Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games?

 
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 >> Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 5:42:40 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
While reading madgamers' concerns that AE is too complex and all, it got me to think about the following: the first computer wargame that I really liked was Panzer General. It was a beer and pretzel abstraction of reality with some 20 units that was very, very fun, and any kid could play. Then I found Steel Panthers, and it was a blast - another small, simple game with some 100 units where I had lots of fun blasting them allied tanks from reverse slopes.

The next significant one was TOAW, but then I didn't have as much fun. I liked TOAW much more in principle, because I'm a grognard and TOAW was definitely a grognard's thing. So I could revel for hours with the 4,000 units and detailed TO&E in the Barbarossa At Tactical Level scenario, but it was a much more serious commitment.

The next escalation is AE; it probably has in the range of 10,000 units plus 10,000 people around, and a game can last for months. The first turn can take days to plan, and the rules are so complex that you have to read a 300+ pages manual and read some 100-500 posts to get through exceptions, details, clarifications, etc...

Then, what's next? A game with 100,000 units that will take years to go through? Don't take me wrong in asking that -- I'm a grognard, and I like AE a lot. I revel in studying complexity (I'm paid good money to debug large, complex systems -- and I use to study Linux kernel as a hobby), so my opinion of the increased size and complexity of computer wargames will always be "Yeah!". I can't help myself. But I'm candid about that: these big, complex wargames are starting to look more like a scholar's research project than a game.

So I wonder what happened with the simple pleasure of hiding my Panthers waiting in ambush. Are we really on the right track with these large, hyper-realistic games?


Thanks,
fbs
Post #: 1
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 5:54:00 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 2
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 6:30:36 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Well put.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 3
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 7:06:38 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		There is immense scope for Theatre sized simulations, IMHO we still havent seen a good WW2 West or East Front game, WW2 Nth Africa/Med campaign or a WW1 game. And I think a substantial market for them.

But I agree, let the computer do a lot of he work (maybe toggles like WITP subs & PDU though who has yet to see an AI capable of this)

i dont want to micromanage pilot training or commanders of PT boats, I'll be happy with who the computer spits out, just like a real theatre commander.

There is still a bigger market for  FPS or "simpler" strategic games like HOI, they just aren't my cup of tea.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 7:16:37 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline 		Personally, I wouldn't object to more detail in a WitP like game. There plenty of ideas around how to do that, so I wont go and list any.

The important thing though is that these additional layers of complexity must be easy to access, and preferably somewhat (like CS convoys and Japanese Industry) automatable.

Also, not all the features involve adding more size (in the form of increasing unit number by an order of magnitude), ideas that add more depth are just as important.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 5
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 7:21:28 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline 		I like to micromanage

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 6
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 7:31:21 AM   
Dobey455

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline 		TBH I think the reason WITP AE has such a loyal fan base is that there isn't much in the way of these mega-micromanagement games, not quality ones anyway.
There is no lack of FPS or "simple" strategy games.

Ultimately there are good examples of games across the complexity specturm and people can choose whichever suites there tastes.

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 7
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 8:18:09 AM   
skrewball


Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.



Personally I believe that the inclusion of Pilot tracking adds to the game. It makes it a little more personal. I would also like to see tally sheets for sub captains. Don't you think that command decisions were made in WWII by also weighing in on who commanded a unit and what that person accomplished?

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 8
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 8:28:01 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		My only micro-complain is search arcs. IMO it's not Yamamoto's or even TF commander's job to play with the search arcs every day...

(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 9
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 9:10:29 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Come on.. There are plenty of games around for people with Challenged IQs Wow , COD ..The moaning generation Y kids have almost killed decent planning games I still miss FITE where a single turn would take  days and you had to plan your strategy  ,those games limit on complexity was the human time it would take to play but the computer can make things much easier:-)

I do think that the computer/game can help us better , managing convoys well , Choosing leaders better , simpler screens like the recent production screen and AETracker etc . If any of you remember stars it had the best convoy system ever , it was predictable and was so simple yet it handled many edge cases.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 10
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 9:13:24 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: skrewball


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.



Personally I believe that the inclusion of Pilot tracking adds to the game. It makes it a little more personal. I would also like to see tally sheets for sub captains. Don't you think that command decisions were made in WWII by also weighing in on who commanded a unit and what that person accomplished?



