Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A balanced playable game should be

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> A balanced playable game should be Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 6:35:39 PM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Don't forget this is also a game, not entirely as history simulation

For a balanced game the scenario database should be changed as



No Japanese ASW incompetence ( option in game)

an upgraded japanese mine (effect at least 800)

8 inch gun in every CD and fortress unit

J7W and A7M at least one year earlier, Ki-84 6 months earlier

tripled Japanese AAA guns

Down everything in chinese infantry sqd by half

seriously reduce the number of respawned allied warships



Only in such game an allied victory could reasonablly be viewed as "victory", in current scenario such victory is nothing more than a qualification for you to take Japanese side, perhaps less.




Post #: 1
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 6:52:36 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 2
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 6:58:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Try Nemo's mod its a lot of fun and has a more balanced game with lots of toys.

Jap ASW incompetence err huh ? Allied subs are mostly all dead by 45 unless you are Speedy - Mines CD guns if you like no real issue but hardly decisive

Trollelite I think you are missing the point of WITP - the result is largely irrelevent we play the game for the the journey - now I accept we are mostly competitive some more so than others so victory or defeat are a benchmark but win or lose I will have fun getting there.

I have played numerous games and now have 4 under way

I expect to 'lose' against both PZB and Pauk probably win another game and one still to early to tell against the game criteria but that is largely irrelevant as I wouldnt have missed playing any of them.


(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 3
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 6:59:06 PM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		And provide an option to remove that damned "a-sight". Of all evil things I hate this most, more than combination of all others....

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 7:02:15 PM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Well, I only suggest to provide these as "option". Poor me, under heavy pressure of Studium, cannot find someone who willingly take Jap side so I could get some fun and relax from this game. Laborious as Japanese player's task, now I have to check "a-sight" every turn, too, to prevent some mischief from these damned messages...

Japanese game is no easier than my praktikums in uni. Terrible and grinding, every minute you have to worry about the stupid AI do something wrong because one simply cannot remember and care about every minute detail.

< Message edited by trollelite -- 11/1/2007 7:03:28 PM >

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 5
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 7:19:08 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		Why should it be balanced? Isn't trying to hold out longer than in history enough fun?


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 6
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 7:24:09 PM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Actually if allies is good enough every pbem game should be finished before 1945, with allies capture homeland to score a decisive victory.  No disrespect to andy, and I know he didn't play this game against pzb all the way. But that game draws a bit too long.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 7
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 7:38:17 PM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		read my AAR if you like , perhaps I worry too much...

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 8
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 8:07:17 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		make your own mod

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 9
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 8:29:36 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		If Japan uses its assets effectively it can defeat the Allied submarine menace. In my game vs AndyMac I sank 5 of his subs in one day with Ki-21s etc.

Upgraded Japanese mines: Well, historically this would be one of the more historically defensible ideas you have BUT, obviously, if you are mounting bigger mines you should carry less of them per ship.

With PDU on it isn't really necessary to get the Shinden a year early. Admittedly I brought it in in January 45 in order to make 1945 into something other than a victory procession but bringing it in in mid-44 would make things too tough on the Allies. You'd render their CV fleets relatively useless just at the time they need them to make their great leaps forward.

Hmm, respawned Allied ships...
Not necessary to reduce them. I removed respawned CVs from my mod and now I'm seriously considering adding them back in as I think Japan needs a bit more of a brake on its possible expansion into CONUSA in my game.


One thing I will agree on though is that if the Allied and Japanese player are equally good ( and this doesn't count for games when someone takes over mid-game obviously ) that the game should be over well before its historical date.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 10
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 8:41:22 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		What about adding extra units? As the japs recieve nothing "out of nowhere" but have to produce everything, it wouldn't be to irrealistic, when a japanese player get's more units.
He still needs to produce every plane - and I see no reason why Japan in History wouldn't have assigned new air groups when several hundred of planes are produced and inactive in pool.
He still needs to produce the ships - so why not adding more CVs, BBs, CAs and DDs, when the Japs then would be forced to decide whether to expand his naval yards or to stop several ships. By adding more ships, it would simulate the possibility for a japanese player to decide what ships he wants to get produced, without being totally ahistoric.




