessor version is working well in a PBEM game.



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (12/19/2011 7:08:15 PM)

Two scenarios now available, Tora (starts afternoon of Dec 7, historical Pearl stike results included) and Rising sun (starts morning of Dec 7 allowing IJ player to design his own Pearl strike or omit it do to other things).

Manual scoring no longer required.  exe edited so kill multiplier applies Jan 44 as in SSI.

Detail adjustments to production based on 3 PBEM games.

Not intended for AI play but can be played against AI for familiarization purposes.



MXB2001 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (12/20/2011 5:10:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

I've been working on a revision of Tora Tora Tora that addresses many of the things identified on this board as problems. I consider it to be a high functioning Beta version at this point. If you'd like a copy, please PM me.

Features:

Airgroups activate with current aircraft, not aircraft to be available for production at a future date.

Dutch, Commonwealth, and British airgroups can use the P39, P40, and B25 in a PBEM game.

IJ resources a consideration. IJ's resources typically in the 15,000 to 25,000 range against a penalty threshold of 10,000, instead of running past 1,000,000.


Aha! I have noticed the resources in my Rising Sun game vs Allied Comp. I think they're overflowing the insidepw.exe report prog. Pretty ridiculous.

quote:


Aircraft production desgined for an astute human rather than AI. Production decisions affect the game. No functionally infinite supply of aircraft.

Cost and benefit considerations in aircraft production decisions. Better aircraft have a higher cost.

Control and production scoring lowered to be similar to SSI system so kill points are relevant. There is an incentive for both players to obtain good value for their losses.

Manual scoring (a very easy calculation) using the SSI system results in a slight uncertainty about an Allied victory, as is the case in SSI scenarios. Perhaps not completely realistic, but I think it makes for a better game.

Scenario intended for PBEM with human factory control. Will not work if factories on computer control.

Can be played against AI if player handles AI aircraft production and airgroup upgrades. Requires the following settings

Human/Human
AI HQs on full computer control
AI subs on computer control
AI aircraft factories on human control (Alt-N changes control)
Player checks AI factories and airgroups at 4 to 8 turn intervals and makes changes
Help or Max Help for AI recommended (note that Matrix recommends Max Help for AI for all its scenarios)

If IJ is AI, since you're there checking on factories and airgroups, you might as well round up the TKs and send them to Nagoya. The reason AI runs oil doiwn to almost zero early 1942 is it insists on grabbing the TKs for Combined Fleet Replenishment TFs instead of using AOs, and sometimes sends mutliple TFs each with multiple TK units.


Hmmm, I am tempted to try this vs the comp. In fact yes, I'd like to. [:)]



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (12/21/2011 4:31:41 AM)

File sent as requested in your PM.

I used computer play for testing purposes. Got things in the ballpark. PBEM games resulted in a few more adjustments.

Its possibly a better AI game than I'm saying. I've developed an aversion to playing except against a human.



MXB2001 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (12/21/2011 9:12:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

File sent as requested in your PM.

I used computer play for testing purposes. Got things in the ballpark. PBEM games resulted in a few more adjustments.

Its possibly a better AI game than I'm saying. I've developed an aversion to playing except against a human.


Heh! I've wargamed my whole life and I've developed the reverse aversion I think. I found that human opponents sometimes played too gamey for my tastes. Some were also too competitive for my tastes. On the other hand I've had excellent opponents in the past who I treasured. Guys who basically played for the fun of it, out of curiosity to see what happens if you tried a certain historical variant or strategy. I used to chat and discuss everything about the game with them.



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (12/22/2011 6:30:09 PM)

I'm fortunate to have played people who generaly oppose gamey stuff although some are quite aggressive and creative in their strategy. Their views and input is why the the recommended rule set for PWB isn't thee short paragraphs. Most of which could be summarized as "don't take advantage when the game can't realistically simulate a condition".

