Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday?

 
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 >> Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 1:54:25 AM   
Rogue187

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
I'm sure its been discussed, but after War in the Pacific, then the Admirals Edition, do you think there will ever be a third version of the game? Something that can take advantage of new technology, AI, and add user improvements that dont rely on third party software?
Post #: 1
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 2:13:33 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10288
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Don't hold your breath.

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 2
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 2:18:05 AM   
Rogue187

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
Too bad.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 3:45:24 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 12457
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
You sound like someone who hasn't had his ass kicked badly enough. I sympathize. I never want my ass kicked that badly.

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 4
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 4:01:51 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1284
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You sound like someone who hasn't had his ass kicked badly enough. I sympathize. I never want my ass kicked that badly.


Kirk kicked it pretty good.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 5
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 5:03:46 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2969
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I'm sure its been discussed, but after War in the Pacific, then the Admirals Edition, do you think there will ever be a third version of the game? Something that can take advantage of new technology, AI, and add user improvements that dont rely on third party software?


No.

There will be HoI13 instead.

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 6
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 6:04:50 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I'm sure its been discussed, but after War in the Pacific, then the Admirals Edition, do you think there will ever be a third version of the game? Something that can take advantage of new technology, AI, and add user improvements that dont rely on third party software?


No.

There will be HoI13 instead.


This was stinging

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 7
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 6:06:18 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 8
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 6:17:19 AM   
RisingSun


Posts: 1640
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I'm sure its been discussed, but after War in the Pacific, then the Admirals Edition, do you think there will ever be a third version of the game? Something that can take advantage of new technology, AI, and add user improvements that dont rely on third party software?


No.

There will be HoI13 instead.


13? I know there a Hearts of Iron 3 out there. Been working on a mod can I called it "War in the Pacific" heh. Anyway been working on this project for months and coming around slowly.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 9
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/22/2017 7:59:24 AM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I'm sure its been discussed, but after War in the Pacific, then the Admirals Edition, do you think there will ever be a third version of the game? Something that can take advantage of new technology, AI, and add user improvements that dont rely on third party software?


If you're waiting for a commercial product, I wouldn't place my bet on that. But homebrew games of that kind might be possible.

Just for fun, I am working on my own WITP AE 1 1/2 covering the entire globe on a 540 x 218 hex map.
Still featuring the most suicidal AI of all WW 2 games ever. Not to mention the weird way the AI places it's airgroups.
If you can wait for another 5 to 10 years, however, it might be playable.

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 10
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/23/2017 2:18:40 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 4580
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: online
Nope. Too many IJ Fanboys want the IJ to actually win the war. They're all in love with the poor slobs who got to try to blow themselves up with some US warship. As if that was a winning strategy. The real answer for the IJ was to try for the same strategic answer as the North Vietnamese in 1972: that is make the US response to their 1941 attack at Pearl Harbor too expensive to bear.

IRL the IJ Player had lost too much of its initial advantage by the end of 1942 to have much hope of victory. But since this is a game perhaps they could win a VP victory by some time around then. For some reason the IJ Fanboys all seem to want to be able to win the war. A real political victory and scenario that ended about mid-1943 or so based on VPs would make so much more sense.

(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 11
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/23/2017 2:55:35 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 3910
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
That is not how a Samurai thinks!

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 12
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/23/2017 4:03:21 AM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: online
War in the Pacific 3 could never live up to expectations.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 13
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/23/2017 9:06:34 AM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Nope. Too many IJ Fanboys want the IJ to actually win the war. They're all in love with the poor slobs who got to try to blow themselves up with some US warship. As if that was a winning strategy. The real answer for the IJ was to try for the same strategic answer as the North Vietnamese in 1972: that is make the US response to their 1941 attack at Pearl Harbor too expensive to bear.