_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 11
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 9:18:31 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

J7W and A7M at least one year earlier, Ki-84 6 months earlier




Why stop there? :)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 12
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 9:41:08 PM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Well, I only suggest to provide these as "option". Poor me, under heavy pressure of Studium, cannot find someone who willingly take Jap side so I could get some fun and relax from this game. Laborious as Japanese player's task, now I have to check "a-sight" every turn, too, to prevent some mischief from these damned messages...

Japanese game is no easier than my praktikums in uni. Terrible and grinding, every minute you have to worry about the stupid AI do something wrong because one simply cannot remember and care about every minute detail.


If you are looking for a Japanese opponent, I'll play you. The Japanese game is a philosphy, you are going to lose, but when. It is the when and not the how. The game is unbalanced after all the allies did win the real war, and there was no chance the outcome could have been any other. The problem is to get the allied players of this game to play with the historical limitations and not 20/20 hindsight. It is fun and effective in the game to fly 200 B-17's at 1,000ft to attack shipping, and you can do it. To bad the allies did not adopt this as a tactic for it is killer in this game. So as I said if you are looking for an opponent here I am.

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 13
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 9:45:07 PM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

J7W and A7M at least one year earlier, Ki-84 6 months earlier




Why stop there? :)




Timtom I don't think we should be adding US planes to the Japanese.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 14
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 10:14:10 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Don't forget this is also a game, not entirely as history simulation

For a balanced game the scenario database should be changed as


Assuming the following comments are related to stock . . .


quote:

No Japanese ASW incompetence ( option in game)


Don't really understand this one. Once your pgs/pcs and airgroups are experienced, the only ijn asw incompetence is down to the player. You're able to deploy far more asw assets and integrate them far better than irl.

quote:

an upgraded japanese mine (effect at least 800)


Don't have much of an opinion on this other than not recalling too many allied ships being sunk by mines. Mines can be a pain in the game, but are hardly decisive.

quote:

J7W and A7M at least one year earlier, Ki-84 6 months earlier


Sure, why not? You're already dealing in fantasy by not producing more than 144 hellcats/month and having production starting in 9/43 not 2/43, having only 60 trained usn pilots/month, fubarred FM-2 stats, no bearcats, meteors, p-80s, a-1s, x-bats, lancasters, tallboys, grand slams, etc.

quote:

tripled Japanese AAA guns
8 inch gun in every CD and fortress unit


Not much too say here.

quote:

Down everything in chinese infantry sqd by half


Can't think of too many Japanese players who have been swamped by China in stock. If anything it's been the other way around.

quote:

seriously reduce the number of respawned allied warships


Eliminate respawns and have the historical oob. Any allied player would take that.

quote:

Only in such game an allied victory could reasonablly be viewed as "victory", in current scenario such victory is nothing more than a qualification for you to take Japanese side, perhaps less.


No idea what this means. As said above, if you want a fanboy or 'what if' mod, all you have to do is look for one. I'm channelling Ron S here but changes to slow the pace of the game down would be far more effective.

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 15
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/1/2007 11:24:30 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		Well, about the japanese ASW capabilities, i agree with the others Trollelite (and not because i'm playing against with u as the allies)...when i play japan my strategy is to train my bombers in minor theatres (China or single empty bases in the PI), then, when they are at 80/85 exp put them at 2/3000 ft on naval search and you're gonna kill or damage a lot of subs.

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 16
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 12:00:47 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Well, about the japanese ASW capabilities, i agree with the others Trollelite (and not because i'm playing against with u as the allies)...when i play japan my strategy is to train my bombers in minor theatres (China or single empty bases in the PI), then, when they are at 80/85 exp put them at 2/3000 ft on naval search and you're gonna kill or damage a lot of subs.



