Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets?

 
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: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 2:24:03 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14446
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CRAP! Once again , let's try to come up with unrealistic house rules for the sole purpose of making life easy for the JFB! The only way I think you could even begin to sell that hair brain idea is to prohibit IJA from landing at IJN bases and vice versa. And lets no let ANY JFB units sail from IJN bases while we are at it! Pretty silly , eh?

Let's start with that means NO USAAF in OZ, or USN or USMC either. As all bases there were RAAF (just like in England the 8th and 9th AF's operated from RAF bases). No USAAF in China either. Or Noumeau (French). Hell the USAAF in Europe even operated from RUSSIAN bases against the Germans.

Now let's also consider that such a rule in reality would mean no lend-lease. And probably no alliance. Yeah , I could just see USA papers saying "Our boys are dying there , and were are providing massive amounts of lend lease and other aid, but we can't land on their precious soil. And we are OK with that". Yeah, right. PP's were already paid. They were called "lend-lease" and "alliance". Then they were further financed in blood.

So before we jump on the band wagon echoing "oh yeah, that's a really freakin' great house rule that we can add to the other 999 we've proposed already" lets take a moment or two to actually THINK of the repercussions.

I've never been a fan of house rules. (Like no one knows this). But I freely acknowledge the possible need for SOME. This rule completely bypasses the
'smell test" and runs right to the "projectile power puke test". It absolutely totally changes the game. Not to mention mugs and rapes reality.



Wow, relax man, this is not some kind of house rule, this is genuine roleplaying, if players are into it let them live, just say that you find that such role playing is not for you and that's it...

In Barb's example he is clearly talking from the point of view of someon who likes his game to stay slower and smaller than what it tends to become because players optimize... It is very likely that his opponent enjoys the same sort of role-playing as Japan : army support for army only, no combined action of the 2 at tactical level, etc...

The main thing is : let them live, to each his own, this game is flexible and if some guys like to play it in a different way doesn't mean that it fails the "projectile power puke test" or "rapes reality"...

Take a deep breath.



What? You think I'm going to hunt them down and hurt them? Maybe you need to spend more time on this forum. The increadibly prolific birth of more and more restrictive house rules is seldom answered. Everytime some one comes up with a new proposal , the community often responds with "unhuh", like a group of slack jawed inebriated primates who can only see how this would give them a advantage in THEIR play. If my response seems violent and extreme, then GOOD!!!!!! By doing that , I can assume I got your attention. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But I serious feel the people who need to "stop and take a break" are those who propose such ridiculous rules without seriously considering all the angles and repercussions. You are right, this something to be considered among TWO players. But with everyone posting such a rule , then nodding "Uh-huh" , you legitimize it. Now every time I try to advertise for an opponent , everyone who doesn't have four stars next to his log on name will require 472 house rules, because that's how many the latest thread has. How many threads have been started with the question "what house rules do I need?". Instead of the ,the more logical question "Do I need any and why?".
I oppose anyone who tries to legitimize the concept that to run a PBEM you need to take on as many house rules as possible , because , like a young person buying a new car "all the cool kids have them!".

My comments were and are intended to be one thing and one thing only. An old geezer smacking young pups on the head and saying "what's the matter with you? Did you even think before you posted?". Because I'm a geezer. And that's what geezers do. Now wipe your nose , and get off my front lawn ya punk kid!


Actually nothing of what I had wrote up here ever made into any House Rules I played with... Nor do I require it of my opponents... but maybe you had not really read them through ...

I usually let my opponent to know "I like to play the game closer to history" - so he can then work with, or against that information as he likes.

As for keeping the topic of this thread, I had also provided few informations (and sources) on "how things stood in those days"

All those points I wrote up, were ideas of how one can get the game closer to reality for himself - or as veji1 had pointed out: for the purpose of role-playing.