IRL the IJ Player had lost too much of its initial advantage by the end of 1942 to have much hope of victory. But since this is a game perhaps they could win a VP victory by some time around then. For some reason the IJ Fanboys all seem to want to be able to win the war. A real political victory and scenario that ended about mid-1943 or so based on VPs would make so much more sense.


If the game is confined to the pacific, I agree. In a game spanning the globe, however, a more successfull germany/italy may provide enough distraction for the JFBs to prepare better for the then weaker US attacks. And if germany would break the soviets and/or england, then even the US might have a problem handling the war. Thats why I have built an engine covering the entire globe. Without variable outside events, the pacific is a railroad to doom for japan.

Political victory is usually not a thing achieved on the short run, as japan planned for. If I remember right, it took decades for vietnam to make the war too costly for the US. Japan is simply walked over by US war gear, and does not have that time. In that fight, AFBs are Squirrels and JFBs are nuts.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 14
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/23/2017 8:46:14 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Nope. Too many IJ Fanboys want the IJ to actually win the war. They're all in love with the poor slobs who got to try to blow themselves up with some US warship. As if that was a winning strategy. The real answer for the IJ was to try for the same strategic answer as the North Vietnamese in 1972: that is make the US response to their 1941 attack at Pearl Harbor too expensive to bear.

IRL the IJ Player had lost too much of its initial advantage by the end of 1942 to have much hope of victory. But since this is a game perhaps they could win a VP victory by some time around then. For some reason the IJ Fanboys all seem to want to be able to win the war. A real political victory and scenario that ended about mid-1943 or so based on VPs would make so much more sense.



I am not what point you are trying to make and I am not sure what you mean about JFB "all seem to want to be able to win the war." All JFBs think that Japan should be able to conquer the U.S. mainland every game? There is a VP system that allows for Japanese victory in the current game. Would the game be more realistic and the game community more to your liking if all the Japanese players, including the AI, would surrender at the end of 1942?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 15
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/24/2017 3:23:09 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Nope. Too many IJ Fanboys want the IJ to actually win the war. They're all in love with the poor slobs who got to try to blow themselves up with some US warship. As if that was a winning strategy. The real answer for the IJ was to try for the same strategic answer as the North Vietnamese in 1972: that is make the US response to their 1941 attack at Pearl Harbor too expensive to bear.

IRL the IJ Player had lost too much of its initial advantage by the end of 1942 to have much hope of victory. But since this is a game perhaps they could win a VP victory by some time around then. For some reason the IJ Fanboys all seem to want to be able to win the war. A real political victory and scenario that ended about mid-1943 or so based on VPs would make so much more sense.

The same could be said of AFB's, or worse. I doubt very many Japanese players think they will survive longer than Japan did historically. The truth is, Japan had more things that it could have improved upon that would have lengthened the war. Note I say lengthened, not won. Better (more secure) communications, better management of aircraft production, less NIH on engine/plane R&D, better IJA/IJN cooperation, better ASW and convoy practices, better pilot training, less victory disease are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Yet, just as you bemoan the JFB that seems to want to "win the war", I bemoan the AFB that categorically denies that Japan could have done anything differently and extended the war beyond 1945. Most JFB's would consider it a huge victory to last past August 15, 1945.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 16
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/24/2017 2:27:57 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2384
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Yes, it will be quick and over before most people even know it started.

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 12/24/2017 2:28:24 PM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 17
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/25/2017 1:58:12 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 4580
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: online
Aside from all the perks that the Japanese automatically get such as (in the "Historical" Scenario):

