Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Ideas please?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ideas please? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ideas please? - 6/12/2013 9:13:35 PM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 436
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

And China in its current state in AE is "realistic"?


Well I currently face around 10 enemy divisions in and around Lashio, all being supplied down the trail that leads over the mountains from Paoshan.....

China unrealistic? Do bears **** in the woods?

Roger

< Message edited by Roger Neilson 3 -- 6/12/2013 9:16:55 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 61
RE: Ideas please? - 6/12/2013 10:27:50 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Gents, it was not my intention to stir up a firestorm here. I know I have no control over what you say and how you say it, but I was asking for ideas about why its happened and what could sensibly be done to ameliorate the issue.

It would be helpful if the facts were used mind you, this would help to cool the temperature.

Roger


Roger I think you got all the possible solutions to the "issue" in various post in you thread already. My personal opinion is not to accept any other limitation than 10k minimum altitude, but YMMV.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 62
RE: Ideas please? - 6/12/2013 10:28:14 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
That said, besides the fact that a game of this scale but with this ammount of detail will never be accurate in emulating historical capabilities to the last digit behind the comma, there are other equally significant factors preventing "historical accuracy" - in whatever way this term is generally (ab)used around here.

These factors are:

1) Historical hindsight & (lack of) politics:

The majority of decisions in WWII were made for the wrong reasons, fuelled by inaccurate information about the enemy´s capabilities and arsenal, lack of understanding of the capabilities of the very own arsenal, lack of understanding of the impact from new technologies, rivaltry up to open hostility between different great personalities and services, different local interests of political fractions and countries, fragile relations to local population, and significant delay in putting incoming information and intelligence to use by performing distinct actions.

The player is restricted by none of the above. He knows the capabilities and weaknesses of the own forces and the opposing forces in detail, he knows at which point in the war what technological advances will be available to put to use and so can accurately predict when certain actions and operations are required and feasable, he governs a unified command without any internal struggle, and he can access real-time data and make immediate decision based on those. In addition, he knows exactly what happened in WWII.

2) The war is about pixels:

We are fighting wihtout (I try to but it is often very hard to replicate) any personal conciousness for risking lives, or any remorse about having wasted them. Individuals were mauled, burned, shot, hanged, ripped apart, drowned, beheaded, starved,...the list goes on. When a CA sinks there is no newspaper debating about the feasability of the mission and about the waste of lives. Theres no parents losing their kids, theres no soldiers going insane after 18 months of constant psychological and physical terror.

The player does not need to make any decisions with that context in mind.


All historical inaccuracies that are whined about when the occasion arises (seems to be a cyclic process repeating every 6 months or so... ) are as much caused by historical hindsight, and the fact that there are (thankfully) no real people dying in WitP AE, as they are caused by faults of the game engine.

Fixing percieved issues in the game engine might lead to sacrificing accuracy of historical capabilities for the sake of a subjectively better historical accuracy. Blaegh. No. Thanks. I can live without such fixes. I´d rather continue debating with people too thick to understand the above.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 63
RE: Ideas please? - 6/12/2013 11:09:35 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

quote:

And China in its current state in AE is "realistic"?


Well I currently face around 10 enemy divisions in and around Lashio, all being supplied down the trail that leads over the mountains from Paoshan.....

China unrealistic? Do bears **** in the woods?

Roger


Roger, I suggest you try the game with hex stacking limits.
It really changes the game giving it extra reality.


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 64
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 3:50:52 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 4383
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am coming late to this discussion so I can only give my own view as an allied player.

I do not ban the use of 4E on Ground Attacks but nor do I ban them - I choose to use them with restraint usdually for one off missions where my mediums simply cannot do the job.

i.e. supporting LCUs attacking overland into North Ausstralia and I do keep them above 10k.

I simply choose not to use them for tac missions as becuase they are to valuable in closing AF's and Laying mines on ports.

