TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
huda0816
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:43 am
Location: Austria

TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by huda0816 »

I am wondering which system is more realistic. In this other game, it is recommended to have a 4:1 ratio. So 4 destroyers/light cruisers for 1 capital ship. In WITP:AE the ratio in the starting fleets is more like 2:1. So I am wondering which game portrays this aspect of naval combat better.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6379
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by JeffroK »

A lot depends on what forces you have available and what is the makeup of your TF.
My CTF have (in 1943) 2-3 CV or CVL, 1 BB, 2-4 CA/CL and around 12 DD, sometimes extra BB's or CA/CL's.

There is no magic formula, you use the forces available ensuring you have enough ASW, AA etc support.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Zovs »

Personally I own both and WITP-AE is more realistic IMO.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
Maallon
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:48 am
Location: Germany

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Maallon »

Yeah, I don't think it will get much more realistic than WITPAE, at least for a pure strategy game.
If you want to have it more realistic you will likely need to switch to a simulator game.
Without knowing the other game's title I can't give you any further comparison.


User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Zovs »

I think he is referring to WarPlan Pacific which is a:

WarPlan Pacific is a corps/division level wargame that simulates World War 2 campaigns using land, naval, and air forces to represent each of the countries involved in the conflict. There are economic and political aspects of the game that allow flexibility while keeping the play balanced.

Each hex is 80km, 50m, per hex. Each turn is 2 weeks.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
huda0816
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:43 am
Location: Austria

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by huda0816 »

Sorry for my obscure post. I did not write down the name of the other game as it is from a different publisher and I do not know if it is allowed to mention it. It is not WarPlan Pacific.

I know for sure that WITP:AE is more realistic. I just wanted to know if a ratio of 4 screens to 1 capital ship is realistic (Which is the optimum ratio in that other game) or it is more like 2:1 or 3:1.
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Kila Hana

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Platoonist »

Hard to say without knowing which title it is.
Image
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Zovs »

I think it would be allowed, I don’t see why it would not. Nothing wrong with comparison.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Zovs »

As far as computer games on the Pacific I can only think of Matrix’s two games and Shrapnels War Plan Pacific.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Zovs »

Looks like WPP is based off an old board game by AH called VitP which is a Beer & Pretzel game so no comparison here.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Kila Hana

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Platoonist »

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Looks like WPP is based off an old board game by AH called VitP which is a Beer & Pretzel game so no comparison here.

I believe War Plan Pacific is far more complex than Avalon Hill's old VitP (Victory in the Pacific). It has logistics, convoys, weather and ground combat which VitP never had except in the most abstract sense.
Image
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by jdsrae »

ORIGINAL: huda0816

I am wondering which system is more realistic. In this other game, it is recommended to have a 4:1 ratio. So 4 destroyers/light cruisers for 1 capital ship. In WITP:AE the ratio in the starting fleets is more like 2:1. So I am wondering which game portrays this aspect of naval combat better.

The starting task forces in WITPAE are historically accurate, so show the tactics of 1941.
It is up to the player to adjust task force composition as more ships arrive.

ADM Mitscher said: "The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels."

By “support vessels” in this context means fast BB and CA. So that’s a DD ratio of about 2:1, if you have enough DDs.
WITPAE has a CVTF ship limit of 25, so you can’t quite get to ADM Mitscher’s ideal 30-36 ship TF, but something like 4x CV, 4x CA, 16x DD is a similar ratio. The extra 8x DD could be in separate ASW “task units” that move with the CVTF.
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
huda0816
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:43 am
Location: Austria

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by huda0816 »

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

ADM Mitscher said: "The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels."

This is the quote which is used to justify the 4:1 ratio in that other game as an optimum. Is there something like (100%) screening efficency in WITP:AE?
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 18314
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: huda0816

I am wondering which system is more realistic. In this other game, it is recommended to have a 4:1 ratio. So 4 destroyers/light cruisers for 1 capital ship. In WITP:AE the ratio in the starting fleets is more like 2:1. So I am wondering which game portrays this aspect of naval combat better.
Having read through the thread, I am still wondering - where does this 4:1 ratio recommendation come from? Or the 2:1 ratio.

