Will this game ignore the predessesors?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Will this game ignore the predessesors?

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 II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Will this game ignore the predessesors?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Will this game ignore the predessesors? - 2/22/2001 7:28:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I am an OLD time wargammer and I have two copies of the board game with the same title as this proposed game. I am 'hoping' that the production system is closer to reality than say Gary's earlier PacWar. Having factories that produce ficticious production points that are then turned into planes thru a 'purchase' system is completely bogus. Yet this addmitedly gifted designer seems to love that kind of production. That is sad, because with TOH he has the bare bones of a system that WOULD work and resemble reality if it were simply tweaked a bit. If I as the USA want to build 12 Montana class BB I should be allowed to do that. If I want to turn the sky black with cheap american fighters I should be able to do that also. BUT let me point out some glaring defects. First for Naval and LCU all previous games by Gary have IGNORED refit. For large class ships such as CVA and BB up to 1/3 of their time is spent in shipyards undergoing refit. That is unglamorous yes BUT that is also reality. The strength of operational forces fluctuated wildly because of it. One carrier (Enterprise?) went for a year with a broken elevator because they didnt want to send it in for refit. That is an operational choice and should be in the game. There is also the effect of Typhoon which I have never seen simulated. Then we have the attrition of aircraft which was truely horrendus. In PacWar the AVG can sit there with the starting craft forever and never suffer attrition which is absurd. In the board game WarPac attrition of all types is 10%/per month and some would say that is low. Also the port and airbase capacities simulated in PacWar are absurd. There is no correlation to reality. Miday atoll could NOT fly 4 wings of B-29 off it AND have shipping capacity to supply them. There simply isnt enough room on the island. However it could easily fly 4 PBY. In WarPac (boardgame) the capacity of the ports is directly related to realistic tonnage offloading ability. I am just hoping that THIS game will be MORE that a super-expanded PacWar. I think that the designer might benifit if he examines the board game again.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

Post #: 1

- 2/22/2001 10:15:00 AM

David Heath

Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline

I am working with Gary on this game and I will say that this game will expand his design work in every possible way. David

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 2

- 2/22/2001 3:03:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by David Heath: I am working with Gary on this game and I will say that this game will expand his design work in every possible way.

That's not exactly good news. The absence of refit and attrition are endemic to every one of GG's games, or at least the big three, West Front, WiR, and PAC. Does "expanding" his "design work" mean a new flexible production system, does it include refit and attrition issues, or will it be roughly the same as his older games? The new maps are gorgeous, but I hope the rest of the game is as much an improvement as the new map seems to be over the old one. This is what always scares me about new games, and I end up dissapointed more often than not. Everyone loves the improved glitz, graphics, and animations, but is the engine under the hood still from a Volkswagon Beetle, or a shiny new Mustang GT?

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 3

- 2/23/2001 12:48:00 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello... I am programming the game with Gary. Ships already spend a goodly amount of time in port recieving repairs. Each day they are at sea, they stand a chance of accruing operational damage. If, by attrition, you mean the air group should suffer day to day operational casualties and loss of aircraft, they do now.

quote:

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn: That's not exactly good news. The absence of refit and attrition are endemic to every one of GG's games, or at least the big three, West Front, WiR, and PAC. Does "expanding" his "design work" mean a new flexible production system, does it include refit and attrition issues, or will it be roughly the same as his older games? The new maps are gorgeous, but I hope the rest of the game is as much an improvement as the new map seems to be over the old one. This is what always scares me about new games, and I end up dissapointed more often than not. Everyone loves the improved glitz, graphics, and animations, but is the engine under the hood still from a Volkswagon Beetle, or a shiny new Mustang GT?

The design team on this project includes David, Joel, Gary, Keith and myself. We continually discuss the game design. Each of us has his wish list and set of fetishes. Plus, we read this forum daily and incorporate many of the ideas you folk come up with, such as increasing the maximum number of ships in a task group. We have, in David and Joel, two of the brightest minds in the computer war gaming field and Gary and I are not bad programmers. Please feel reassured that we will make the game as best as we are able. I have to go back to programming some naval code. Thanks for Your interest... Michael Wood Lead Programmer, Matrix Games

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 4

- 2/23/2001 1:37:00 AM

DougAngle

Posts: 37
Joined: 4/4/2000
From: Arvada, Co USA
Status: offline

Go Team! Back to the code!! Thanks for reading and paying attention to our concerns. You guys have been playing wargames enough to know the 'hotspots'. It really is necessary to take into account attrition and refit and I'm sure you'll make sure it's there. A general suggestion (oh crap, here they go again!). How 'bout a once a month brief update on progress? I know that's one more thing that has to be done, but I think it will quiet some of the many post you see asking and it will help to keep us excited (all ready am) about the release. If you could do it on a somewhat regular schedule, that would be most deeply appreciated. Thanks for listening and keep up the great work!

