AFB Whining! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


rustysi -> AFB Whining! (7/18/2015 10:28:30 PM)

Did the title get your attention, good I meant it that way. I'm not looking to poke the bear here I'd just like to have a discussion on the subject of what Japan gets/doesn't get.

First let me say this. Historically Japan had a snowballs' chance in he%% of winning the war. Provided the US didn't quit, which the way it started I'd doubt we would've. Also I'm discussing scen1 here, so Japan doesn't get any benefits/goodies that she may in any other scen/mod. And I'm not knocking these as I'm unfamiliar with them and have no opinion one way or the other.

That said how do you think you'd find anyone to take the side of Japan if there wasn't something of interest for the Japanese player to do. So the Japanese (who IMHO will still lose provided the game is played as designed) gets to play with A/C production, yeah. I can run my economy, cool!!! I can train pilots, and beef up my ASW (something Japan neglected to realize she needed to do until too late). Wait I can advance my ship production too, I'm in!!![:D] BTW I as the Japanese will not turn off all/most of my merchies/subs/whatever. I feel that historically its not something that's feasible or is too far from reality. Now that's not to say later it might not happen when I'm running outta HI. I can see in my AI game that I'm not accumulating anything near what I read here about what you need. Then again I've never been one to go along with the herd. Which, by the way has served me well my whole life. I tend to take in as much as I can and make my own decisions/choices. That's not to say I never go with the group, they do often have the right idea.

OK, so now how do you prevent Japan from overrunning everything early in the game? To me its simple, the PP system. Is it perfect? Nope, but I think it works. Oh, I can't take a bunch of ID's outta Manchuria and conquer China by summer/fall '42 and then move on Oz, India, Hawaii, or wherever. I can't just drain my entire air force/ID's outta Japan proper and conquer what I want. WTF? Why not? Oh, the game isn't designed that way. Oops. Now I know the Allies are restricted by the same system, but I feel it just helps in allowing Japan to make her historical gains and maybe a bit more (at least temporarily). So, sometime in late '42 things will stabilize and the tide will begin to turn. Of course that's provided the skill sets of the opponents are fairly even.

Now I opened this thread because I've seen this a number of times and most recently in that thread about non-historical openings. AFB's want to change things because they think Japan has too many cookies and they want more of a share. And to me at least its because they don't wish to play the game as designed. Listen you can play the game anyway you want (its your game you laid down your money), but don't 'break' it with your desired type of game style and then expect all kinds of changes to suit your desires. I for one don't think the game needs to be altered when played as designed. Now while I have much experience I am not the end all expert, so my opinion may change in the future, but I really doubt that.

This game is one of the best that I've played in my lifetime. So lets not fix it 'til it breaks!!!

So, as I've said above play anyway you want, take what you get and stop bitchin'.[:D] As usual the above is JMHO. Ok AFB's attack.[:'(]




Numdydar -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/18/2015 11:05:51 PM)

As a JFB myself [:)] I do not think it is whining so much as a desire to provide reasonable parameters around Japan's historical restrictions in the first month or so of the game. Just because we now KNOW how bad the Allies were in '41 does not mean that Japanese planners knew this prior to the war starting. So

- not looking for the Allied CVs
- Not doing long distance invasions with the * TFs
- Invading Java on Turn 1-2
- etc.

I would also contend that attacking Pearl MUST occur versus raiding the PI or other nonsense. This is because Japan thought there would be CVs in port at Pearl. Again just because we know today that there were not does not mean an attack on Pearl should be skipped.

But as you said everyone can play the game however they want as long as both sides agree. But this is how I would roll in any PBEM game as Japan [:)]




IdahoNYer -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/18/2015 11:20:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

As a JFB myself [:)] I do not think it is whining so much as a desire to provide reasonable parameters around Japan's historical restrictions in the first month or so of the game. Just because we now KNOW how bad the Allies were in '41 does not mean that Japanese planners knew this prior to the war starting. So

- not looking for the Allied CVs
- Not doing long distance invasions with the * TFs
- Invading Java on Turn 1-2
- etc.

I would also contend that attacking Pearl MUST occur versus raiding the PI or other nonsense. This is because Japan thought there would be CVs in port at Pearl. Again just because we know today that there were not does not mean an attack on Pearl should be skipped.

But as you said everyone can play the game however they want as long as both sides agree. But this is how I would roll in any PBEM game as Japan [:)]


There is a way in the game that sorta provides these parameters already:
- begin with a Dec 8th start. It works pretty well in creating a historical start line for a campaign without having to generate a lot of house rules to prevent ahistorical initial IJN magic moves.
- PDU off also works to limit some production variances - and limits both sides in fielding planes in the early days.
- DaBabes also works well in slowing expansion/advances for both sides with reducing cargo capacities.


