RE: Why all of the off map areas?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Why all of the off map areas?

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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Why all of the off map areas?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 7:41:54 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?
Every argument you've made has been refuted. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

You may want to reread the thread, all of the items stated are facts!

Yeah, and so what. Get over yourselves. This ain't global war this is war in the Pacific. Off-map bases are only those that impacted Pacific operations. Only units and ships that entered the Pacific are represented. They show up where and when they did.

You want to go back to instant teleportation? Golly willikers Batman, with that kind of technology, the Allies are sure to win.

Tired, again, of this kind of whining. Said my piece. Perceptive people will get it. Going sailing, now. Ciao.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 121

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 7:53:59 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I�m going to jump in, very briefly, because it�s unfair for Andy to try and justify work that others did.

This business of the Allies and Japanese not playing on the same map is nothing but a shibboleth. The Allies and Japanese did indeed play on separate maps.

Off map movement is nothing more than a reasonable method of moving/introducing units and ships into the game from various global starting points; none of which were available for Japanese interdiction. They are there to slow the pace. They are there to avoid the �magic teleportation� artifices that were necessarily present in WiTP.

Andrew Brown, Don Bowen and I spent quite a while examining potential gaminess aspects of this; did find a couple, but built in some nasty traps to obviate that kind of behavior. Theoretical discussions are worthless. Once the game releases and is played for a time, complaints about off-map movement will be entertained.

I'm not picking on Andy, I'm pointing out something to that seems to unbalance the game!

1.Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player?

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 122

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:10:28 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Ships used fuel off-map that never existed in the Pacific.

Ships obviously were used to move troops around the non-map areas, just none that were in the Pacific.

Escorts were also used to convoy those troops, but again, none that were in the Pacific.

Same thing for air groups; there were chains of airbases all across the world for long range planes, others used ships that again, did not serve in the Pacific.

As for "no provision for losses", well, other than in the North Atlantic, there were very, very, very few troop transports sunk by German U-boats. Even in the NA the U-boats tended to concentrate on US to Britain convoys and the other ones were often left alone.

Yeah, it's an advantage for the Allies that Japan didn't have. ISTM that the developers are modelling the non-Pacific transport capabilities very well; perhaps they could have put in some small random chance for "troop ship torpedoed by U-boat" kind of thing, but since that hardly ever happened in the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean, what's the big deal?

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 123

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:11:57 PM

Graycompany

Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline

for a time, complaints about off-map movement will be entertained.

[/quote]

I'm not picking on Andy, I'm pointing out something to that seems to unbalance the game!

1.Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player?

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

[/quote]

What is your point to this? it is in the game, it is not coming out.

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).

So what? you dont think they had fuel at the off map bases that could be used?

2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).

you dont think the Allies had other ships that were dedicated to moving units and supplies other than what is represented for the game in the Pacific?

3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)

could have saved some posting here, see answer 2 above.

4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.

and? Name a Convoy that was stopped moving Units and supplies on the routes that are off Map represented in the game? (dont say PQ17). And really? think if anything was, it wouldnt be replaced if it was really needed?

5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

Again, there are more ships dedicated to this process than are represented in the game.

They are trying to slow the Allies down with this method. There will be plenty of targets on the Map to shoot at.

In no way, would this unbalance the game, None, not a chance, wouldnt happen, Pigs shall fly first, the Cubs will win the World Series, Seriously, If its in the game, its in the game....(I called EA Sports, they dont mind really....)

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 124

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:13:42 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I'm not picking on Andy, I'm pointing out something to that seems to unbalance the game!

1.Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player?

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

All of that would be covered by units not participating in Pacific war and thus not belonging to game. Only point even remotely relevant to Pacific War would be 4. And Axis effort to interdict such movements was very poor.

Apparently you'd like to include Allied Atlantic escorts into game too?

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 125

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:33:38 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

The off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

What's the point of the Japanese building bases to interdict allied shipping, if the allies can just by pass all of them?

Why reducing allied shiping in the pacific only to give them a free ride in the Atlantic?

What will prevent the Allied player from attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free, around the world).

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 126

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:40:12 PM

Graycompany

Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

What's the point of the Japanese building bases to interdict allied shipping, if the allies can just by pass all of them?

Why reducing allied shiping in the pacific only to give them a free ride in the Atlantic?

What will prevent the Allied player from attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free, around the world).