I'd consider working on a game that would work better for AI play but would want the help of a person who is primarily an AI player. Early view is there would need to be separate exes for Allied and IJ AI.



Fishbreath -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (3/22/2012 3:26:21 PM)

Is this still available? If it is, could you PM it to me?



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (3/25/2012 12:00:32 PM)

Actually what I have is a better version, the result of suggestions by people who played earlier versions. Sent by PM.



Fishbreath -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (3/26/2012 4:00:23 PM)

With bradk's permission, I've mirrored his files at http://many-words.com/pacific-war/ , along with the manual from the Pacific War v3.0 zip and the Wargame Academy annotated rules.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (3/26/2012 9:45:34 PM)

Thanks to all, for providing the download.[:)]



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/27/2012 12:47:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbreath

With bradk's permission, I've mirrored his files at http://many-words.com/pacific-war/ , along with the manual from the Pacific War v3.0 zip and the Wargame Academy annotated rules.


There is also a document I've found very useful, written in the 90s, PWHints. Its for the SSI version but I've added notes applicable to Matrix V 3.2. If you'd like to put it on your site I can send it to you.



Fishbreath -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (9/25/2012 4:49:59 PM)

Send away, and I'll put it up when I get a chance.



zeke99 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (3/30/2013 2:14:40 AM)

Hi Brad,

playing your scenario with Skipjack as Jap, some remarks:

The Jap production is too low! End of 1943 it is at 65, heavy ind 185 (oil 167,000, resources 570,000) and the output is not even replacing moderate ac losses [:(]

There are 4-5 Jap blank factories @ 1 doing nothing

Also you seemed to have changed the values of the Jap long lances torp, can't hardly get any hit and if they hit nearly no damage.

Please check.
Cheers
Chris



zeke99 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (4/25/2013 2:05:57 PM)

Update 9/44

Avoiding air combat since months and still unable to fill up my sqns. The Jap production is way below historic and I have far more oil and resources than the Japs ever had.

I can NOT recommend this scenario.



Skipjack_ -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (4/27/2013 3:32:55 AM)

I have noticed the challenges of getting front-line aircraft to my squadrons - this was very pronounced in 1942 when the allied squadrons had to rely on British or export versions of the P39/P40s. But that was what I was expecting from the scenario notes. It was late 1943 before the allied squadrons turned in the last of their P39 exports, P40 exports and Hawks. Could only keep maybe 1 squadron operational of each do to lack of production. More factories and the ability of the allies to use the F4U and the P47 eased the shortages. Still I did not produce the FM2 in 1943, regarded it as a luxury (F4F would have to do).

Loss of the B17 pool at the end of 1942 was painful; even though I knew it was coming, without it there was no way to transfer B17s to remaining squadrons after upgrading 1 group with Liberators. Result was several squadrons out of action awaiting replacements. 4E bombers have been short all game and Jan 1944 I still have <30 in the B24 pool. Still no B29 factories on line - guess I will have to go on waiting for them [;)]

On the plus side, getting the F6F in April was a big improvement. [8D]



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/6/2013 9:33:14 PM)

Sorry for the delayed response. Haven't been here in months. Lots of going on real life... settling into my new house, daughter got married, preparing to sell my parents house, had a hard drive failure... you get the picture...

Anyway.

1) Amounts of oil and resources at bases exactly match SSI. Players using the Rich Dionne method of conserving oil and resources may not experience shortages intended by both SSI and Matrix.

2) Heavy industry production is exactly the same as SSI.

3) If an exactly historical game is played, we don't know if aircraft losses will match historical losses. So talking about historical aircraft production is irrelevant. We do know, however, that in a typical game with the Matrix version, the US accmulates tac bombers and fighters far in excess of what anyone can use. I have no idea how the production in SSI, Matrix, or my modification compare with actual produciton. Again, its irrelevant unless it can be shown losses in an exactly historical game match historical losses.

4) I"m not sure what version the two of you are playing. However, after sereral games playing both sides and with input from players some aircraft productionw was adjusted in later versions. Also I believe I have the non usable factor problem fixed.