I do recognise the complaint about allied FB's and I do personally believe all marks of Beaufighters and Mosquito FB's as well as Hurri IV's and IId's should be classed as attack bombers not FB's as the code treats them better as attack bombers than FB's but the quid pro quo is not using 4E as tac bombers except as one offs in very unusual circumstances


I agree with you as far as attacking LCUs with 4Es because they don't seem very effective and they are too valuable as search planes and transports in the early part of the war. But once you can mass them against targets, I see no justification for not using them against airfields which are pretty big easy to spot targets (though I've so far always agreed to the not below 10k HR) and the results I've seen don't seem out of whack. Port attacks are a little iffy though, maybe. Kill some fish for the Japanese to eat that night.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 65
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 4:03:21 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14512
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Gents, it was not my intention to stir up a firestorm here. I know I have no control over what you say and how you say it, but I was asking for ideas about why its happened and what could sensibly be done to ameliorate the issue.

It would be helpful if the facts were used mind you, this would help to cool the temperature.

Roger

I've held my tongue because others were basically voicing my various opinions and, well, I would not ameliorate the situation for various reasons people have stated. I wouldn't even go for a 10,000 ft floor. I very rarely send 4EB in below 10,000 ft but when truly soft targets beckon I reserve the flexibility to pounce on them. Or if a situation is somehow desperate enough to justify the expected losses.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 66
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 7:08:19 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 436
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

quote:

And China in its current state in AE is "realistic"?


Well I currently face around 10 enemy divisions in and around Lashio, all being supplied down the trail that leads over the mountains from Paoshan.....

China unrealistic? Do bears **** in the woods?

Roger


Roger, I suggest you try the game with hex stacking limits.
It really changes the game giving it extra reality.



I am pretty sure my next game will do this, but I have to finish this one first......

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 67
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 7:12:40 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2862
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I would agree that I should not use 4Es on deployed ground troops in close proximity to my front lines - and even a rule that says no ground attack by 4Es on hexes where friendly troops are also present.

This one is good HR imho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
1. This would allow me to bomb a defending unit into oblivion the move before I landed.....
2. As there is no way to interdict supply lines - as happened certainly across all the major theatres of war, the only way to bomb these is to do ground attack....


Roger, believe me, you don't need to bomb LCUs (especially while we're talking about islands) to interdict supplies... This game is all about supplies.
If you bomb the airfields for a week or two, and if the base has no 7+ forts, the supplies evaporate very very easily... 20 000 supplies? 2 or 3 raids of 100 4Es and there's no supplies.
From the Japanese perspective, I'd even say it's a waste of resources to try to resupply such a contested base. With no supplies your opponents' LCUs are weak as kittens.
And bombing the airfields you do disrupt (and destroy) LCUs.

This is a way "round", but in my opinion closer to reality.
You will receive almost the same but it just needs more time.
Things look different in Burma or China etc. where the flow of supplies is different.
However, if I could do something with it, I'd banned the whole land bombing mission from the 4E squadrons mission view.

So, from a different perspective, maybe 4Es raids should be HR-allowed if there is fort level 7+ ? In such conditions 2Es don't actually hurt a lot and some "more serious means" are needed...


Ark is my excellent opponent and he and I disagree greatly on this matter. It also bugs me that so many Japanese players start to moan about Allied air power in 1944 when then game gives them so many advantages early on. In 1942, I faced massive Japanese bombing attacks in China and Australia that tore up my ground units. Ark has managed to completely destroy a few units in his day. We are playing scen #2 where he still had pools full of excellent 2nd generation fighters and all of his strategic points are covered my massive CAP that would destroy any un-escorted strategic attempts. So you guys would like to see a house rule that says I have to bomb these strategic targets and get slaughtered or don't use my 4Es at all. You are so ready to put HRs on the one real Allied strength throughout the game but start to moan when we AFBs bitch about factors that favors the Japanese. The Allies chose to not use their 4Es tactically because they had the option to use them strategically, not because they could not...I choose to use mine tactically because I want to and can. In exchange, Ark gets to keep his aircraft factories until I invade Japan Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Below are some of the reasons why I choose to follow this course.

1. Fighter bombers, the traditional Allied ground support units are virtually useless in the game.

2. Allied medium bombers are always in very short supply. To limit close ground support to just mediums would prove to be a wonderful bonus to the Japanese player because they can produce literally thousands of Japanese medium bombers. It would basically give tactical superiority to Japan until almost 1945. In April 1945 I am producing roughly 80-90 medium bombers of all types..my pools are still virtually empty.

3. In our game we have heavy restrictions on night bombing. Daylight bombing without escort vs franks, jacks, georges is nothing but suicide. My losses would not be sustainable.