1) sinking or damaging double or thereabouts the number of ships which their PH raid actually inflicted
2) hanging Force Z out to dry
3) damaging Singapore (starts with the damage) with the same bombers that attack Force Z
4) giving the IJA enough supply to immediately launch one or more offensives in China in spite of the fact that it was stalemated and had been for 3 years (frankly there ought to be more a bigger difference between motorized supply such as the US enjoyed and the horse/mule drawn supply train of the IJA)
5) giving the IJN enough fuel to sortie all its BBs repeatedly when in reality sortie them once expended a whole years worth of fuel (speaking of BBs - other than the 4 Kongos the rest of the battlefleet was pretty much a joke throughout the Japanese Navy and its record in combat pretty much justifies that)
6) doubling of the IJNs ability to launch an airstrike from its aircraft carriers - doctrine AND carrier construction limited IJN carriers from launching all of their strike a/c in a single raid - two smaller raids are easier to fight off than one huge raid)
7) giving the IJN 1944 style USN fleet defense from the start when they didn't adopt the ring defense until 1944 and never developed a CIC/Fighter Direction Center at all.
8) the knowledge that most Allied submarines will be all but impotent until at Jan 1943
9) the removal of the SBD4 from the Allied OB (approx 900 airframes between Oct 42 and April 43 (there were essentially no SBDs in the Atlantic Fleet until Oct 1942 when Torch was launched) - since the SBD4 was all identical to the SBD3 the actual a/c is not important, rather the difference is in the overall replacement rate from the beginning of the war.

After all it's only a game. All that would be OK with me as well as allowing the Japanese Player to do whatever is desired within the constraints of production correcting operational deficiencies except that the Allied Player (which was far more adaptable to change than the hidebound IJA/IJN Supreme Command) is stuck making no adjustments whatever to the changed Japanese operational doctrine/tactics.

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 18
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/25/2017 9:19:49 AM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
There are a number of ahistorical AFB advantages the JFB complain about, too. I lack the overview to judge if they are in imbalance, but - and excuse the stupid question - what exactly about that is the your point against a WITP AE 3 ? Worries about JFBs to put on too much pressure to gain further imbalance in their favor?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 19
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/25/2017 2:16:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15405
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is not how a Samurai thinks!


Damned STRAIGHT!

BANZAI!



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 20
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/25/2017 10:16:51 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Aside from all the perks that the Japanese automatically get such as (in the "Historical" Scenario):

1) sinking or damaging double or thereabouts the number of ships which their PH raid actually inflicted
2) hanging Force Z out to dry
3) damaging Singapore (starts with the damage) with the same bombers that attack Force Z
4) giving the IJA enough supply to immediately launch one or more offensives in China in spite of the fact that it was stalemated and had been for 3 years (frankly there ought to be more a bigger difference between motorized supply such as the US enjoyed and the horse/mule drawn supply train of the IJA)
5) giving the IJN enough fuel to sortie all its BBs repeatedly when in reality sortie them once expended a whole years worth of fuel (speaking of BBs - other than the 4 Kongos the rest of the battlefleet was pretty much a joke throughout the Japanese Navy and its record in combat pretty much justifies that)
6) doubling of the IJNs ability to launch an airstrike from its aircraft carriers - doctrine AND carrier construction limited IJN carriers from launching all of their strike a/c in a single raid - two smaller raids are easier to fight off than one huge raid)
7) giving the IJN 1944 style USN fleet defense from the start when they didn't adopt the ring defense until 1944 and never developed a CIC/Fighter Direction Center at all.
8) the knowledge that most Allied submarines will be all but impotent until at Jan 1943
9) the removal of the SBD4 from the Allied OB (approx 900 airframes between Oct 42 and April 43 (there were essentially no SBDs in the Atlantic Fleet until Oct 1942 when Torch was launched) - since the SBD4 was all identical to the SBD3 the actual a/c is not important, rather the difference is in the overall replacement rate from the beginning of the war.

After all it's only a game. All that would be OK with me as well as allowing the Japanese Player to do whatever is desired within the constraints of production correcting operational deficiencies except that the Allied Player (which was far more adaptable to change than the hidebound IJA/IJN Supreme Command) is stuck making no adjustments whatever to the changed Japanese operational doctrine/tactics.




1) This has never been my experience, and I think most AARs testify to the fact that the Pearl Harbor raid, if not playing a historical Dec. 7th, is less effective than historical.