AFAIK, the player can use whatever set of escorts he wants/has available. There were many times in RL and in the game when there were not enough escorts available but the commanders decided to go ahead anyway. E.G. - Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal saw 2 BBs with only four escorting DDs and 3 of those were taken out at the start of the battle. No cruisers to keep the Japanese DDs and cruisers at bay. But Adm. Lee forged on and won the battle with the one functioning ship he had left.
I think it was the speed with which Washington disposed of Kirishima that broke the Japanese will to press the attack. Up to that point they had been winning.

So where does that leave the quest for the mythical "realism"?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Maallon
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:48 am
Location: Germany

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Maallon »

ORIGINAL: huda0816

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

ADM Mitscher said: "The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels."

This is the quote which is used to justify the 4:1 ratio in that other game as an optimum. Is there something like (100%) screening efficency in WITP:AE?
There is no value for screening efficiency I would be aware of.
There are different takes on TF Compositions and if you ask 10 player what the ideal TF Composition is, you will get 11 answers. [:D]
Often the limitation you have is the amount of assets you have at your disposal.
There is no single best composition or must-do here, only different tactical and strategical considerations.

Also, according to the forum rules, the "blatant advertisements for non-Matrix Games products" is prohibited. If you are just discussing a non-Matrix game it shouldn't be an issue.

edit: There are no absolutes in WITPAE, everything is chance based so even a carrier that is escorted by 24 modern destroyers can still be torpedoed by a sub. The chances are just very slim.
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by jdsrae »

ORIGINAL: huda0816
I know for sure that WITP:AE is more realistic. I just wanted to know if a ratio of 4 screens to 1 capital ship is realistic (Which is the optimum ratio in that other game) or it is more like 2:1 or 3:1.

This website provides info on historical task force numbers.
http://pacific.valka.cz/forces/tf8.htm#wake1

This is TF8 on 7 Dec 41 for example, which is the same as turn 1 in the game.

CTF VAdm William F Halsey
CV Enterprise
CA Salt Lake City, Northampton, Chester
DD DesRon6 Balch
DesDiv11: Gridley, Craven, McCall, Maury
DesDiv12: Dunlap. Fanning, Benham, Ellet

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
sstevens06
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:12 pm
Location: USA

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by sstevens06 »

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

ORIGINAL: huda0816
I know for sure that WITP:AE is more realistic. I just wanted to know if a ratio of 4 screens to 1 capital ship is realistic (Which is the optimum ratio in that other game) or it is more like 2:1 or 3:1.

This website provides info on historical task force numbers.
http://pacific.valka.cz/forces/tf8.htm#wake1

This is TF8 on 7 Dec 41 for example, which is the same as turn 1 in the game.

CTF VAdm William F Halsey
CV Enterprise
CA Salt Lake City, Northampton, Chester
DD DesRon6 Balch
DesDiv11: Gridley, Craven, McCall, Maury
DesDiv12: Dunlap. Fanning, Benham, Ellet


jdsrae, Thank you for sharing the website, looks very useful.
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by KenchiSulla »

ORIGINAL: huda0816


This is the quote which is used to justify the 4:1 ratio in that other game as an optimum. Is there something like (100%) screening efficency in WITP:AE?

Talking about Hearts of Iron 4 perhaps?

There might be a magic number but we wouldn't know it. TF composition is based on mission, expected threats and available ships. If it is a carrier TF then the main objective would be launch and recover aircraft. Main objective of any other ship (then carrier) in the TF would be to protect the carrier from air attack, submarines and surface attack. So having one carrier, a fast battle ship and two heavy cruisers in the TF would not lead to 4 x 4 destroyers... Six to eight destroyers might be sufficient, other destroyers could be used for ASW or in a separate SAG..

You would need to play around with different compositions to get a feel for it and adjust it for your personal style, enemy capability @ that moment in game and preference...

I wouldn't recommend only four destroyers to a carrier... Unless you have no choice
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: TF screen size - WITP:AE vs another WW2 game

Post by Sardaukar »

Some real-life CV TF compositions:

http://pacific.valka.cz/forces/tf58.htm
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”