Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strategic/Economic Warfare

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Strategic/Economic Warfare Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 1:03:55 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline 		I know the production system was disabled, but should it have been? The strategic and economic warfare element is just not present. Other than moving supply around the Japs in a PBEM game (I know against the AI they still move resources and oil) have no incentive to move stuff to keep their economy going.

Manchuria was an area of considerable economic and political investment for the Japanese during the 20's.

I also think that if their economy is not interdicted then they should get some reinforcements later in the war etc.

I am not sure if this can be added or not. Otherwise I do not see how these wars will last the full 4 years. The US gets quite a few reinforcements, the Japs not that many. If their economy is not hindered wouldn't they build more ship replacements and eventually mobilize more men?

By forcing the economic part of the game, then the strategic sub warfare and commerce raiding becomes a more important part of the game.

Just a thought, still love the game
Post #: 1
RE: Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 5:05:11 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		As a quick abstraction to deal with the fact that strategically Japan's greatest weakness was her dependence on overseas imports, I moved most of the supply and fuel generation out of the Home Islands, putting much of it in the ports surrounding the Yellow Sea ( Japanese Held ) and some more is neutral ( Japanese ) ports in the South ... again this is an abstraction but it causes the Japanese merchant marine to be driving around much more of the map than would otherwise be the case.

It would probably be better to figure out how to make production work .. but Tanker had more time to think about that than I have ( or will for the foreseeable future ) and since he didn't do it ... I figure there was a reason ... but in our initial play testing of "Cautionaries" ... a cut down scenario 7 ... I do like the aspect that Japan must move her merchants all over the map .. it makes them more vulnerable to US subs ... which would have been the case.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 2
RE: Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 5:28:44 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Production was turned off for two reasons:

1) At the time it was determined to be off (December of 2004.... almost a year before release), it was because we weren't sure how the AI would respond. Indeed, at the time we went through hurdles to get the AI to work, and it seems (I'm sorry to say), that some post release work was needed (you guys are gonnna love 1.2).

2) The other reason I decided to have it off - for the initial release - was player accessibility. The majority of all players of WitP seem to be Allied players, and the reason usually (at least again, back in 2004 and the early part of 2005) was the production system, either due to an inability to learn it, or an unwillingness to do so. Thus, I turned production off, to make Japan playable for the newbies, just as much as the Allies. The overwhelming sentiment is that was the right decision - for the initial release.

There is no reaso why production can't be on, and in fact I am giving serious consideration to creating 2 PBEM variants, one of each campaign, with production on. It certainly would add a new dimension to the game, but I chose to not have all scenarios with it due to accessability.

There really isn't an obstacle to turning production on, just redestributing resources, tweaking supply rates, and adding back factories (aswell as aircraft engines and all that good stuff). It certainly would be a task in itself, but our initial AI concerns seem to be unfounded.

More than likely I wlll do production on scenarios, but it would be some time before they are done (many things already in the queue). I figure in a couple of months releasing a scenario pack, have a War Plan Red, Plan Gold, 2 production on scenarios, and maybe a couple of smaller PBEM style scenarios. But at some point I want to get to work on War Plan Orange: Flames in the East (the RJW expansion, add on, thingie, that will hopefully see the light of day). Nice title eh?

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 3
RE: Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 3:45:28 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline 		Thanks TankerAce. I think it would add a nice additional element. I certainly understand your concerns with the production system. There is a very steep learning curve. I would make Manchuria resource rich and perhaps coal(oil) rich to incent the Japs to make limited moves on Manchuria. Again the Japs had a tremendous interest economically there for their resources and eventually industry.

The real difference will be the Allies limited ability to interdict this production. There are no B-29's flying in to pulverize Jap cities. Commerce raiding could be a major factor in the mid to late game.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 4
RE: Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 10:12:07 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Let's keep in mind that WPO had 3 phases and the third phase was the sea/air blocade of Japan. While Cautionaries doesn't attempt tp model this phase ... a goal for us who play this game should be to move the game in the direction of being able to simulate this aspect. Currenly Cuationaries for example only simulates phase I and phase II .. which ends presumably with the US in a position to begin the blocade of Japanese ( primarily by re-occupying Manilla ). But adding resources into the game is probabaly a pre-requisite for enabling the blocade to be simulated. And yes it will be very different from WITP .. as it will be as much a Sea blocade as it will be an Air blocade. Defeat of the Japanese fleet will be required, but then this would enable the USN to roam the Yellow Sea and possibily the Sea of Japan and start reducing imports. Sounds interesting if the game can handle it ( and I have hope that it will - but it will take some effort to realize it !



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 5
RE: Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 10:27:23 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Truthfully, I don't think now it will take much effort (not nearly as much as went into creating the game).... Just a matter of redoing all of the industry and resources. But frankly, I think it could handle it.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 6
RE: Strategic/Economic Warfare - 1/25/2006 10:30:05 PM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Production was turned off for two reasons:

1) At the time it was determined to be off (December of 2004.... almost a year before release), it was because we weren't sure how the AI would respond. Indeed, at the time we went through hurdles to get the AI to work, and it seems (I'm sorry to say), that some post release work was needed (you guys are gonnna love 1.2).



I gave hope long long time ago. The game was never built for AI so its impossible to have a decent computer opponent in it.

Galciv for instance has a good AI...superb infact but its like the whole game is built around the AI and the scope is much smaller than in witp so its understandble.

I still remember the disappointment when I realized there is no AI in pacific war. Witps PBEM is "okay" but it could be better. Because of the lenght of the witp games a vga planets kind of PBEM setting would have been much more suitable for witp. In vga planets games lasted (in RL) from many months to years and it was never a problem like its in witp.

< Message edited by Zakhal -- 1/25/2006 10:33:07 PM >

_____________________________

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Strategic/Economic Warfare Page: [1]
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

1.016