rroberson
Posts: 2050
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Yes, Mike, I think what you say is perfectly sensible. I fully agree that historical accuracy, meaning (for those who will run off the mouth shortly about how if they want what happened historically, they will go read a book - I wish they would, read a book, that is) that someone has to decide WHO the player is in the game, then immerse that player in the historical situation, give him the historically-available tools (and others that were possibly available WITHIN REASON), turn him loose, and let him see what he can do. I have said what seems like at least a thousand times now that this is where the design went wrong in the first place. Are you Tojo? Are you Yamamoto? Are you the spirit of the Yamato people? Who are ya, and what are ya doing here?
Decide, designers, and go from there. But constrain the player to the role you have chosen to put him in. All this "well, I want unit X to have capability Y," "my plane should be better than your plane," and "I shoulda got two prizes out of the Crackerjack box, not one" is silly if you are the overall military commander of a theater-wide war. You get what your country can provide (that is, what the game system gives you), and then you go at it tooth-by-jowl, until ultimate victory or defeat is achieved or suffered - as specified by the game's conditions, which is the place where "balance and fairness" are considered, not in fiddling with the historical limitations on combat and logistical capabilities.
I think we all want this game to do a better job of understanding and treating such things as the effect of terrain on movement and combat, imposing realistic constraints on what forces of the time were capable of doing (Japanese crossing the Pacific to invade the American west coast? Fully-functional 400,000 man armies roaming around all over China? 300-plane heavy bomber raids? Fully coordinated 10-carrier CAPs, particularly in 1942? Fageddaboudit). Let's have some sanity, please, and some game mechanics steeped in comprehensive study of the warfighting materiel and technology of the historical era depicted in the game.
Beyond that, I only have two quibbles, and then, I promise to Iago it for good this time (until I see a patch that actually fixes WitP I or a new game that is what WitP I should have been). I certainly wouldn't want to offend those who consider this the best game ever designed - and, if it is, the best is none too good).
First, starting with the idea that the game must be open to modding or contain an editor is a bad, bad decision. Don't you people understand what that does to the mechanics and data of the game from the very outset? At this point, the integrity of the design goes out the window. You've got to do great damage to simple, straightforward code in order to leave these open strands at the far end of the game engine. If editor and modding features can be added, fine, but let's have a solidly designed game first.
Second, I don't think the AI (which is an abolute essential if you are going to stay alive in this business) is as big a problem as most people here seem to assume that it is. When you look closely and objectively at WitP, you understand that it is not that complex, it's just big (and big in some ways it doesn't need to be - think of how much of it is taken up with such nonsense as tracking pilot kills and leadership of individual ships and units).
I flatly disagree with those who talk about how "awesome" the game is and how "unbelievably complicated" it is. You got units. You got some control over how to get 'em. You got logistics, which here is nothing more than hauling item A to point X. You got combat, which resolves itself after the two sides get combat forces into the same hex. You got a lot of junk to push around, but it ain't complicated junk.
The one thing that is mostly responsible for making WitP seem complex is the extremely poor job it does of allowing the player to understand what the hell is actually going on. What are the effects of leaders? What are the specific details governing interaction of aircraft characteristics in determining combat results? And so on. Many questions about such matters have been asked in the past two years, and straight answers have not been forthcoming. I have seen one admission that this is likely because nobody, including those responsible, really knows anymore. If that is so, this is not a game. It is bull cookies.
In short, there's nothing new under the wargaming sun in this game, and I see nothing standing in the way of some thoughtful, talented design people doing a competent job of making the computer play decently well (within the limits of current AI design capability, but I don't see WitP's AI even coming close to those limits, let alone pushing them).
So, flame away, boys, or ignore, as you prefer. Having said all I have to say, I'm outta here.
You know, I just don't understand why people who hate this game so much keep returning here to toss out insults left and right. You were dissappointed with the design. After 2 years of watching you come to this board and complain...I get it. Beating the horse until it is a bloody pulp doesn't change that.
Do I think there are problems with the vanilla version of the game. You bet. Too much supply, too many transports, A2A that is overly bloody...the list is long. And that's the number one reason why an editor needs to exist. We all have opinions on how things "should be". The editor lets people change the balance of the game to make it closer to that vision. You don't think it works? Try Nik's mod. The changes he has made to date more then take care of a lot of my past complaints about the game.
I do not want any war game...this one or any other one I have played for the last 20 years to hamstring my decision making capabilty. MY reading a book comment was just that. You give me the units that were historically available. Tell me IM the theatre commander. Then I'm going to run the war effort..the way I see fit. I won't attack midway because well thats what the Japanese did. Maybe Ill go after Canton instead. That is the point of gaming...trying new ideas out. If the weapon system is available, it should be up to the player how to deploy it.
If building an decent AI was that easy...I wait eagerly for your pacific war game. It's not. That's why this game will never be suited for the single player mode. How many reviews of war games have I read in the last 5 years that comment the AI could use work. COUNTLESS ones. If its easy...give it a shot.
And yes this game is complicated. VERY complicated. No one is spoon feeding you on why unit A can do this with one leader and that with another. Japanese production is a mini game by itself. Are you saying that its too much for you to sit down and learn? I have spent months figuring some of the aspects of this game out. I disagree with how the designers did a number of things, But there have been volumes of material written by the good players of this game (of which I am not one) to aid you in learning how to make your units behave properly have you ever taken a look at any of it?
I simply don't get the mentality. ANd I never will. Its a game...it does a decent job of simulating the Pacific War. Its not perfect. Its obviously popular given the fact that Matrix just hired 2 programmers to continue work on it and there is a thought of a 2nd version of it.
Leave horse alone...its had enough.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: New Development for War In The Pacific -- MUST READ - 
All joking and kidding aside, I think we are all glad to hear this news. The only thing I could add would be some way for us players to list what we would like to see changed / added when the time comes. 
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