4. I spent the first two years of our campaign fighting for air superiority. In scen 2 you can expect air parity to come about one year later than historically happened. I have seen every betty and nell unit torpedo capable. (Yeah, that really happened). I have suffered through the great tojo infestation of mid 42 to early 43. I ate Jap bombs in China, Burma, India, Australia and the South Pacific like my dog eats pancakes, and my ships swallowed up enough torpedoes during his happy times. I am still stuck with 500 pound bombs on my mediums and 1,000 on my DB while I know he will be getting planes that carry 800 kg bombs. Ark had his fun. Now I got a gazillion heavy bombers and he is just going to have to howl about it.

Yeah, I know my big boys are a bit overpowered vs your poor, poor infantry units.
But you know, I am somehow learning to deal with the guilt......

Oh yeah, and when are you JFBs going to start begging for a HR that prevents you from using Japanese Army and Navy planes together. Sheeesh...give me a break.



Amen-CRSutton...you JFBs are a bunch of whinning little girls when the tables finally go against you. This thread reminds me of a WiFcon convention I had the pleasure to attend. Old Grognard Mike(A vietnam vet)was playing Japan and got knocked out in early 43. Young player Andrew(germany) knew he was next and wanted to quit.. I was sitting at the next table as Mike turned and said.."you aint gonna quit. Your gonna suck it up and let the allies have some fun".

< Message edited by bigred -- 6/13/2013 7:16:03 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 68
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 8:15:54 AM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
Amen-CRSutton...you JFBs are a bunch of whinning little girls when the tables finally go against you. This thread reminds me of a WiFcon convention I had the pleasure to attend. Old Grognard Mike(A vietnam vet)was playing Japan and got knocked out in early 43. Young player Andrew(germany) knew he was next and wanted to quit.. I was sitting at the next table as Mike turned and said.."you aint gonna quit. Your gonna suck it up and let the allies have some fun".


Yeah, right... ...it's like the AFBs never quit the game when brought on your knees... It's a "man-connected" problem not "side-connected"...


< Message edited by viberpol -- 6/13/2013 8:16:12 AM >


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 69
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 8:53:53 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 436
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
Hmmm. I would be unhappy with any opponent who simply quits - which is why I am very careful who I play against.

Firstly my approach is its not about winning or losing the war - the game is about a whole series of challenges, each one of which is winnable or loseable...... as the Allied player I win some things in 1941, even though I am getting my backside kicked.

However I do think there is a difference in the game dynamic of this war.

Japan wanted a fast resolution, on their terms. I can well see a Japanese player being quite satisfied with an Allied capitulation because they have been roundly defeated. The plan has worked, all hail the mighty etc etc..... The Japanese player gets loads of fun at the start of the game (if fun is to be defined as kicking hell out of a badly prepared and poorly equipped enemy) The Allied player always has the hope that things can get better, that no matter how bad the kicking is it will swing round and it will be his turn eventually. Sometimes the Allied player's morale cracks - no flattops, all BBs sunk etc etc, Japanese victory parades in Karachi and Sydney..... However there is always hope for the Allied player to go on.....

I wonder whether there would be many Allied players if the game ended in 1942/1943? We want our turn to do some kicking.

Now once the tide turns, its downhill for the Japanese - its how well they are going to draw or lose the game.... so there is not the hope if the motivation is the victory screen. So its more likely that more Japanese players will consider throwing in the towel once they see the direction of travel of the game. This happens because they no longer want to spend their time on the masochistic side of the game where there is no pleasure left for them - pleasure being defined as advances and destruction. This can be very annoying for the Allied player who has looked forward to getting some revenge.

A game that is abandoned in the early years has been (for those who want the victory screen)still fun for the Japanese.

I could draw comparisons with other human pleasures involving consenting adults, but I won't.


< Message edited by Roger Neilson 3 -- 6/13/2013 8:54:57 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 70
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 9:16:13 AM   
Barb


Posts: 1594
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

I see three "divergences" from reality on part of the players:
1) target selection
- One have to see that B-17s, B-24s and B-29s were planes of STRATEGIC BOMBING concept. They had leadership focused on mission of forcing enemy out of war with aerial bombing alone and they forced this idea to the limits. Therefore using these planes for other targets (even railroad plan, airfield suppression or aerial mining) were weakening the main effort. Primary mission of the heavies should always be: City attack or Port attack. Only if no such target is available (or weather forecast is bad), other targets should be looked for (like Airfield attack). Ground attack should be left to FBs, LBs and ABs almost exclusively. Mediums thus should be devoted mainly to Airfield and Port attacks.