5) The aircraft produciton system in SSI and Matrix was designed for computer controlled production. We know the computer is a lot less effective than a human. So the production is designed to present some challenges for a human.

6) No adjustments in weapons except to reduce the warhead of strafe run (in Matrix is was higher than rockets) and to add a 100 kg bomb for the Ki 32. So the IJN torpedo is exactly as in Matrix.

7) Withdrawal of the B17 duplicates the feature in SSI.

8) If you're playing an early version B29 production will be inadequate.

9) While availabiltiy of the P 39 and P40 to non-US airgroups is limited, I want to remind players that in a Matrix PBEM game these aircraft ar not available at all. In Matrix non-US fighter groups are stuck with British aricraft and the F4F until the F4U1 (turn 50) and F6F (turn 70) which is a long time to go without better historically available fighters. Perhaps the availability of the P39 and P40 isn't enough of an improvement but its a step in the right direction.


For those who don't have the scenario, here are some of the scenario notes to help understand the issues being raised.

Production Capacity, % of SSI, includes factories and cost

IJ Fighters

Turn Matrix PWB 1.06

45 119% 86%
130* 160% 79%
Final* 181% 80%

* A6M2, A6M5, N1K, Ki43 II, Ki44, Ki61, Ki84


US Fighters

Turn Matrix PWB 1.06

50 * 121% 80%
91 ** 107% 70%

* P38, P40, F4F
** P38, P47, P51, F6F, F4U, FM2, includes Australian
factories originally producing Export models but
expected to be converted to produce US aircraft.


US Tac Bombers

Turn Matrix PWB 1.06

To 150 250% 83%


This scenario will not be liked by everyone. It perhaps will not be liked by most. Both SSI and Matrix have limits on how many ships and LCUs a player can have. Players must get good value for their ship and LCU losses. This scenario requires players also get good value for their aircraft losses.



zeke99 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 3:07:35 AM)

Thanks for reply Brad.

Playing the Japs the lack of ac is no fun!

Although I restricted air combat so losses are around 30ac per turn my sqns are not filling up and I have only around 300Zeros and 100Ki43II in pool.

Bottom line, the production is way out of line compared with e.g.11000 build Zeros.



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 12:28:59 PM)

As stated earlier I didn't consider actual production during scenario design. I considered that 1) Matrix allows the production of a lot more aircraft than SSI, 2) both SSI and Matrix production were designed so AI which functions without a feedback loop could produce a reasonably effective number of aircraft, 3) a human player can run circles around AI when making production decisions, and 4) aircraft production decisions should present the player with some difficult choices and some risk that decisions may not work out well (just like the rest of the game). And as also stated earlier, this approach won't match the prefernces of some players and perhaps most players.

I think one of the reasons for the success of the Matrix version is increased offensive capability for both sides versus SSI. Many players like that.

I did not consider actual production because, as stated earlier, we don't know if aircraft consumption in a game played historically matches historical aircraft consumption. However, curiousity got the better of me concerning scenario production versus actual, and here is what I've determined.

Production estimate listed is based on a game from Dec 1941 to August 1945 and based on data from several games where both another person and I played IJ. Note there is some variability in production because, among other things, factory expansion has some variability built in.

A6M2, A6M5 production

9081 estimated average production
100 Aircaft in initial pool
262 Aircraft on carriers
332 Aircraft in land based airgroups

9775 Total A6M2/A6M5 availability

10989 historical production

Difference is -11%.

You've characterized production as grossly out of line with historical but I can't consider -11% versus historical grossly out of line. I can say its somewhat out of line with historical, but perhaps not as much as -11%. For example, the game doesn't simulate non-combat losses of aircraft which we know was substantial. Neither is there any simulation of the admitedly much smaller number of aircraft held back for testing, evaluation, and modification.