Which only goes to prove how incredibly stupid the whole "air training system" is. You can pound on a heavy bag until your knuckles are raw..., but it won't teach you to box because it can't fight back. This part of the game truely sucks. I know..., everybody can do it. But that doesn't make it right.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 17
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 12:14:51 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Stupid comments, such modification is not to change the status of both sides, just let japs also have chance to make mistakes, let those jap players more relaxed. As a game should be.  Use F-15 is a bit too far, I don't even need corsair to defeat most of you.... Such a waste of resource....

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 18
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 3:06:57 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Don't forget this is also a game, not entirely as history simulation

For a balanced game the scenario database should be changed as



No Japanese ASW incompetence ( option in game)

an upgraded japanese mine (effect at least 800)

8 inch gun in every CD and fortress unit

J7W and A7M at least one year earlier, Ki-84 6 months earlier

tripled Japanese AAA guns

Down everything in chinese infantry sqd by half

seriously reduce the number of respawned allied warships



Only in such game an allied victory could reasonablly be viewed as "victory", in current scenario such victory is nothing more than a qualification for you to take Japanese side, perhaps less.







So you want Chess in the Pacific??

I'm after WW2 in the Pacific, or as close as we can get


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 19
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 3:09:05 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: okami
Timtom I don't think we should be adding US planes to the Japanese.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to okami)
Post #: 20
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 3:10:33 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: okami
Timtom I don't think we should be adding US planes to the Japanese.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to okami)
Post #: 21
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 3:13:06 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Got some pics of B-17 & A-20 with the hinomaru as well!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 22
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 3:17:12 AM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami
Timtom I don't think we should be adding US planes to the Japanese.






Oh come on!!! Are you comparing an L2D2 to a modern jet fighter? The L2D2 was under license. Show me an F4U being flown by Japan and I will concede the point.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 23
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/2/2007 6:58:14 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		For my ideas on more balanced play - see RHSEOS - and AIO - its clone for AI as Japan.

I don't like moving things forward to ahistorical dates - the technology and state of the art would not make that possible. Instead, I like to reorganize the SAME steel, aluminum, with CURRENT ideas - better than was done - and rationalize why it was done better this time? There is a LOT the Japanese could/should have done differently/better.

More generally, the key difference is airplanes. We got rid of some old types to let some new ones in for these scenarios. Second, there is the matter of ship types: we use historical designs more consistently whenever possible. Third, one could do a lot with AAA - and as an anti-air war guy I know a lot about that.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/5/2007 2:32:30 AM >

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 24
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/5/2007 2:00:47 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Now every Jap player perhaps have average 10 eager allies opponent candidates to select, despite that most japanese players quit in 6 months....

You don't want a chess WITP version, surely. If the chess rule says one side must begins with no castle and no knight and perhaps no queen at all, perhaps this game was dead a thousand year ago.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 25
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/5/2007 2:02:58 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		The history accuracy is one direction, the other direction is to attract more people to play, and CONTINUE to play. Or anyone want to rout AI forever?

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 26
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/5/2007 2:16:46 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		For most people this game could be properly renamed as " WITP in first year" or even "WITP in first 6 months"...

< Message edited by trollelite -- 11/5/2007 2:17:12 AM >

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 27
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/5/2007 2:34:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Perhaps we should do a short game on purpose - focus on more aircraft and equipment types in the first year????

(in reply to trollelite)
Post #: 28
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/5/2007 2:52:05 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Well, if one focus only in first year and know deliberately he would not go to the second, then the game would perhaps become another WPO, and WPO is not very successful.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 29
RE: A balanced playable game should be - 11/6/2007 1:35:02 AM   
Mobeer


Posts: 662
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		I think I find the sub-title a bit more objectionable "The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945"

How about "Defence of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere 1941-1946"?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> A balanced playable game should be Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.078