What helps best is to find a PBEM opponent that fits your playing style.





rustysi -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/18/2015 11:22:27 PM)

Yeah, I should have pointed out that in my games I wish to start with an historical 1st turn. It being what it is. This nonsense about attacking San Diego on turn one is absurd. For me that ends the game right away.




rustysi -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/18/2015 11:24:33 PM)

quote:

What helps best is to find a PBEM opponent that fits your playing style.


Could not agree more.




rustysi -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/18/2015 11:40:35 PM)

Numdydar, your point on Java above reminded me of something I meant to include here. Remember the game is a game and not a simulation. It can't mimic reality (and I for one don't wish it to). Like the reality that Java fell in seven days. Not gonna happen in the game. No way, no how. Probably not even if the Allies just packed up and left. So, as usual there are two sides to the story.




Numdydar -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 3:55:22 AM)

Correct. Because in the game there is no way to just 'surrender' a location which is what happened in Java. In the game you have to track down and kill every unit [:@].

Plus for the most part you do not really have the Dutch feeling all alone. There are just one more cog in the Allied pool. Of course if you found an opponent that was willing to disband everything ... [8|]




Yaab -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 5:47:07 AM)

As an Allied player, I see two things going for Japan:

1. Supply as avgas.

Training Jap pilots is not a problem, the aircraft will use rice as fuel.

2.Lack of civilian economy and the Jap merchant navy.

Historically, Japs used their merchant navy to haul resources for their civilian population in HI. For example, they hauled rice from Thailand to Japan. Thus, the historical Operation Starvation made sense during the war. Since the game has no civilian economy, all resources and supply are at the sole disposal of the IJA. You can't starve Japan by mining her ports. The IJN has the luxury to stop building merchant ships, which were built historically to service the civilian economy.






GetAssista -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 8:07:03 AM)

Given GC PBEM as a long-long affair, it's a good thing to have some artificial limits on Japan rampage in 1942. Otherwise JFB joy / AFB pain imbalance becomes worse, generating more frustration and quittage for AFBs earlier. With roles reversed later when AFBs get better toys and can plaster Japan all over the place.
More balanced game means more successful PBEMs on average. And like said already, it's all about the opponent




Blind Sniper -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 10:04:01 AM)

quote:

What helps best is to find a PBEM opponent that fits your playing style.


I agree, surely much better than any house rule.
But is true that sometimes you don't know your opponent and you need these HRs for a while at least [:)]




Encircled -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 10:21:33 AM)

What Numdydar said





ny59giants -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 10:58:10 AM)

It been a very long time since I played the original WITP game, but I thought there was an at start option that used a baseball analogy to randomly move the two American CV TFs. One had BOTH of the CV TFs at Pearl, on had Lex, one had Enterprise, and a fourth had historical set up.




Numdydar -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 2:16:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

As an Allied player, I see two things going for Japan:

1. Supply as avgas.

Training Jap pilots is not a problem, the aircraft will use rice as fuel.

2.Lack of civilian economy and the Jap merchant navy.

Historically, Japs used their merchant navy to haul resources for their civilian population in HI. For example, they hauled rice from Thailand to Japan. Thus, the historical Operation Starvation made sense during the war. Since the game has no civilian economy, all resources and supply are at the sole disposal of the IJA. You can't starve Japan by mining her ports. The IJN has the luxury to stop building merchant ships, which were built historically to service the civilian economy.



My understanding is the xAKs in the game just represent the ones allocated to MIL use. There was a huge number of transport capacity that the game does not model for both sides. DaBabes C version adds some of these units into the game.

To your Avgas point I agree. I actually try and play the game where I do not fly planes if no fuel is present. Of course in the way the game moves fuel around that is not always possible. But at least I try [:)]






crsutton -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 2:23:05 PM)

Scen 1, 2, Da Babes-it does not matter. Between equally matched players the Allies should come out on top all the time. I got no problem with giving the Japanese players some breaks and options. No doubt it is the harder side to play and requires more skill and planning. I appreciate them (JFBs)for the task that they are willing to take on. That said, vs a Japanese player who knows his stuff, 1942 is one hell of a challenge for an Allied player.




rustysi -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 9:41:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

As an Allied player, I see two things going for Japan:

1. Supply as avgas.

Training Jap pilots is not a problem, the aircraft will use rice as fuel.

2.Lack of civilian economy and the Jap merchant navy.

Historically, Japs used their merchant navy to haul resources for their civilian population in HI. For example, they hauled rice from Thailand to Japan. Thus, the historical Operation Starvation made sense during the war. Since the game has no civilian economy, all resources and supply are at the sole disposal of the IJA. You can't starve Japan by mining her ports. The IJN has the luxury to stop building merchant ships, which were built historically to service the civilian economy.