However, even playing the original SSI version would be a shock to someone who has only played Matrix, which has overall fighter production 181% of SSI! [sm=00000116.gif]




zeke99 -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 12:55:42 PM)

Hi Brad,

you miss the point. Something is wrong in that scenario. I keep the A6M out of the fight, the factories should produce 60-80 per month for 40 turns now = 2400 to 3200 ac and all I have is 300 in the pool! Lets put 300 more in new sqns, that's 600. You see the problem?



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 1:36:09 PM)

From memory, about 15 people have had the opportunity to evaluate this scenario. At present I have received comments from perhaps six.

I haven't worked on it for over a year due to some of the events mentioned previously. I would like to return to working on it and would appreciate comments from anyone who has played it.

Lots of what can be done is a general solution. Its often difficult to achieve a precise result especially without creating undesirable consequences.

Since the discussion mostly involves aircraft, I'll direct my comments to aircraft. The issue with aircraft availabiltiy is not just how many but when they're available.

Factory expansion is randomized, and this can make a big difference in early produciton of new aircraft. For example, a couple of lucky rolls can result in double the production of a new aircraft during the first six months or so. This is a significant event.

Aircraft can be brought into the game four ways: 1) Factory production (variable), 2) Pool, 3) number contained in airgroups (including active and to be activated airgroups), 4) automatic production in addition to factory production of one per turn (every active aircraft has a procution of one per turn even without a factory). These features can be used to somewhat influence not only how many aircraft are availble but when they are available. Obviously its a juggling act.

It is not possible to have a new factory activate for an existing aircraft. New factories only activate with new aircraft. So, for example, its not possible to activate an F6F factory on turn 70 and another on turn 100 or 120 or whatever. Not being able to do so is obviously not realistic. But that's the breaks.

IJ factories wih high intial capacity (in IJ terms) almost never expand. For example, a fighter factory that starts with a production of 20 will remain at 20 for many turns, possibly forever, while a US factory that starts at 20 will expand to 35 or so within six months.

Each line is the aircraft data table has specific uses which I cannot change. It would be great to be able to give non-US airgroups access to the standard P39 and P40 but this is not possible, hence the creation of identical but separately produced export versions. A general but imprecise solution, a problem metioned above.

The aircraft database offers these choices for the Allies.

Land based, USAAF
Land based, non-US
Land based, USMC, non-US
Land and carrier based, USN, USMC, RN, non-US
Land based, USAAF, USMC, non-US

The last would look to be ideal to provide P39s and P40s to non-US airgroups early in the game. But there are only two lines that function this way, and they're occupied by the P47D and P47N. Lots of compromises are necessary.

And some more quirks.

Any airgroup can be assigned any aircraft, but its upgrade availability may not be the same as for other airgroups flying the same aircraft. For example, an USAAF airgroup flying B25s can upgrade to the A26. A USMC with B25s cannot change aircraft. A non-US airgroup with B25s can change only to non-US tac bombers.

The game obsoletes ten aircraft Jan 1943. Pools become zero. Even if you build them, the airgroups don't take on replacements. Pool drops to zero after every production phase.

Airgroups will not take on replacements if the pool amount is low (exact amount unknown). Land based airgroups will not take on replacments no matter how large the pool is unless supply at the base is high (replacement aircraft consume supply points)

IJ factories will not expand if oil and/or resource is low.

According to the manual, if a base with a factory is captured the factory is destroyed. What happens if the base is recovered? 1) The factory continues to produce the aircraft assigned to it prior to being captured, 2) the type of aircraft produced cannot be changed, 3) the production points for the factory are not included in the score.



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 1:37:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Hi Brad,

you miss the point. Something is wrong in that scenario. I keep the A6M out of the fight, the factories should produce 60-80 per month for 40 turns now = 2400 to 3200 ac and all I have is 300 in the pool! Lets put 300 more in new sqns, that's 600. You see the problem?


Well, I don't know. Please explain.