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

Everything you stated could, should or was done....... Again, your point?

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 127

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:41:10 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

What's the point of the Japanese building bases to interdict allied shipping, if the allies can just by pass all of them?

Why reducing allied shiping in the pacific only to give them a free ride in the Atlantic?

What will prevent the Allied player from attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free, around the world).

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

Obviously, all you want to do is crank your rant.

Accordingly, requesting this thread be locked.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 128

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:43:37 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

What's the point of the Japanese building bases to interdict allied shipping, if the allies can just by pass all of them?

Why reducing allied shiping in the pacific only to give them a free ride in the Atlantic?

What will prevent the Allied player from attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free, around the world).

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

Have you played AE yet?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 129

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:45:33 PM

mutterfudder

Posts: 204
Joined: 4/2/2004
From: Everything's BIG inTexas
Status: offline

Sounds like micro management overload to me

_____________________________

Beware the NWO!

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 130

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 8:59:53 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

Although I'm a relative newcomer to this great site,
your conduct in this thread tells me everything I need to know about how some developers tend to be tight lipped about their projects.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 131

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:02:47 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Guys agree to disagree - Pad you don't like it fair enough don't buy the game it aint changing that much is certain.

Now are their any other questions on any other topics ?

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 132

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:06:56 PM

mutterfudder

Posts: 204
Joined: 4/2/2004
From: Everything's BIG inTexas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys agree to disagree - Pad you don't like it fair enough don't buy the game it aint changing that much is certain.

Now are their any other questions on any other topics ?

Fix it so it is not such a chore to selecting a task force.
Where you don't have to scroll through all the ships in port when you want only the AP's.

_____________________________

Beware the NWO!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 133

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:08:47 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

What's the point of the Japanese building bases to interdict allied shipping, if the allies can just by pass all of them?

Why reducing allied shiping in the pacific only to give them a free ride in the Atlantic?

What will prevent the Allied player from attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free, around the world).

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

Sounds like AE IS more realistic with the off-board bases, since the pacific fleet COULD have realistically sailed around the world if they had wanted to because they DID have a free ride in the Atlantic (at least from Japanese interdiction).

At least now, the British can't be knocked out of the war just because 1 base was taken.

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 134

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:09:04 PM

TMFoss

Posts: 26
Joined: 10/17/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

What's the point of the Japanese building bases to interdict allied shipping, if the allies can just by pass all of them?

Why reducing allied shiping in the pacific only to give them a free ride in the Atlantic?

What will prevent the Allied player from attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free, around the world).

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

What's the point? By building these bases it greatly increases the time it takes the allies to move supplies and troops into position where they can launch an offensive against Japan. This gives Japan more time to build up bases, accumulate resources, and stockpile supplies.

There was a lot of shipping available in the Atlantic. Historically some of it was used to deliver supplies and troops to Asia. These didn't just arrive there by themselves, and they were not shipped via the Pacific. Also, these supplies and troops only arrive at other off map bases and must use scarce shipping to be moved into anywhere where they could be useful. As was stated earlier, the supplies available to support these troops will be quite limited, thus making any large scale reinforcement of this theater very difficult at the least.

The Pacific fleet could have sailed across the Atlantic and entered the Indian Ocean, but the support for it would have been extreemly limited. Besides, in order for it to be effective, it still needs to approach Japanese occupied territory and engage in combat. Japan opperates on interior lines and can rather quicky shift forces (especially air and naval forces) from one theater to another. For the allies, shifts like these would take months of game time. It is not like they magically appear on the other side of the map via warp drive. The reason that this was not done was it was not necessary. Had Japan taken bases much further south in the Pacific, then the allies would have done things differently-including using the Atlantic approach more often.

This actually makes the game more realistic. Troops and supplies no longefr magically appear on the Asian mainland in Karachi. The allies are not limited by a flat Earth with edges that limit movement, and are given options that existed in real life. Should there be a small percentage chance that the convoys can be attacked? Maybe. Should there be a limit on the tonnage allowed to be shipped at one time on off map movement? Maybe- but this is for the developers and should wait until people have actually played the game and evaluated the impact of these features on gameplay.

(in reply to mutterfudder)

Post #: 135

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:14:30 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Right, I've asked the rest of the AE team to get back to work. I'd be happy to answer any remaining questions about the off map areas.