2) BBs Repulse and PoW were both sunk historically, so I have no idea what your objection is. In non-historical Dec. 7th turns, the allies can usually evacuate both BBs. This combined with a raid on Pearl Harbor that does less damage than historically, means that Japan in this game is often confronted with 3 or 4 more BBs than they were historically.

3) Singapore starts with damage to prevent the construction of fortifications immediately, I would assume. The British surrendered very easily here, and their surrender included the loss of the entire 18th division. That result is nearly impossible to achieve for Japan in the game. Again, I have no idea what you objection is, and what you portray as an IJN advantage is, in point of fact, a disadvantage over what happened historically.

4) The front in China had been stalemated mostly because Japan was pursuing The Thai campaigns and performing fleet exercises to prepare for a general Pacific War. After the war began, Japan did not furnish its military in China with supply sufficient to engage in offensive operations. This was a strategic-level decision by the Japanese High Command. Most Japanese players do spend supply in China. This is why Japanese players in this game have more success than Japan did historically in China. I can tell you, from experience playing Japan in several AI games and PBEM stock games, that if Japan does not send additional supplies to China, local supply allows for about 2 months of offensive operations and nothing more. Any additional supplies sent to China are supplies that are not available in other theaters.

5) The IJN most definitely does not have enough fuel in stock scenario 1 to make regular use of its BBs. I think every Japanese player can testify to this.

6-7) Air combat and naval air missions are abstracted in game terms and then handled, in large part, by the various subroutines for air-to-air combat and air-to-naval combat. Though a report may show X number of planes involved, the arrival times of those planes often vary signficantly. Most historians agree that the higher experience and better training of the early-war Japanese naval aircrews allowed for better strike coordination than the allies. Furthermore, all CAP is limited to 30% on station: this despite the fact that the A6M2 could stay aloft far longer than the F4F. If anything, the CAP rules for CV combat favor the allies as implemented in the game, not the Japanese. Once again, I am not sure what your objection is. As to naval AA, in stock all AA is fairly weak, and the AA ratings for most Japanese ships in the early war, except for the fast BBs and CVs, is pretty low. Do the allies lose an enormous number of aircraft to Japanese naval flak in 1942? I have never seen this to be the case, and this complaint seems to me to be about a very minor issue.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 12/25/2017 10:18:33 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 21
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/26/2017 5:00:09 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
Aurorus already responded, but I was writing a response myself and decided to go ahead and post it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Aside from all the perks that the Japanese automatically get such as (in the "Historical" Scenario):

1) sinking or damaging double or thereabouts the number of ships which their PH raid actually inflicted

I've probably run the first turn a hundred times just with stock orders. I've seen results that exceeded historical results in less than 10% of attacks. In other words, roughly 80% of attacks using stock orders sink less than 2 battle ships. I just ran 5 trials of the first turn to evaluate PH attacks. NO cherry picking, just opened the Scenario 1 file and hit run.

Japanese losses
Historical: lost 29 planes. Range of IJN CV losses for 5 trials was 38 to 49 aircraft lost in attack. 33 to 66% greater plane losses.

Allied Day 1 losses between PH and Force Z:

Historical: 4 lost (POW, Repulse, Arizona, Oklahoma), 2 so severely damaged they would not return til 1944 (WV, California). 188 aircraft lost.

Aircraft losses at PH ranged from 51 to 73 a/c in the five trials.
Trial 1: no losses. Greatest ship sunk was a DM. However, PoW was at 95 float. BB Pennsylvania has 51 Sys dmg, Nevada has 60 Eng damage. Nothing else red.
Trial 2: POW & Repulse lost. Tennessee has 51 float damage, Maryland has 54 float damage. Nothing else red.
Trial 3: AZ lost. WV 64 Flt/51 Sys. POW 53 Flt, PA 56 Eng. Nothing else red.
Trial 4: POW and Repulse lost. Nothing red.
Trial 5: POW and Repulse lost. California has 59 Sys damage. Nothing else red.