I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit...

(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 11
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 9:46:08 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: skrewball


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.



Personally I believe that the inclusion of Pilot tracking adds to the game. It makes it a little more personal. I would also like to see tally sheets for sub captains. Don't you think that command decisions were made in WWII by also weighing in on who commanded a unit and what that person accomplished?



I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit...

While I will agree with you, I still say it's fun to watch a group of pilots as they progress in the game and run up scores and try to survive.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 12
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 12:37:00 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit...


Well, I wouldnt object to that, as long as there was a reasonable benefit for doing so, and as long as it could be partially automated like pilot selection without wrecking your game completely...

Picking the -entire- squad might be a little over the top. Maybe. Then again, getting to assign all of them equipment (Rifle, LMG, etc) based on proficiencies with weapon types might be fun...

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 13
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 12:56:37 PM   
WITPPL


Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline 		I love WITP.
I hate  the time I have to spend clicking.
It is a very user UNfriedly software.

Keep complexity, rework communication with a player.

Plus:

I have noticed that with every patch game starts to respond more and more weird and unstable to player "clicks" (wrong screens, weird screens appear during clicks in a longer session etc).

However,

I do understand limits Devs worked with and it is not a complain.



_____________________________


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 14
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 1:01:33 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I love WITP.
I hate  the time I have to spend clicking.
It is a very user UNfriedly software.

Keep complexity, rework communication with a player.

Plus:

I have noticed that with every patch game starts to respond more and more weird and unstable to player "clicks" (wrong screens, weird screens appear during clicks in a longer session etc).

However,

I do understand limits Devs worked with and it is not a complain.





Sadly, mind-machine interfaces are out of reach for the immediate future. That would be the optimal solution!

But considering the age of the engine, I really respect how far the devs have brought it despite its faults, and how they continue to work to improve it (wow at those new wide resolution images!).

If we're looking for a paradigm shift in terms of complexity though, it probably wont happen without a completely new engine.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 15
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 1:12:10 PM   
WITPPL


Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline 		We just need some pop up menus, right click menus, multi selection etc.

Id rather not have my machine to know my thoughts


From old witp lover point of view it is unimaginable what devs have achieved and I love it.

From 2009 consumer point of view.... 40% of time I spend clicking is to get simple things done.
Game is great but it do not need more complexity. It need to be more user friendly.

BTW:
Complexity vs player time:

In my grand PBEM where I play as Japanese 1 day turn takes me something between 4 to 5 hours to complete a turn.
I can not imagine my self to spend more time for 1 day turn game.



_____________________________


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 16
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 1:24:50 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline 		So I wonder what happened with the simple pleasure of hiding my Panthers waiting in ambush

I love AE. When I want to hide my panzer in a bush (fnar-fnar) I play Close Combat.

< Message edited by sprior -- 1/25/2010 1:26:00 PM >

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 17
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 1:35:38 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline 		Although I could do without some of the micromanagement I think it is important that that games of this scale, scope and attention to detail are created , played and supported.. Emphasis on the played part, they still have to be playable.
The gaming market is quickly leaving the PC for the console and for about 95% of games this has been good for the game, good for the player and good for the industry. The few games that are better on the PC are the ones like WITP. Big detail, long timeframes, small audience. There are not many of us, but this is what we choose to spend our time on. Show of hands, how many people spend more time playing xbox games that WITP? Not so many here, but for the vast majority of gamers it is completely opposite. There is a place for both, and I choose to spend my time with the larger form, and you guys.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 18
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 1:53:17 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		For once i agree with WITPPL by modern standards the interface is substandard ( Im not saying its bad or unplayable just not up to the standard if WITP was written from scratch in 2009) but fixing it requires a new game. In C++ it is just too time consuming ( expensive) to redo this. Though if we are talking about games in General a great deal can be done to improve the interface and Human interaction. You could also have the AI making all the decisions and the human player just adjusts the ones he is intereasted in a bit like a senior commander comming to visit. The game does this already but its not up to standard.

Automatic convoys and Search arcs are probably the biggest here.