2) altitude
- Medium bombers usually bombed from 10-20.000ft. Heavies usually from 15-30.000ft. Use planes in their historical limits.

3) numbers
Heavy groups in Pacific seldom sent more than 24 planes on single mission. That told, to limit maximum strike (see 1944-1945 Celebes, Biak, Borneo, etc strikes) of 48 heavies to single target (that requires about 2 BG(H)s with 50% rest).

All these "divergences" are caused by the players - so it is not problem in the game. Fix player attitudes to use historical limits, and you will get more historically correct results (it will then also take much more than flight of heavies to knock out a whole refinery/HI complex in one mission).




should we fix player attitudes of IJ players too then or just the Allied ones?


Goes both sides :) Sallys were usually bombing from 10-20.000ft too. Neither were Japs using 100xSally+100xOscar raids in China daily bombing from 6000ft.

Higher Japanese units were Air Brigades of some 2-4 Sentais. These were usually used together to give about 50 bombers and/or 50 fighters together in the air (with some rest settings). Using more than one Air brigade against single target would be very hard to coordinate IRL. Of course players could shuffle air units around, but I would say that limit of 4 Sentais (with 30-50% rest) per target is reasonable enough.

Example:
3rd Air Division at the start of war:
3rd Air Brigade:
27th Sentai Ki-51s
59th Sentai Ki-43s
75th Sentai Ki-48s
90th Sentai Ki-48s

7th Air Brigade:
12th Sentai Ki-21s
60th Sentai Ki-21s
51st I.F.Chutai Ki-15/Ki-46s
64th Sentai Ki-43s
98th Sentai Ki-21s

10th Air Brigade:
31st Sentai Ki-30s
77th Sentai Ki-27s
62nd Sentai Ki-21s
70th I.F.Chutai Ki-15s

12th Air Brigade:
1st Sentai Ki-27s
11th Sentai Ki-27s

_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 71
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 11:40:00 AM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Hmmm. I would be unhappy with any opponent who simply quits - which is why I am very careful who I play against.
(...)
Now once the tide turns, its downhill for the Japanese - its how well they are going to draw or lose the game.... so there is not the hope if the motivation is the victory screen. So its more likely that more Japanese players will consider throwing in the towel once they see the direction of travel of the game. This happens because they no longer want to spend their time on the masochistic side of the game where there is no pleasure left for them - pleasure being defined as advances and destruction. This can be very annoying for the Allied player who has looked forward to getting some revenge.

A game that is abandoned in the early years has been (for those who want the victory screen)still fun for the Japanese.


When you acknowledge yourself defeated (as opposed of simply quitting) then you're defeated. Does it really matter which side are you playing?

Actually, being a zealous JFB from the very beginning of WITP,
out of three my esteemed PBEM opponents from this forum, I had one AFB who quit the game in '44 after some kind of a reversed Great Marianas Turkey Shoot and loosing most of Allied fleet carriers. So, there's no stiff rule and the differences between feeling defeated and quitting is not that very clear...

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 72
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 11:55:29 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 436
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
Was trying to draw the distinction between the game offering hope to the Allied player for longer than to the Japanese player.....

The writing can be on the wall for the Japanese player for a long time, with the Allies it can very suddenly appear.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 73
RE: Ideas please? - 6/13/2013 8:56:35 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 779
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
I have always thought that even if the situation gest dire for the Japanese in 1944-45 they can always vent their frustration in China. WITE offers no such relief for Germans in 1944-45.

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 74
RE: Ideas please? - 6/15/2013 1:06:03 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2037
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
For our PBEM, we installed an HR that does not allow 4E bombing from bases below level 9 but not to otherwise limit their use. We think it works pretty well (after a few base sizing changes). IMHO, players get all hung up on the ability of the allied player to use 4E bombers in mission mixes that were not used in the war. Empire mid and late war strategy is key to the length of time they can last.

A better question is how to play the empire for these stages to be the most effective (assuming your goal is time before victory)

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ideas please? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094