In every trial Japanese losses exceeded historical and Allied losses were less than historical in both planes and ships. As I said, I've run hundreds of Turn 1, Scenario 1 and at one point recorded the results of over 40 attacks as I tried different settings. In roughly 40 trials, I sank 3 BB's once. I sank 2 BB's three times. In no case did I see results similar to the ones we saw in the historical attack. In EVERY case, the results were skewed to the AFB, not the JFB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
2) hanging Force Z out to dry

Most PBEM games have a house rule that allows AFB to save Force Z, even though it was sunk historically. It was sunk historically, but it is a sign of JFB bias in the game design that Force Z has a chance to be sunk in game? Note in the trials shown above, they are sunk roughly 70% of the time (I'm counting the trial where float is 96 as sunk).

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
3) damaging Singapore (starts with the damage) with the same bombers that attack Force Z

They are not the same bombers…. Did you even look at the Japanese side? The IJN has 99 bombers at Saigon on 12/7/1941. 54 of them are assigned to night bomb Singapore. The rest are set to naval Attack. I can see that Singapore has 50 port damage, but what is your point? My guess is that this is intended to simulate the period where Singapore was not building defenses because the threat was not taken seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
4) giving the IJA enough supply to immediately launch one or more offensives in China in spite of the fact that it was stalemated and had been for 3 years (frankly there ought to be more a bigger difference between motorized supply such as the US enjoyed and the horse/mule drawn supply train of the IJA)


a) IJA had trucks. A typical flat land division had 3 transport companies each with 38 2-ton trucks. (114 trucks per division) Their supply train was not on par with American Divisions, but they were on par or superior to the Chinese they faced. Additionally, the presence of absence of trucks was related to the area it was deployed. They had Jungle and Mountainous divisions that skipped the trucks and used horses, carts, etc. You might want to pick up a copy of the two Rikugun books on Amazon. It details the support groups that a division possesed
b) IJA used rail for transport of men and supplies in China. (See Rikugun)
c) IJA managed to push into China to capture B-29 bases when they had to.
d) Japan was under international pressure to scale back it's moves in China following the Rape of Nanking in late 1937. Once war was enjoined, those concerns were no longer relevant.
e) I am not knowledgeable enough on China to debate it. You are probably somewhat right on this one. However, I'm not sure of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
5) giving the IJN enough fuel to sortie all its BBs repeatedly when in reality sortie them once expended a whole years worth of fuel (speaking of BBs - other than the 4 Kongos the rest of the battlefleet was pretty much a joke throughout the Japanese Navy and its record in combat pretty much justifies that)


2 Nagato class BB, 5560 tons fuel oil each
2 Ise class BB, 5113 tons fuel oil each
2 Fuso class BB, 5100 tons fuel oil each
4 Kongo class BB, 6330 tons fuel oil each

Total for all BB for one load of fuel: approximately 60000 tons fuel oil.

Navy petroleum product reserves on 1 December 1941 were 1,435,000 tons of crude oil; 3,634,000 tons of of bunker fuel; 473,000 tons of aviation gasoline; 27,000 tons of isooctane; 6400 tons of aircraft lubricants; 13,600 tons of ordinary lubricants; and 921,000 tons of petroleum derivatives already loaded on ships or distributed to overseas bases.

From <http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm>

They clearly had bunker fuel to sortie them, the problem was that the more they sortie them, the more other things like the economy suffer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
6) doubling of the IJNs ability to launch an airstrike from its aircraft carriers - doctrine AND carrier construction limited IJN carriers from launching all of their strike a/c in a single raid - two smaller raids are easier to fight off than one huge raid)
7) giving the IJN 1944 style USN fleet defense from the start when they didn't adopt the ring defense until 1944 and never developed a CIC/Fighter Direction Center at all.