< Message edited by bklooste -- 1/25/2010 1:55:00 PM >

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 19
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 2:16:15 PM   
myros

 

Posts: 289
Joined: 7/1/2004
Status: offline 		Whats wrong with both? Does it have to be 'either or'? ;p
There are 50 million (aproximated) beer and pretzel games out there, but the huge complex games are VERY few and far between. And every one that gets made I cheer madly even if I dont play it. It's just nice to see people invest time developing something of a higher standard that isnt dumbed down for drunks and salt addicts

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 20
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 2:30:42 PM   
Kung Sune

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline 		For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.

(in reply to myros)
Post #: 21
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 2:38:42 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
While I will agree with you, I still say it's fun to watch a group of pilots as they progress in the game and run up scores and try to survive.



And a lot of folks thought it was fun to watch their opponent drive into a minefield..., but when AE reduced mine availability the complaints were minor.

The level of detail just seems to be schitzophrenic (sic) in many ways. Players who control production and national strategy just really shouldn't be dealing with individual pilots. Maybe draw the line at the TF and and command unit level. I mean Congress has to confirm Generals---but they don't get involved with Captains and Majors and such.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 22
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 3:07:45 PM   
Micke II


Posts: 218
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Paris France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kung Sune

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.


I agree. Without WiTPTracker the great campaign for a normal japanese player is almost unplayable.
Perhaps a solution to improve the playability could be to link the WiTPTracker with the game itself making the information clickable from the map to WiTPTracker and reciprocally. Perhaps too complicate to make ?


< Message edited by Micke II -- 1/25/2010 3:11:07 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Kung Sune)
Post #: 23
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 3:16:46 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
While I will agree with you, I still say it's fun to watch a group of pilots as they progress in the game and run up scores and try to survive.



And a lot of folks thought it was fun to watch their opponent drive into a minefield..., but when AE reduced mine availability the complaints were minor.

The level of detail just seems to be schitzophrenic (sic) in many ways. Players who control production and national strategy just really shouldn't be dealing with individual pilots. Maybe draw the line at the TF and and command unit level. I mean Congress has to confirm Generals---but they don't get involved with Captains and Majors and such.


True. But you don't have to be able to move pilots around to enjoy watching them progress through the war. Personally, I haven't moved pilots around trying to optimize everything. I am not that much into micromanagement and in reality, just because someone is better suited to a certain job does not mean that the military will utilize him in that job. He will get used where he is needed, not best suited.

My only complaint on minefields is that the minelayers can be used once when they come online and once a year and a half later when you get enough mines to fill it up again. The british mines don't start production till 1943, but show up at the start of the war making them one-shot wonders that get used once and then relegated to the status of targets or achorage filler.

This game is not that difficult. Very complex, but it was easy for me to grasp. Easy to make mistakes, but still fairly easy to learn from them or discover what mistakes were made. The level of detail and sheer volume of data is staggering and perhaps a little daunting for most gamers, but those that spend a little time are rewarded with a game that will remain on their hard drives for a long time and provide countless hours of enjoyment.

As the gaming industry moves more toward visual blockbusters that test your hand-eye coordination over everything else, the more worried I become that the strategy games I like will become a thing of the past.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 24
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 3:43:17 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Micke II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kung Sune

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.


I agree. Without WiTPTracker the great campaign for a normal japanese player is almost unplayable.
Perhaps a solution to improve the playability could be to link the WiTPTracker with the game itself making the information clickable from the map to WiTPTracker and reciprocally. Perhaps too complicate to make ?



Intellectual property rights?

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Micke II)
Post #: 25
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 3:53:24 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		For me, the schizoid level-of-detail in AE is part of the fun, and I think it introduces more realism rather than less. Sure, we have to switch roles, but in any wargame worth its salt, that's a given. No one person made decisions about the entire Pacific theater; that decisionmaking was shared (or fought over!). Wargames almost always consolidate the "horizontal" dimension of decisionmaking so that many commanders of roughly equal rank become one omniscient player. But wargames routinely consolidate the "vertical" dimension too: if I play "Advanced Squad Leader", sometimes I make company-wide decisions, and sometimes I make decisions for an individual soldier. If I play "Fields of Fire" (a solitaire game designed by an active-duty Marine), I start by making a decision for the Battalion or Company HQ, and I work my way down the chain of command and eventually make decisions for a single infantryman. So it's nothing new that wargames put the player in multiple roles, both vertically and horizontally. In fact, it's unavoidable. The only question is to what extent does one drill down vertically?

