Issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Issues

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] >> Warplan Pacific >> Issues

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Issues - 5/30/2021 2:03:15 AM

Szilard

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline

After fiddling around with the editor and the game, I get left with the following issues which break the game for me as an historical simulation, to a greater or lesser extent:

- As far as I can see, there is no provision for improving airfields or ports. The US ability to quickly create & upgrade facilities, compared to the Japanese, was a major factor in the war.

- Related to this, any historical game IMO needs to include something about wastage. Eg: because the Japanese had relatively poor infrastructure they lost a huge proportion of aircraft in accidents just trying to reinforce/replenish the Solomons, and because their airfields were more primitive, their servicability rates were relatively low, degrading over time a airfields were degarded by constant bombing. This was a big factor and I think an historical game needs to pay some attention to it: what would ahve happened if the Japanse had better infrastructure? etc etc

- AA defenses. There is no differentiation as far as I can see between Japanese and Allied capbilities, and no technology progression? The Japanese can construct AA in cities sufficient to completely toast Allied strategic bombers. That doesn't correspond to anything real, IMO.

- Fleet oilers. Everybody has the ability to replensih at sea, limited only by construction of oiler units, regardless of tactical situation. In reality, the US had much better methods and provision for replensihment at sea, and it had a major bearing on their tempo of operations. As the Battle of the Coral Sea showed, however, oilers were vulnerable if the tactial situation wasn't favourable; in the game, anybody can refuel at any time.

Post #: 1

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 4:44:27 AM

generalfdog

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline

For it's scale the game is actually pretty good, you have a point on some of it but i feel given the scale of the game they are relatively minor, on strategic bombing, you are mistaken, initial assessment you seem correct but what you are probably not factoring in is a sustained campaign even with a level 6 AA a well run strategic campaign can be devastating. The key is to pick high dollar targets and then don't let them repair (they only repair 2 per turn) so once you get them damaged one air strike per turn keep the production loss high take a 10 point production center with a pm of 1.8 it's worth 18 so even if you lose 2 or 3 points in a strike which is unlikely you are still a break even preposition and you are slowly destroying their economy, hit them hard with a bunch of bombers to get them damaged them have one keep that target from repairing and the others move on to the next target make sure your bombers are set to repair.

(in reply to Szilard)

Post #: 2

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 11:54:21 AM

jmlima

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

Thing I noticed missing was the dichotomy of command (army / navy) that caused so many issues and that ultimately determined a lot of the options the Japanese took.

(in reply to generalfdog)

Post #: 3

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 2:12:49 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

I will remind all of you this is not a game of historical wargame simulation. It is a wargame simulation based on history.

It is meant to have FUN and strategy with ease of use on the higher level possible in a game with the right amount of complexity that isn't overwhelming.

If you want a historical simulation that is War in the Pacific.

Who doesn't like invading Australia? Or conquering New Zealand?

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 4

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 2:23:14 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 5

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 2:29:21 PM

generalfdog

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline

What Alvaro said. It does sound like you need to play war in the pacific, personally that's a little to in depth and time consuming for me. Also how do you really simulate Japanese command conflict in a strategic game? World in flames tried and all they came up with was mixing naval and land bombers, so you can do that on your own just close your eyes when you pick a bomber tech

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 6

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 3:15:13 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Szilard

After fiddling around with the editor and the game, I get left with the following issues which break the game for me as an historical simulation, to a greater or lesser extent:

- As far as I can see, there is no provision for improving airfields or ports. The US ability to quickly create & upgrade facilities, compared to the Japanese, was a major factor in the war.