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 5

- 2/23/2001 11:17:00 PM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

I also appreciate the update, but want to assure the designers that I am more interested in a product that actually makes it out the door and is playable than one that has all kinds of "bells and whistles" that make it unplayable. One of the keys to successful miniatures rules design (which I have done) is to keep the number of decisions down. While it may SOUND neat to have the ability to determine exactly what is being produced, this is not in keeping with the game's perspective and, after a few turns, may become quite an onerous task - one which, at the same time, one would be reluctant to turn off in a PBEM game because it would give one's opponent an advantage. Keep the perspective clean and the game will come both sooner and better than getting bogged down in peripheral issues. There is a reason why almost no one plays SPI's WitP anymore (and why I only played it once all the way through)!

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 6

- 2/24/2001 1:44:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

With all due respect to Grumbler: I dont agree. Some people play to LEARN. That is what I dislike about Gary's play balance fudges. I want the situation as it was. If it was unbalanced LEAVE it that way. Also what Grumbler is asking you to leave out may be why someone else purchased the product. I agree that micro-managing ala Civilization is a gross waste of time and I dont play that game for exactly that reason, However, War in the Pacific(boardgame) wasnt really that onerous. After you got the pipelines set up and the supply costs calculated the game was easily focused on the action. A computer would make that even easier. I think that Bombing the Reich had about the right level of control over events. (Just my opinion) Chiteng PS Grumbler a mint copy of WITP sells for $600, if your not gonna play it sell it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 7

- 2/24/2001 1:47:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

One thing I forgot, Quite a few people still play War in the Pacific. We are older and longer of tooth, but we still play it. We had to write our own victory conditions since SPI's were so bad. We also play Campaign for North Afrika. Dont assume that because YOU dont like complex simulations the rest of the world doesnt. Your wrong. Chiteng

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 8

- 2/24/2001 2:32:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Here is an exact example of WHY I consider attrition to be needed. Let us say that the garrison of Guam defeats the first landing attempt. Let us say that supply runs out rapidly on Guam. IN A GAME, We can take say 150 merchant ships, fill them with planes, avgas,food whatever and run them to Guam. Now it is VERY likely that convoy will suffer HUGE losses BUT because 'SOME' of the ships made it to the island, Ta-Da without attrition (by this I mean OPERATIONAL ATTRITION) Now Guam can interdict the Jap sea lanes. Obviously they will eventually run out of Avgas again true. But in the absence of Jap actions those planes will stay there. Ready for use at the first resupply of avgas. THat is silly, the entire scenario I just outlined is silly, BUT I have seen the Brits in PacWar do JUST THAT with Singapore. That is why I argue for 10% attrition even in the absence of enemy action.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 9

- 2/24/2001 4:21:00 AM

David Heath

Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline

Chiteng You played Campaign for North Africa..... I pass the torch. That one was way way to much for me. We will not be fugding anything... Mike Wood and myself hate that. We hope to be able to allow you to turn over control of some things to the computer that you do not want to deal with. This is not set in stone but on the drawning board. David

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 10

- 2/25/2001 7:43:00 AM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

Production decisions involve so many variables that changing production decisions was made only with the greatest reluctance. Thus, the US produced P-40s while simultaneously producing the much superior P-38. Lead times for even such simple things as landing craft were quite long, because there are so many stages to the production, and so many things from so many sources have to fit together exactly right. To allow major changes in production (rather than the previously suggested "request for a change in priorities, which I think is well within the bounds of CinC authority) would be to open up a can of worms that would reduce, rather than enhance, realism IMHO. Exactly how many 16" turrets could the US produce per month, for instance (turrets being the longest lead-item on a battleship)? How much would it cost to increase that number? What resources (human, plant, and material) would that cost? What would have to be given up to create that capability? All this would involve a great deal of research followed by a lot of guesswork. My point is that there is little positive tradeoff to most of this - a realistic system would probably offer players few options to change major procurement decisions, I think. In the end, this research and analysis would take time that is better spent making the whole game system work, IMO. The game system is the bottom line to this effort, after all. BTW, I sold my (non-mint) copy of WitP many moons ago. The buyer has tried to entice me to repurchase it many times since!

If you have actually played Truck managment in North Africa, my hat is off to you. I found it an intiguing combat system married to an impossibly boring logistics system (that never did explain, as I recall, the effects on the Italians of failing to get them the extra water rations they needed to boil their food!)

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 11

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Will this game ignore the predessesors?

Page: [1]