It's good that you want to play historically (but avoid role-playing...that sort of thing goes with "Dungeons and Dragons" more than WITP. But if you want to try to play historically , read history. Don't try to make up what sounds right to you. An example , at Lunga (Henerson field, Guadacanal) you had at various times USN,USMC,USAAF, New Zealand and Australians. Had their been Dutch or British forces available, they'd have thrown them in. No one said "No USA , this belongs to OZ". (Especially since the USMC recovered it from the Japanese).

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 31
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 11:57:57 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3943
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[deliberately rude rant]




This is over the top and carried off-topic, no?

You put words in people's mouths and then insult them for something they did not say.

No one wants to impose house rules everybody *must* adopt.

And no one has suggested that units from different service branches and/or nationalities should not be allowed to share the same bases on their own or on foreign soil.


It's about the flexibility of the current aviation support system.

Yes, many aircraft mechanics may have been versatile.

But in the game any plane type can be serviced and maintained by any aviation support of any nation and any service branch - as if everybody was trained in servicing and maintaining every aircraft type and equipment.

For example, you can send B-29s to Chinese bases with Chinese aviation support and they can perform service and maintenance on the most complex aircraft of WW2 as good and fast as any US Air Force aviation support.

Well, excuse me that I have doubts that all the aircraft mechanics and ground crews were THAT versatile!


And thanks for your advice, but you are not the only one who has read history.

The Guadalcanal campaign was extraordinary and circumstances dictated the use of planes, pilots and ground crews from different service branches and nationalities on the same air bases.

There surely was a fair amount of aircraft servicing and maintenance across service branch and nationality "borders" when circumstances dictated - but that situation was not the rule.

Btw, the planes of 3rd Sqdn RNZAF moving to Guadalcanal on Nov 23rd were serviced by their own NZ ground crews which had been shipped to the island a few days before to set up camp.


So, I still claim that it was the rule rather than exeption that air units had their "proper" aviation support of the same nationality and service branch, and that the game allows unhistoric flexibility in this regard.

And it's not only about the super-versatile mechanics - the game assumes as well all spare parts for all plane types were readily available at all bases of all nations and services.


Well, of course I understand that game design choices and game engine limits dictated a simplified approach to aviation support which allows such flexibility.

And I understand that there are players who prefer this simplified and flexible approach.


But then there are others - like me - who would like a more realistic approach, be it as self-imposed house rule or as player choice option (like PDU on/off) in the game engine.

And yes, I have the right to voice my "dreams" here on the forum - although I do not expect them to come true.

And of course you have the right to disagree - but in a civilised way and not with snotty and insulting remarks.

I hereby subscribe to Amoral's assessment and push "the button".


Edit for typos

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 12/4/2013 1:00:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 32
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 12:44:21 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14446
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[deliberately rude rant]




This is over the top and carried off-topic, no?

You put words in people's mouths and then insult them for something they did not say.

No one wants to impose house rules everybody *must* adopt.

And no one has suggested that units from different service branches and/or nationalities should not be allowed to share the same bases on their own or on foreign soil.


It's about the flexibility of the current aviation support system.

Yes, many aircraft mechanics may have been versatile.

But in the game any plane type can be serviced and maintained by any aviation support of any nation and any service branch - as if everybody was trained in servicing and maintaining every aircraft type and equipment.

For example, you can send B-29s to Chinese bases with Chinese aviation support and they can perform service and maintenance on the most complex aircraft of WW2 as good and fast as any US Air Force aviation support.

Well, excuse me that I have doubts that all the aircraft mechanics and ground crews were THAT versatile!


And thanks for your advice, but you are not the only one who has read history.

The Guadalcanal campaign was extraordinary and circumstances dictated the use of planes, pilots and ground crews from different service branches and nationalities on the same air bases.

There surely was a fair amount of aircraft servicing and maintenance across service branch and nationality "borders" when circumstances dictated - but that situation was not the rule.