OK. Avgas is supply. Its an abstract taken by the devs. Just like US destroyers can pull into Soerabaja and load up on torpedoes. Which they actually did because the tender Black Hawk was there. And then she ran out of torps, oh well. This is also part of the reason that I won't ship fuel in anything other than liquid cargo space. Just like when anyone captures factories, presto changeo, the next day its producing supplies for them. We all play on the same field. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Supply is supply is supply. That's how it is. I find it difficult enough to get what I need to where I need it when I need it as it is. I'll be damned if I'm gonna haul bullets and beans (rice if you choose) all over the map all the time. The game has enough to tend to without that and for me just means I'd move on. Again same for both sides and is an abstraction. You need abstractions to make a game playable, and I imagine to keep the coding within limits.

As for pilot training I don't feel comfortable that I have anything near what's going to be needed in the pilot field. And I train as much as I can, and make efforts to keep my pilot losses low. And whether Japan spends 'supply' or avgas to train its still spending something that she'll never have enough of. Playing the AI I look at the other side occasionally just to get their perspective. When I see Allied supply and fuel levels I drool.

This brings us to the economy. Specifically the 'civilian' economy. All I can say is what 'civilian' economy, and I'm talking about real life here. Prior to the start of the war Japan's economy was already geared to about 2/3rds military. Once the war started it went down (civilian that is) from there, basically you could eat and get clothing (and later these 'luxuries' disappeared).

Rusty




rustysi -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 9:45:13 PM)

quote:

Plus for the most part you do not really have the Dutch feeling all alone. There are just one more cog in the Allied pool. Of course if you found an opponent that was willing to disband everything ...


[:D]




rustysi -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/19/2015 9:47:59 PM)

quote:

That said, vs a Japanese player who knows his stuff, 1942 is one hell of a challenge for an Allied player.


And isn't that what you want.[8D]




Lecivius -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/20/2015 2:08:57 PM)

I have no problem with the early war pain. Nor the issue with torpedoes. Or PP's. Or just about anything else. I really think the DEVs got this game right. Even as a AFB, I luv this freaking game. The only issue I have is Japan being able to out-produce and out-advance airframes. I really like the idea of PDU on and a-historical R&D. But Japan is allowed to play as if Midway and the mistakes over the Solomon Islands never happened. The allies are hamstrung by history that EVERYONE agrees was nothing short of miraculous.

How many Japanese players would play if you had to withdraw 4 carriers in mid '42?




Numdydar -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/20/2015 2:48:09 PM)

Me, Me. No wait ... [:D]




crsutton -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/20/2015 7:59:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have no problem with the early war pain. Nor the issue with torpedoes. Or PP's. Or just about anything else. I really think the DEVs got this game right. Even as a AFB, I luv this freaking game. The only issue I have is Japan being able to out-produce and out-advance airframes. I really like the idea of PDU on and a-historical R&D. But Japan is allowed to play as if Midway and the mistakes over the Solomon Islands never happened. The allies are hamstrung by history that EVERYONE agrees was nothing short of miraculous.

How many Japanese players would play if you had to withdraw 4 carriers in mid '42?



Yeah, I know. But in the end it make for a better game.




spence -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/20/2015 11:09:38 PM)

So why are the Allies denied some of their toys such as the radio controlled drones they used against Japanese Rabaul, the homing torpedoes with which they sank 6-7 IJN subs, the "cutie" torpedoes which homed on escort vessel's propellors, the Bat rocket-bombs that they used against IJ ships and even the real Bridge Over the River Kwai. Maybe all this stuff didn't work as advertised but neither did Japanese torpedo bombers to name the most egregious IJN wet dream.




Chickenboy -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 12:08:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

So why are the Allies denied some of their toys such as the radio controlled drones they used against Japanese Rabaul, the homing torpedoes with which they sank 6-7 IJN subs, the "cutie" torpedoes which homed on escort vessel's propellors, the Bat rocket-bombs that they used against IJ ships and even the real Bridge Over the River Kwai. Maybe all this stuff didn't work as advertised but neither did Japanese torpedo bombers to name the most egregious IJN wet dream.


Personally, I would have appreciated all of these things in the game. Bat bombs are just damn cool!

Of course, the Okha is a steaming mound in the game. And, as any serious JFB will argue, "where the Hell are my balloon bombs?!?"




wdolson -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 1:25:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

So why are the Allies denied some of their toys such as the radio controlled drones they used against Japanese Rabaul, the homing torpedoes with which they sank 6-7 IJN subs, the "cutie" torpedoes which homed on escort vessel's propellors, the Bat rocket-bombs that they used against IJ ships and even the real Bridge Over the River Kwai. Maybe all this stuff didn't work as advertised but neither did Japanese torpedo bombers to name the most egregious IJN wet dream.


