Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Well this is indeed historical but simply no fun at all (for a Japanese player) For the same reasons people usually wont play a game like.

War in the Balkan, the struggle against the Axis.

Can you do better than Dušan Simoviæ ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal

Why does golf provide for handicaps? So players of different skill levels can play together.

Or, some players see this as a game and not an historical sim, and want to explore what-ifs.

Probably other reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I understand the idea of exploring things, but this seems like such a major concession given what it will do. As jmalter points out, the mark 10 torpedoes are not that bad and the Dutch and British boats don't have much trouble at all. In the historical approach both sides have times when they can "kick" butt (historically speaking).... Japan in the beginning and Allies in the middle and end To me it appears to be challenge enough to take that edge away when the opponent has this historical "advantage". But I can see that if you have played the historical game so many times, it might get boring... ok, thanks for the input folks. Hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Can you do better than Dušan Simoviæ ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Well this is indeed historical but simply no fun at all (for a Japanese player) For the same reasons people usually wont play a game like.

War in the Balkan, the struggle against the Axis.

Can you do better than Dušan Simović ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone remember a little thing called "Historical Sub Doctrine" from WITP? Basically when turned "on" the Japanese subs would follow their historical doctrine and mostly ignore transports to attack capital ships.

Long story short I'm pretty sure no one ever used it....ever and it was simply removed from WITP AE with the setting hard coded to off.
The argument was generally something like "As the overall commander I shouldn't have my hands tied in the game, just because the historical commanders decided to do <blank>". So if the Idea that the Japanese subs should be expected to act historically was considered so outrageous the even the option for them to do so was removed I can see that a reasonable argument could be made to turn off historical torps for the allies.

REMEMBER: The Japanese player knows from day one that the US subs will be a viable threat at some point and is training his Aircraft an ships to form a formidable ASW force far more effective than Japan was historically able to deploy. The fact that the Japanese player can make submarine operations off the home islands effectively a one way trip means that I would argue the US subs should at least have some chance to hit back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal

• Allied ship repair yards are not occupied long term with crippled capital ships. Consequently Allied recovery from early naval battles is much improved and acts as a substantial force multiplier
  
• there is no stress placed on the at start very fragile Allied aircraft production run. In particular the usual horendous day 1 losses to PBYs will not occur. Almost immediately the Allied player will have sufficient "eyes" to establish meaningful fleet and ASW search zones whereas normally it will take many months to do so following a Pearl Harbor strike
  
• with his intact Pearl Harbor strategic forces the Allies can launch early spoiling counter attacks
  

• quite expendable but still able to sneak in to the killing fields
  
• equipped with the pre-eminent anti ship weapon of the era, ergo the torpedo (whether launched from the air or sea)
  
• operating at a time when Japanese ASW assets are at their weakest
  
• impose an early convoy requirement which steals assets that otherwise could be used to further the prime strategic directive viz capturing real estate
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone remember a little thing called "Historical Sub Doctrine" from WITP? Basically when turned "on" the Japanese subs would follow their historical doctrine and mostly ignore transports to attack capital ships.

Long story short I'm pretty sure no one ever used it....ever and it was simply removed from WITP AE with the setting hard coded to off.
The argument was generally something like "As the overall commander I shouldn't have my hands tied in the game, just because the historical commanders decided to do <blank>". So if the Idea that the Japanese subs should be expected to act historically was considered so outrageous the even the option for them to do so was removed I can see that a reasonable argument could be made to turn off historical torps for the allies.

REMEMBER: The Japanese player knows from day one that the US subs will be a viable threat at some point and is training his Aircraft an ships to form a formidable ASW force far more effective than Japan was historically able to deploy. The fact that the Japanese player can make submarine operations off the home islands effectively a one way trip means that I would argue the US subs should at least have some chance to hit back.

The problem with your argument is that the IJN never practiced this doctrine. Look up the numbers of merchant ships sunk by Japanese subs. I believe the devs took it out of AE because it never really was a doctrine, despite being talked to death here and elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal

Why does golf provide for handicaps? So players of different skill levels can play together.

Or, some players see this as a game and not an historical sim, and want to explore what-ifs.

Probably other reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The problem with your argument is that the IJN never practiced this doctrine. Look up the numbers of merchant ships sunk by Japanese subs. I believe the devs took it out of AE because it never really was a doctrine, despite being talked to death here and elsewhere.