At a high level, they were added to control off map movement. In fact, I take the "blame" for putting them in.

. Now Andrew might want to fight me over the blame - he probably wanted to do it too. But I know why I wanted to do it. Basically I got the idea from the original WITP game. And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

So, this game did have off map areas. This system permitted control over transfer of assets from the Indian Ocean to the Eastern Pacific. It was an abstract system. Each off map holding box was connected to the map and many of the offmap boxes were connected to each other by a series of "places". So between the "Africa" holding box and the "England" holding box was a certain number of places. Each item moving between these holding boxes moved a certain number of places per turn - depending on the speed of the item. No fuel was required, no escorts were required, hecque no ships were required for moving planes or troops. And the needed stuff was assumed to be supplied by the offmap infrastructure.

So "why all of the off map areas" well because I thought the original WITP modelling was good enough that we should copy that idea. So we did. It is actually pretty hard to do something totally original in game design - so often we just use ideas we've seen before - so the off map holding areas - and the abilities to move things between them was an idea we stole - and added to the game for improve the modeling of moving things around - off map.

If there are further questions - please ask away!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 136

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:15:37 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I'm sorry I thought AE was going to be more realistic, not less!

Wait, wait, wait! Here it comes, I can see it already:

If you guys dont remove all off map areas, I wont buy this game!

Oh man! Its coming, just you wait, it will be his next post!

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 137

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:21:12 PM

Graycompany

Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline

I think it is a great solution to handle some of the problems that face moving Units from one theater to the other. Since the floor has been opened for question, Will we be moving stuff on the Off map Area on Fathers day?

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 138

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:25:19 PM

TMFoss

Posts: 26
Joined: 10/17/2008
Status: offline

To the developers,

I just want to say that I like what I am seeing, and I have no complaints so far. I have been playing UV, then WITP since shortly after it came out. All of my games have been against the AI, so I am really looking forward to something new. Thanks for all of the effort. But as we all know, you can never please everyone, and no matter how fair or equitable you think something is, there will be those who do not see it that way. Thanks again.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 139

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:26:34 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

It is my understanding the the unit arrivals at the off map bases are occurring at the time and in the amounts that they did in the actual war. This means that any submarine or air attacks that these convoys suffered have already been taken into account - because the units are arriving in the condition in which they arrived (to the best of the knowledge of the crew producing AE). So that means that the argument about them not being subject to attack while in transit is moot.

A similar situation exists with unit withdrawals. US and RN ships are requested to be removed at the times that they did IRL. They return to the theatre at the time that they did IRL. Some of these were unable to return to the Pacific due to having been sunk in the Med or Atlantic.

Are you asking for the ability to improve upon the historical record for Germany/Italy?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to TMFoss)

Post #: 140

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:43:04 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

I do not like off-map bases
I do not like those added places

I do not like ships getting away
I can not bomb ships that go that way

I don�t care if it is real
It ruins my plans, that�s the deal

I will not like them, I know it�s true
I will let you know until I�m blue

Panama, Port Stanley and Cape Town
I don�t like unit going the long way around

I do not like them, they seem unfair
I do not like them anywhere

I do not like them, I�m not a fan
I do not like them, Sam-I-am

(sorry Dr. Suess, wherever you are)

< Message edited by Charbroiled -- 6/16/2009 9:57:59 PM >

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 141

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 9:56:19 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

Right, I've asked the rest of the AE team to get back to work. I'd be happy to answer any remaining questions about the off map areas.

At a high level, they were added to control off map movement. In fact, I take the "blame" for putting them in. . Now Andrew might want to fight me over the blame - he probably wanted to do it too. But I know why I wanted to do it. Basically I got the idea from the original WITP game. And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

So, this game did have off map areas. This system permitted control over transfer of assets from the Indian Ocean to the Eastern Pacific. It was an abstract system. Each off map holding box was connected to the map and many of the offmap boxes were connected to each other by a series of "places". So between the "Africa" holding box and the "England" holding box was a certain number of places. Each item moving between these holding boxes moved a certain number of places per turn - depending on the speed of the item. No fuel was required, no escorts were required, hecque no ships were required for moving planes or troops. And the needed stuff was assumed to be supplied by the offmap infrastructure.