I don't quite understand the point about Japanese torpedo bombers not working. In game the Betty and Nell are used by most players as a torpedo bomber a lot more than they were in the real world.

The engine has limits and some things were too small an impact to write a lot of code to support. Road building is one of those things the design team would have liked to do, but there wasn't time. Not only was the Burma-Thailand railroad completed during the war, but there were also some roads and rail lines built in China and the Can-Am highway in North America.

With missile type weapons, the engine has never handled them well and there wasn't time to fix it. Air to surface rockets were a major weapon for the Allies in the last year of the war, but they don't work in the game.

Bill




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 1:48:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


With missile type weapons, the engine has never handled them well and there wasn't time to fix it. Air to surface rockets were a major weapon for the Allies in the last year of the war, but they don't work in the game.

Bill


I would have settled for some napalm . . .




geofflambert -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 2:07:15 AM)

I expect to lose when playing the Japanese. I don't mind at all. I just want to do better than they did, and that's not easily done. All of my opponents have been good, on either side. If I get an opponent who isn't up to beating me, I'm going to tell him what he's doing wrong. Hasn't happened yet.




spence -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 11:27:25 AM)

quote:

I don't quite understand the point about Japanese torpedo bombers not working. In game the Betty and Nell are used by most players as a torpedo bomber a lot more than they were in the real world.


IN THE GAME IJN torpedo bombers are sea control weapons/sea denial weapons of tremendous repute. IRL they completely failed to live up to IJN expectations. The KB "praticed" their Midway fiasco with torpedo bombers earlier in the DEI campaign and again off Ceylon...launching a coordinated raid with 200 bombers and 100 escorts against a naval target NEVER happened in real life and was utterly beyond the capability of IJN organization EXCEPT in the game. By their own doctrine every raid as well as fhe physical limitations of their carriers every raid should be split into at least two parts.




mind_messing -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 12:38:04 PM)

One thing I would have liked to have seen in AE is a representation the political interactions between the Allied powers, perhaps as some way to compensate for the fact that the Allies can coordinate multinational forces with little hassle.

It would be interesting if the Allies were compelled to fly supply to China to keep it interested in fighting the war, for example.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


With missile type weapons, the engine has never handled them well and there wasn't time to fix it. Air to surface rockets were a major weapon for the Allies in the last year of the war, but they don't work in the game.

Bill


I would have settled for some napalm . . .


Trust me, 4E's at 2000ft do just fine without napalm...





Bullwinkle58 -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 4:10:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Trust me, 4E's at 2000ft do just fine without napalm...




With respect, no they don't. Marine CAS after the Tinian campaign, the first with napalm that I know of, was an art form. Napalm works in heavy canopy jungle more effectively than HE explosives. Napalm enters the cracks in fortifications. It burns supply dumps without relying on the flammability of the supplies themselves. And it is a terror weapon with deep effects on troop morale.

So far as I know the USA does not have it in the inventory any longer; we went with cluster munitions. But as a boy growing up in Va. Beach, in sight of the pattern at NAS Oceana, I had HS teachers who had dropped it in Vietnam. And as a man who knew guys in the Navy who were alive due to its use, I have great respect for what it could do to win battles.




treespider -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 4:53:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Trust me, 4E's at 2000ft do just fine without napalm...




With respect, no they don't. Marine CAS after the Tinian campaign, the first with napalm that I know of, was an art form. Napalm works in heavy canopy jungle more effectively than HE explosives. Napalm enters the cracks in fortifications. It burns supply dumps without relying on the flammability of the supplies themselves. And it is a terror weapon with deep effects on troop morale.

So far as I know the USA does not have it in the inventory any longer; we went with cluster munitions. But as a boy growing up in Va. Beach, in sight of the pattern at NAS Oceana, I had HS teachers who had dropped it in Vietnam. And as a man who knew guys in the Navy who were alive due to its use, I have great respect for what it could do to win battles.


My interpretation is that he was referencing the game phenomena wherein every Ground Attack mission in the game always finds its target....hence the overeffectiveness of air ground attack especially versus "unspotted" targets. That is unless that aspect has been scaled back dramtically.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: AFB Whining! (7/21/2015 5:26:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

My interpretation is that he was referencing the game phenomena wherein every Ground Attack mission in the game always finds its target....hence the overeffectiveness of air ground attack especially versus "unspotted" targets. That is unless that aspect has been scaled back dramtically.



In my Lokasenna game I just two turns ago (I think) used roughly 25 4Es to drop on troops in Burma with no reported casualties. 7000 feet I think. Terrain and local forts.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.078125E-02