See Aurorus reply. I had something written, but… he said it better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
8) the knowledge that most Allied submarines will be all but impotent until at Jan 1943

Funny, AFB's use the same knowledge to hide their subs with those torps until the dud rate improves. I don’t see you railing about the AFB's using the info to their advantage. Now that I think of it, how do I take advantage of that as a JFB? I still escort my task forces , I move what I need to move in the ships I need to move them in, etc. I've read far too much about the dismal performance of US torpedoes to suggest that they should have their dud rate reduced. If it were up to me, the dud rate would not go down until a certain number of torpedos had been duds on attacks. We all possess knowledge that gives us an advantage over the men whose decisions we second guess. This is not the first, last or worst of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
9) the removal of the SBD4 from the Allied OB (approx 900 airframes between Oct 42 and April 43 (there were essentially no SBDs in the Atlantic Fleet until Oct 1942 when Torch was launched) - since the SBD4 was all identical to the SBD3 the actual a/c is not important, rather the difference is in the overall replacement rate from the beginning of the war.

Not having been a part of the research team for the scenario, it is hard for me to comment. They reviewed production and set the replacement rate numbers as they did. If it is wrong I cannot help you there much. There are mistakes and omissions of lots of things in the game - and the idea that the errors are always in favor of the Japanese is simply false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
After all it's only a game. All that would be OK with me as well as allowing the Japanese Player to do whatever is desired within the constraints of production correcting operational deficiencies except that the Allied Player (which was far more adaptable to change than the hidebound IJA/IJN Supreme Command) is stuck making no adjustments whatever to the changed Japanese operational doctrine/tactics.

Japan had one war to fight. The Americans and the British had two. They decided to put Germany first. If you want to take from the ETO and put it into the PTO, then you need to account for that - more British withdrawals, later Soviet Activation, Soviet OOB changes, Soviet collapse, easier Japanese/German cooperation, etc.


< Message edited by InfiniteMonkey -- 12/26/2017 5:01:50 AM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 22
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/26/2017 7:49:59 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

e) I am not knowledgeable enough on China to debate it. You are probably somewhat right on this one. However, I'm not sure of that.




The problem with reconstructing the war in China is the source material. There is not much of it. Many of the Japanese war archives were destroyed, and the Chinese records are partial at best.

It has been the bias of Western historians, who have written the history of this war, to believe Stillwell's assessment of the situation: that the Chinese forces were capable of fighting and in good order, but that Chiang Kai Chek was unwilling to commit his forces, both because he was incompetent and because he was more concerned with the post-war situation and the Communists than the Japanese. Chiang Kai Chek insisted throughout the war that the Chinese army was in disarray, poorly supplied, and in no condition to fight. The game, contrary to all the Western historical accounts, simulates the situation in China based upon the assessments of Chiang Kai Shek rather than those of Stillwell: that the Chinese nationalist army was in poor condition.

I am certainly no expert on the subject. However, I am a professional historian, with years of experience, and I have encountered many instances of bias before in historical accounts: where people are inclined to believe the portrait that "their side" paints of history rather than a dispassionate and careful examination of the record. I credit the game-makers, in fact, for their skepticism of Stillwell and their willingness to believe Chiang Kai Shek. Whether Chiang Kai Shek, and WiTP, present an accurate picture of the war in China, I do not know for certain, and I doubt that anyone does. It is a fact, however, that Chiang Kai Shek understood his country, his troops, and his situation better than Stillwell. To what extent Chiang Kai Shek exaggerated the weakness of the Chinese nationalists in order to receive as much Western support as he could is certainly open to debate.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 12/26/2017 7:57:55 AM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 23
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/26/2017 8:18:57 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2969
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline

Kevin Paul Landdeck "Under the Gun: Nationalist Military Service and Society in Wartime Sichuan, 1938-1945"

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2j08g4sk

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 24
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/26/2017 7:39:19 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 3507
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I'm sure its been discussed


To death.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 25
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 12/26/2017 7:56:52 PM   
btd64


Posts: 4682
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

I'm sure its been discussed


To death.