Btw, the planes of 3rd Sqdn RNZAF moving to Guadalcanal on Nov 23rd were serviced by their own NZ ground crews which had been shipped to the island a few days before to set up camp.


So, I still claim that it was the rule rather than exeption that air units had their "proper" aviation support of the same nationality and service branch, and that the game allows unhistoric flexibility in this regard.

And it's not only about the super-versatile mechanics - the game assumes as well all spare parts for all plane types were readily available at all bases of all nations and services.


Well, of course I understand that game design choices and game engine limits dictated a simplified approach to aviation support which allows such flexibility.

And I understand that there are players who prefer this simplified and flexible approach.


But then there are others - like me - who would like a more realistic approach, be it as self-imposed house rule or as player choice option (like PDU on/off) in the game engine.

And yes, I have the right to voice my "dreams" here on the forum - although I do not expect them to come true.

And of course you have the right to disagree - but in a civilised way and not with snotty and insulting remarks.

I hereby subscribe to Amoral's assessment and push "the button".


Edit for typos

Cool! You didn't "edit for typos" , you edited for deliberate misrepresentation. We don't have a "sarcasm smiley",(despite many request over the years , no one has figured out how to create one) so works for me as Extreme humor intent. AKA , do not take seriously. But if that's your final word, please feel free to "green button "me. And yes, you have a right to post whatever you wish here (provided you stay within Matrix rules for the forum). Absolutely! But so do I. And if you have the right to say "this is a great idea!" do I not also have the right to say it's not?

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 12/4/2013 1:50:22 PM >


_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 33
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 1:42:42 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
I think you misunderstood, no one would say you don't have a right to express your opinion, that is what the forums are for, the free exchange of ideas, right? (of course there is a certain amount of irony that you are one of the posters that most try to shout down certain types of discussions, but we will leave that). What people were saying is you should not be an ***hole when you express that opinion. That doesn't seem to controversial, yes? And lets be honest, putting emoticons around a statement is the equivalent of "I don't want to sound like a jerk, but..." basically you know what you are saying is abrasive, but you do it anyway (see what I mean). A better solution is to write better, be humorous instead of using smiley faces.

Secondly, you have strong opinions about what WitP is.... but what it really is, is a video game. That is all. As such, everyone has agency to do whatever the heck they want with it. The way you play I find simplistic, but who cares what I think about it, it is your game. Do what you want. But you should also understand that you don't have a reason to care much about how others play, whether role-play, HR to the max, as coded, whatever. You identify far too much with this game.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 34
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 1:44:04 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
When I play either side, I do have a HR that only US base forces (either branch) can service US aircraft in China and Russia (if that would ever be a factor, I have yet to have a japanese opponant go that far). I don't like the way some players pop US aircraft around, especially bombers, in China and force the Japanese player to play wack-a-mole as they take tiny chunks out of nearby industry. It means that at some point in the later war the US can base some bombers out of china, but it takes some planning and probably limits their numbers, which I think is a bit better.

I think it has been acknowledged that ops rates and readiness in general for AC are way high in the game (well for basically every facet). But I think it was a feature rather than flaw, as far as gameplay goes. I think it was Treespider that had a mod that jacked up service ratings for planes to slow things down, and I don't think the idea was very popular. It seems we like the super operations, but it isn't too surprising then that very few games go all the way to the end.

< Message edited by darbymcd -- 12/4/2013 2:51:13 PM >

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 35
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 1:58:39 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14446
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I think you misunderstood, no one would say you don't have a right to express your opinion, that is what the forums are for, the free exchange of ideas, right? (of course there is a certain amount of irony that you are one of the posters that most try to shout down certain types of discussions, but we will leave that). What people were saying is you should not be an ***hole when you express that opinion. That doesn't seem to controversial, yes? And lets be honest, putting emoticons around a statement is the equivalent of "I don't want to sound like a jerk, but..." basically you know what you are saying is abrasive, but you do it anyway (see what I mean). A better solution is to write better, be humorous instead of using smiley faces.