60 aircraft produced for 190 turns is 11,400, plus 262 on carriers, 332 land based, 100 in pool, plus your proposal to add 300 to airgroups is 12,394 total against a presumed goal of matching historical of about 11,000. But then, these estimates assume full production for 190 turns which will not be the case if the US as it did historically starts reducin IJ factory capacity through bombing from the Mariannas.

I'm not against increasing production but as stated earlier the standard cannot be historical production unless its known that the game simulates losses accurately in a game played historically. A lot of what goes into these things is educated guesswork based on certain presumed circumstances.

I don't object to the game providing more than the historical 11,000 Zeros under certain conditions: 1) Allies do not reduce factory capacity through bombing at the historical time, 2) the game lasts longer than 190 turns, 3) it can be shown losses in a game played historically are greater than historical losses. I agree there may be a problem with this scenario but don't intend that either side should have a comfortably adequate supply of everything in all circumstances. That's not the point of the scenario.

The point of the scenario is frankly to get rid of what is almost a functionally infinite supply of capable aircraft for both sides which is present when the Matrix production system is under human control. Perhaps an easeir way of somewhat accomplishing that would have been a house rule that all aircraft production and airgroup upgrades we left on computer control! [:)]

Maybe someday, if this project is ever done, I'll make a scenario where IJ has the good sense to give up on China and the USN certifies Corsairs for use on carriers in 1942! I bet a lot of players would like that.




bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 3:06:34 PM)

Wow, this thread has lit up. Cool!



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 8:34:57 PM)

quote:

60 aircraft produced for 190 turns is 11,400, plus 262 on carriers, 332 land based, 100 in pool, plus your proposal to add 300 to airgroups is 12,394 total against a presumed goal of matching historical of about 11,000. But then, these estimates assume full production for 190 turns which will not be the case if the US as it did historically starts reducin IJ factory capacity through bombing from the Mariannas.

[...]

I don't object to the game providing more than the historical 11,000 Zeros under certain conditions: 1) Allies do not reduce factory capacity through bombing at the historical time, 2) the game lasts longer than 190 turns, 3) it can be shown losses in a game played historically are greater than historical losses.


To examine the first point, Zeke99 actually said "60-80 aircraft per month" -- not per turn. Either he got his wording wrong, or there is indeed a problem. My guess is the former. But it does raise the possibility that the game is not correctly adding the factory output to the pools.

As to the conditions for improved production, I can think of one other: that there is no effective shortage of oil or resources. If a skilled Japanese player can keep the sea lanes open for longer than happened IRL, one would expect the Japanese economy to churn out more product.



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 9:47:48 PM)

Good points by Harlock... including apparently my misreading Zeks's post.

Anyway, INITIAL production for the A6M2 is two factories, one at 21 and one at 15, total of 36. Times 4.3 that's 154 a month. Is the request for another 60 per month on top of that?

The J1N and Ki 45 both activate with a factory. I can't imagine anyone doing anything but a short production run of those two, if indeed any were built at all. Build Zeros with those factories. The Ki 43 has a factory and the Ki 43 II activates with a factory. If a player chooses to use Zeros for "everything" he certainly can reduce IJA aircraft production. After all, he has the power to tell Togo what to do... not very historical there! [:D]

Anyway, I can't make a good evaluation of the Zeke/Skipjack game without seeing the complete data. The deal with airgroups not taking replacements from the pool, well, there has to be supply points at the bases and some airgroups haven't taken replacements correctly since the beginning of time... that would be 1991 with SSI. [8|]



bradk -> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? (5/7/2013 10:01:09 PM)

Catastrophic events

What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.

Well, if the Allies build it up to 8, pack it with aircraft, then loses the base, then say sometime in 42 lose it, the Allied player is in a world of hurt. Losses could be as high as 400 aircraft, depending on the fighter/bomber mix and the USMC/USAAF mis. Well, I think loss of that many aircraft all at once SHOULD cause a problem!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6367188