In 4 threads this year, at least....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 26
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 1/11/2018 3:28:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16174
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I investigated this about 2016. I was told that it was considered several times, but that a combination
of factors did not result in a funded project. Actually - AE was intended to be an interim project.
After an official announcement that WITP would lose support, and that it was "too expensive" to consider
a full redesign to get things right, I suggested a limited update to generate money. That worked out,
and funded programmer support continued for many years. That AE was selling well probably was one
reason not to launch a new project - it is cheaper just to collect money for the old product. As well,
many features attempted were abandoned (AI in particular) - and many "hooks" were never exploited to
become functional parts of the game. New ownership and the complexity of the project probably doom this
idea entirely. However, the interest in the idea is high enough, it may inspire some project someday.
See the new editor project - wholly surprising to me at least.

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 27
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 1/12/2018 9:58:16 AM   
AndriahBlashkovich

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 12/15/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
8) the knowledge that most Allied submarines will be all but impotent until at Jan 1943

Funny, AFB's use the same knowledge to hide their subs with those torps until the dud rate improves. I don’t see you railing about the AFB's using the info to their advantage. Now that I think of it, how do I take advantage of that as a JFB? I still escort my task forces , I move what I need to move in the ships I need to move them in, etc. I've read far too much about the dismal performance of US torpedoes to suggest that they should have their dud rate reduced. If it were up to me, the dud rate would not go down until a certain number of torpedos had been duds on attacks. We all possess knowledge that gives us an advantage over the men whose decisions we second guess. This is not the first, last or worst of them.



Not to mention IJN gets horribad ASW performance that never really properly improves, unlike the USN torbs. So the AFB complaint is pretty balanced out, imho, but people tend to forget that little detail. AFBs get less offensive submarine potential at the start of the war, JFBs get less ASW potential throughout the whole campaign.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 28
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 1/12/2018 12:32:18 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
This game like most others is favorable for the offensive side.
It is much easier to plan, command and implement from the level of one omnipotent person than many people who argue and often quarrel.
For this reason, Japan is easier at the beginning and the Allies are easier later. Japan's initial advantage is weighed down and weakened and may even be liquidated through mods (I know there are mods acting inversely).
Unfortunately, no one deals with the fact that the same mechanisms work later in favor of the Allies and much more.
Well JFB have their mods and AFB have their complaints. ;-)

(in reply to AndriahBlashkovich)
Post #: 29
RE: Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? - 1/12/2018 3:20:06 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5808
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndriahBlashkovich


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
8) the knowledge that most Allied submarines will be all but impotent until at Jan 1943

Funny, AFB's use the same knowledge to hide their subs with those torps until the dud rate improves. I don’t see you railing about the AFB's using the info to their advantage. Now that I think of it, how do I take advantage of that as a JFB? I still escort my task forces , I move what I need to move in the ships I need to move them in, etc. I've read far too much about the dismal performance of US torpedoes to suggest that they should have their dud rate reduced. If it were up to me, the dud rate would not go down until a certain number of torpedos had been duds on attacks. We all possess knowledge that gives us an advantage over the men whose decisions we second guess. This is not the first, last or worst of them.



Not to mention IJN gets horribad ASW performance that never really properly improves, unlike the USN torbs. So the AFB complaint is pretty balanced out, imho, but people tend to forget that little detail. AFBs get less offensive submarine potential at the start of the war, JFBs get less ASW potential throughout the whole campaign.


This begs the question 'what do you believe is proper for Japanese ASW improvements?'.

Most AFBs would point out that its quite PROPER for Japan to NEVER improve their ASW capabilities.

The game already provides more than ample opportunity to improve Japanese ASW well above historical capabilities simply through crew experience.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to AndriahBlashkovich)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Will there be a War in the Pacific 3 someday? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.156