Secondly, you have strong opinions about what WitP is.... but what it really is, is a video game. That is all. As such, everyone has agency to do whatever the heck they want with it. The way you play I find simplistic, but who cares what I think about it, it is your game. Do what you want. But you should also understand that you don't have a reason to care much about how others play, whether role-play, HR to the max, as coded, whatever. You identify far too much with this game.


Apparently we have a difference of what humor is. "The solution is that I should write better?".Oh, that's helpful. I've expressed my opinions here partly in the persona of "the geezer" , a character that I've used through out Matrix forums with great abandon with the intent of providing this thing of which you speak..."humor". Perhaps you are unfammilar with this?

What you basically have said , I should learn to write better , use humor , and "stop being such a jerk". Is this a fair summary of your "suggestions"?Perhaps you'd like to give me some writing lessons? Or on humor? That would be very kind of you.

As current and previously serving members of the US Military and sea service would be familiar with the usage of the phrase "Noted" , I say to you "thank you. Noted".

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 12/4/2013 3:11:38 PM >


_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 36
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 2:26:59 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Good. As former military, it always pained me to give someone an "unsat" on performance eval. I look forward to the level of humor which I am sure you are able to produce. Drive on.

But seriously, is it that hard for you? Look at the response to your post, it was basically fairly negative, yes? So you were not being funny. Actually the geezer thing hasn't ever been really funny. You have some good ideas, why not just express them in a collegial way. Maybe it is a laugh riot in person, but remember, we don't get to see the twinkle in your eye. And, I cannot stress this enough, stop caring so much about how other people play this video game. It doesn't matter. And YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, however neither are you wrong (get how that works, no right/wrong...) You are one of several thousand people that play the game, and have no great insight into how best to play. It seems to be driving you to express yourself in a way that I doubt you would be very proud of in your more thoughtful moments.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 37
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 3:00:43 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14446
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Good. As former military, it always pained me to give someone an "unsat" on performance eval. I look forward to the level of humor which I am sure you are able to produce. Drive on.

But seriously, is it that hard for you? Look at the response to your post, it was basically fairly negative, yes? So you were not being funny. Actually the geezer thing hasn't ever been really funny. You have some good ideas, why not just express them in a collegial way. Maybe it is a laugh riot in person, but remember, we don't get to see the twinkle in your eye. And, I cannot stress this enough, stop caring so much about how other people play this video game. It doesn't matter. And YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, however neither are you wrong (get how that works, no right/wrong...) You are one of several thousand people that play the game, and have no great insight into how best to play. It seems to be driving you to express yourself in a way that I doubt you would be very proud of in your more thoughtful moments.


Apparently it's impossible for me. And you are unwilling to "help me" fix what you perceive as "my flaws". Yet I'm negative? Two points come to me from this. 1) I never got personal on what you consider my attacks. That is within keeping with Matrix policy. I haven't engaged in personal attacks , keeping the "doer" separate from the "deed". Have you? If you feel that I've stepped over the line at any point I encourage you to contact a moderator. It's your duty as a "good citizen of the forum".

The second point that comes to mind , which you as a former military person , is how are we to judge someone who gives criticisms, indeed attacks someone , yet is unwilling to help when asked? You tell me my writing , sense of humor , and overall personality blows , yet when I asked if you would help , you ignore it. One thing I learned in military service is if you have a problem with something , go ahead and complain but makes sure you have a solution as well. Your solution seems to be saying "your doing it wrong do better" , with no specifics.