Not sure why you feel the need to improve airfields or ports.
1) Airfields no matter what can house 1 plane. That is it. So improving it would do nothing.
2) If you could improve ports again...why? There are more than enough ports to get done what you need to do. The scale of the game is to big in my eyes for minor things like this but again that is my opinion. Plus the AI would never be able to handle all this effectively.

quote:

- Related to this, any historical game IMO needs to include something about wastage. Eg: because the Japanese had relatively poor infrastructure they lost a huge proportion of aircraft in accidents just trying to reinforce/replenish the Solomons, and because their airfields were more primitive, their servicability rates were relatively low, degrading over time a airfields were degarded by constant bombing. This was a big factor and I think an historical game needs to pay some attention to it: what would ahve happened if the Japanse had better infrastructure? etc etc

This is build into the effectiveness...as your units move they lose it and it comes back over time.
If the Japanese had better infrastructure they would still have lost...they do not have the resources to continue a war.

quote:

- AA defenses. There is no differentiation as far as I can see between Japanese and Allied capbilities, and no technology progression? The Japanese can construct AA in cities sufficient to completely toast Allied strategic bombers. That doesn't correspond to anything real, IMO.

You are correct...Japan can fill their cities with AA...but then they could not buy planes or troops to also fill and guard them and the US could invade easily. AA does not matter when a corp walks into the city.
Again...Japan can not afford to build 2 dozen AA and not bother repairing their aircraft or ships...or building home guard. 200PP goes SO fast...In WPE I have over 600PP as the Germans and have NO chance to keep up with my opponent...Japan can never get anywhere near that much.

quote:

- Fleet oilers. Everybody has the ability to replensih at sea, limited only by construction of oiler units, regardless of tactical situation. In reality, the US had much better methods and provision for replensihment at sea, and it had a major bearing on their tempo of operations. As the Battle of the Coral Sea showed, however, oilers were vulnerable if the tactial situation wasn't favourable; in the game, anybody can refuel at any time.

Correct anyone can refuel...but it is not 100% successful.
The US can build dozens upon dozens of oilers...Japan again will run out of money making all this.

This game was not made so that you would have to micro-manage every aspect.
If that is what you want this is not the game for you.
WitPAE is more your style though you need a few years of your time not 2 months to play a game.

(in reply to Szilard)

Post #: 7

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 4:02:17 PM

incbob

Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline

#1 I would like the ability to improve ports, but not a biggy. The Allies really never just massively improved ports that weren't already there.

#2 For the Japanese it was not wastage. It was limited resources. Please provide a source for your information on wastage?

#3 The Japanese had good enough AA that when the Allied B-29 pilots were told to fly low when bombing there was a near riot. They were worried about AA not fighters. They did not start flying low until they started night bombing and the fire bombing. (They wanted to fly low because the Jet Stream over Japan plays havoc with high level bombing.)

#4 The US did have better methods. So yes, maybe it takes the Japanese a couple hours longer or maybe instead of going 20 knots and Japanese have to slow down to 8 knots. You are correct. But those differences disappear in two week turns. Remember the Japanese were able to refuel and replenish a fleet at sea in the rough sea North Pacific to do Pearl Harbor.

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 8

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 4:25:27 PM

kennonlightfoot

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: generalfdog

What Alvaro said. It does sound like you need to play war in the pacific, personally that's a little to in depth and time consuming for me. Also how do you really simulate Japanese command conflict in a strategic game? World in flames tried and all they came up with was mixing naval and land bombers, so you can do that on your own just close your eyes when you pick a bomber tech

I have War in the Pacific Admirals Addition.
It does simulate the Pacific war in all its detail.
But it is very complex and can easily take you most of a day to finish a turn. So if playing an opponent that means two days to complete a turn. Which means if both are very dedicated they can finish the game in under eight years.

But if you or your opponent aren't that dedicated, you may finish the game in 20+ years which is probably past my expected life time.

Reminds me of an article in Avalon Hill's General back last century.
They described a hypothetical game covering WW II in detail. Each unit counter was for an individual soldier. The player had purchased a warehouse to lay the map out in with catwalks so you could reach all the hexagons. The guy's wife had gone insane and just sat at a table repeatedly rolling a pair of dice.

Still working on my first turn of War in the Pacific against the AI.

(in reply to generalfdog)

Post #: 9

RE: Issues - 5/30/2021 5:17:58 PM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Thing I noticed missing was the dichotomy of command (army / navy) that caused so many issues and that ultimately determined a lot of the options the Japanese took.

I have ideas for this in a team game. We just need PBEM and password protected turns to make it happen.

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 10