For me, it's fun to plot grand strategy, but it's also rewarding to fuss with individual pilots, with altitudes, and with the efficient routing of cargo TFs. I like the detail. I want more of it. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 26
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 3:55:47 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I'm deep into 1943 in my game and it's hard for my to step back and evaluate the game impartially.  I've been plagued by some bugs, bad luck, and bad play (IE, me) and that has affected my close-in view of the game.  When I (try) to step back and evaluate the over-all experience of AE, I can see that the game has been absorbing and a blast.  However, there is also a tedious aspect that I didn't find in WitP.  This is caused (or aggravated) by the increased amount of micromanagement and length of time needed to watch replays and to do turns.

I don't know that there could ever be a way to reach a consensus on which micromanagement is good and fun and which is tedious and should be tossed.  For instance, I enjoy port unloading restrictions and prepping units, but I detest worrying about TF commanders and pilots.  Yet it's apparent that many players enjoy the aspects that I don't.

As for games in general, I recall back in the '90s when our local mall got an Electronic Boutiques store.  The shelves were filled with "old-fashioned" turn-based, hex-based strategy games - among them the Talonsoft games (Civil War, TOAW, East Front, etc.)  After a few years, though, the strategy games completely disappeared.  In their place came roll-playing games, real-time games, X-Box, Play-Station, etc.  I've never touched any of those and doubt I ever will.  I grew up loving Avalon Hill board games and that's what I want to play on the computer - with the computer eliminating the tedious things like logistics and line-of-sight.

There will probably always be a niche for the AE kind of strategy game, but it will be a small one and therefore expensive.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 27
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 4:08:44 PM   
Ikazuchi0585

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 1/25/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		i love the complexity, depth, and micro management of AE, dont want it to change either. This is comming from a new guy who 2 months ago had never heard of WITP. On of the things that instantly attracted me to the game was the immense scale. Although it is time- consuming, I never get frustrated that turns can reach into the hours. Thats what i love about it even if that means finishing a GC is unlikely. OTOH, my girlfriend hates the time i spend with my "new baby". At heart I'm a wargaming grognard, but I do love and find time to play my ps3 and console games.
But like JohnDilworth mentioned, there has to be games with this type of scope and detail developed.

i just wish there were more hours in the day so a couple of turns wouldnt take all day.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 28
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 5:02:31 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit..."

They did draw that line. IMO, pilot experience levels are quite important in this theatre of war - where the combination of air/sea/land was so very crucial. As mentioned above, you don't have to move your pilots around but you can do so if you wish. I also think that the game shows just how important the continued training of pilots was to their effectiveness in battle.

The commercial success of WITP/AE is explanation enough that there is a market for big, complex games. No one is forced to buy and play these games, but it is nice to know that there is at least one available for our enjoyment.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Ikazuchi0585)
Post #: 29
RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? - 1/25/2010 5:13:24 PM   
Zeta16


Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Micke II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kung Sune

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.


I agree. Without WiTPTracker the great campaign for a normal japanese player is almost unplayable.
Perhaps a solution to improve the playability could be to link the WiTPTracker with the game itself making the information clickable from the map to WiTPTracker and reciprocally. Perhaps too complicate to make ?




You don't need tracker or staff to play the Japanese, the info is all there and things like that make the game even more complex and take even more time. If you can not get through a turn in 10-15 after the replay then I think people are making it even more complex.

I guess I have never changed a ship commander in AE or Witp, I just change TF commanders on SF/CV tf's. The industry is easy to run once you get ships in place and have an idea what you want to bulid. The new indusrty interface makes this a breeze.

I found an easy of planning is to give an objective to plan for every new unit so it makes it easy when you start to move ground units and same with planes by assigning them a HQ.

I think playing the Allies is a lot more planning than pplaying the Japanese. After a few months game time Japan is really only moving resources and trying to plug the front lines where the allies strike.

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to Micke II)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? 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

0.813