So "why all of the off map areas" well because I thought the original WITP modelling was good enough that we should copy that idea. So we did. It is actually pretty hard to do something totally original in game design - so often we just use ideas we've seen before - so the off map holding areas - and the abilities to move things between them was an idea we stole - and added to the game for improve the modeling of moving things around - off map.

If there are further questions - please ask away!

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

Thanks

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 142

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:05:21 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

The time it will take for the allied player to move his forces from the US west coast to South Africa is free time for the Japanese player to attack from a position of superiority. Thus, this is not a "free move".

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

Tell me what bases the Japanese had in the South Atlantic or the Mediterranean Sea. I'm interested to know what bases you are referring to...

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

As previously pointed out, the ships involved are above and beyond the ships available in the Pacific. These are vessels that were not in the Pacific, so there should be no argument here.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 143

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:07:49 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

Hey now, I own the even bigger reprint from Decision Games.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 144

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:16:46 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

Thanks

Pad - the "art" or "science" (it is probably both) of simulation design - primarily involves trade-offs in deciding what to model "more abstractly" and what to model "less abstractly". This is the fundamental prioritization process we go through when we design a semi-conductor manufacturing tool simulation (which I do in my day job) or a computer historical war game (such as WITP/AE).

So - the off map areas were designed to model movement by the allies on areas not covered explicitly by the map in the game. This is done very abstractly in WITP - it is done slightly less abstractly in AE. I believe, on balance, that the slightly less abstract modeling in AE is more realistic.

It may be that you disagree - and that is fine - disagreements over what should be modeled more abstractly and what should be modeled less abstractly basically sum up 90% of the debates we have on the AE Team - so it would not be unusual to have such a disagreement. I am fine with that. Hopefully you are as well.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 145

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:17:46 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution
Hey now, I own the even bigger reprint from Decision Games.

Yeah, me too but without the supply system - it is hardly the same. I miss my "Logistics In the Pacific" !!!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to HMS Resolution)

Post #: 146

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:27:24 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

Thanks

Pad - the "art" or "science" (it is probably both) of simulation design - primarily involves trade-offs in deciding what to model "more abstractly" and what to model "less abstractly". This is the fundamental prioritization process we go through when we design a semi-conductor manufacturing tool simulation (which I do in my day job) or a computer historical war game (such as WITP/AE).

So - the off map areas were designed to model movement by the allies on areas not covered explicitly by the map in the game. This is done very abstractly in WITP - it is done slightly less abstractly in AE. I believe, on balance, that the slightly less abstract modeling in AE is more realistic.

It may be that you disagree - and that is fine - disagreements over what should be modeled more abstractly and what should be modeled less abstractly basically sum up 90% of the debates we have on the AE Team - so it would not be unusual to have such a disagreement. I am fine with that. Hopefully you are as well.

Is there some reason no one on the development team can't answer the questions posted?

< Message edited by pad152 -- 6/16/2009 10:28:06 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 147

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:27:45 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).

Incorrect. They are using fuel that was never used in the Pacific so the fuel is not represented on-board. Off-board fuel.

quote:

2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).

Incorrect. They are using ships that were never used in the Pacific so the ships are not represented on-board. Off-board shipping.

quote:

3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)

Incorrect. They are using ships that were never used in the Pacific so the ships are not represented on-board. Off-board shipping.

quote:

4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.

Realistically, nothing could be attacked by the Japanese in the Atlantic....and short a a few hurricanes and/or possibly a German U-boat, the chance of loss was slim.

quote:

5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

Incorrect. They are using escorts that were never used in the Pacific so the escorts are not represented on-board. Off-board shipping.

quote:

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

This could have been done realistically, but, as in real life, the time required may be a deterrent. As the designers have already said, the time that it takes for this off-board movement has been modeled.

quote:

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

So what, this is realistic. The Japanese could not attack anything in the Atlantic.

quote:

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

The ships involved were never in the Pacific, therefore they can not be used In-game. These are Off-board resources.

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 148

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:40:55 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Is there some reason no one on the development team can't answer the questions posted?

I am on the development team. I am the leader of the development team. I have answered and will continue to answer!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 149

RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/16/2009 10:47:10 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Is there some reason no one on the development team can't answer the questions posted?

I am on the development team. I am the leader of the development team. I have answered and will continue to answer!

Can you then please answer the following questions?

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases IN THE PACIFIC, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) when shipping them in the Atlantic?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 150