So without anymore help that your saying "your not good at this try harder" , it's pretty hard to use your advice.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 38
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/4/2013 3:40:46 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Ok, what you said is a fair point. I had hinted at these but I will make them more explicit

1) drop the curmudgeon persona. That comedy routine relies too much on it being obvious that the target of the comedy is the curmedgeon. In other words, it is only funny if you are ridiculing either the actor or what he is saying. Which doesn't really apply in this case because I think you are trying to make valid points. It doesn't come across well, either, on the internet. That is what I meant by not seeing the sparkle in your eye, in other words, there are no subtle clues that you are intentionally being absurd, it comes across as mean spirited. Try self-depricating humor, it works better online and is generally accepted as a good-natured and of some level of taste.

2) Be collegial. In other words, remember that we are all equals and are expressing opinions. There are times when opinions can be judged as better or worse supported by fact, but when you say "don't role play" that is self-evidently unsupportable and therefore completely personal preference (and sort of silly when you think about the motivation of a huge number of wargamers in their secret heart of hearts). Understand that your preference is not more interesting or valid than the person you are talking to, and respect them accordingly.

3) Make sure you know what you are arguing against. In the above case, you assumed people were refering to base ownership, which was your error. They meant base force, which is actually leads to MORE historical rather than less HRs. So your aggression was doubly inappropriate, not only did it lead to some rancor, it was made you seem irrationally agumentative because you were mistaken. Take a breath and re-read when you find yourself disagreeing, make sure you understand what someone is saying, and if, as very often happens on forums, you don't quite get what they are saying (for instance in this case I think they did misuse some specific term), ask rather than attack.

I don't think you are a bad person or of bad character, but you have to admit your comments are often the cause of a certain amount of ill-will here. Look, all I am saying in the end is be a polite person and just let people talk, if you don't like a topic, leave the thread. I think this is actually far more on this topic than the forumites need, so will refrain from further comment.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 39
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/8/2013 7:38:14 AM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
The amount of bomb on target sorties you can fly in this game makes a mockery of how things played out irl. What I seem to have come to the realization is that b-17 and other heavy bombers are just a tool to spend supply to destroy supply essentially. You need X number supply points to launch the missions and keep things working that destroy X number of supply of the Japanese in the form of repairing bases ect.

It seems this supply balance comes out massively in favor of the allies in that it costs far fewer points of "supply" to wreck non industry strategic targets like an airbase than it costs Japan to repair it. In reality it was about the opposite. It would costs the equivalent of much more supply to equip fly and drop bombs than to repair the damage in equivalent operational terms. This is part of the reason higher value targets were prioritized mostly unless they were imminently strategically/operationally important targets to neutralize. Big bombers do not consume enough supply imo, and repair way to quickly. The crews train too quickly. The supply is too abundant, the way supply and aviation support is completely interchangeable equates to all types of material needs is "reality breaking" for a game like this.

However it's just a game so house rules are perfectly fine to fix things.

If you want to make the game a bit more realistic, I would say increase the service rating for heavy bombers even more so they take a long time to repair, and curtail some of the allied supply excess in some way seems the simplest way. But then AFB cry because there are also reality breaking Japanese exploits too, so I would advice think of something reality breaking and add another house rule ect. It leads to the house rule strategic arms race.

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 12/8/2013 8:42:52 AM >

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 40
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/8/2013 2:39:16 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3867
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
An interesting observation. Japanese have something similar to B-17 efficiency, namely their light bombers. They can fly with full bombloads from level 2 airfields and can vaporize Chinese light industry with its tiny bombs. With a supply expense of 30-50 supply points you can inflict damage worth of thousands of supply points. However, in most games, Allied player is shielded from such calamity by the no-bombing house rule. When faced with massed B-17s, the Japs can only move their airfields underground or fall back to another island.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 12/8/2013 3:40:27 PM >

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 41
RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? - 12/8/2013 10:07:57 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm
[...]it costs far fewer points of "supply" to wreck non industry strategic targets like an airbase than it costs Japan to repair it. In reality it was about the opposite.[...]


The problem with your comparision is that base repair does not cost supply ingame...

_____________________________


(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ports, airfields - strategic targets? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.133