Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The length of the long campaign

 
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 >> The length of the long campaign Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The length of the long campaign - 7/15/2002 8:33:38 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Every one of us would love to play the long campaign H2H and to play it twice from each side.

Every one of us will probably play the shorter scenarios to start with but the long campaign is the goal.

The long campaign will last more than 4 years. In days it will approach 1,400. As a result, the game will need more routine convoys and the like:

Routine naval supply/troop transport convoys
Routine air supply/troop transport missions
Routine sub chasers who can constantly patrol around a port without going home

I am sure others can think of more actions that can be automated.
Post #: 1
- 7/16/2002 4:08:17 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
It has taken me some six weeks of non-stop play to finish the long campaign in UV............sooooooo....it's gona take me about, what, 14 weeks to do the same in WiTP???? PBEM with one turn a day will indeed take 1,400 days or just over three years!

Oh man I am [SIZE=3]SO[/SIZE] looking forward to this game!

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 2
How about - 7/16/2002 5:00:15 PM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline
A routine wife to bring me dinner and remind me to shower...
Routine kids to take out the trash and mow the lawn
A routine paycheck after I get fired for playing this all the time...

:)

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 3
- 7/16/2002 5:05:18 PM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline
I remember playing one game in VGAplanets for 16 months before finishing...(I won though heh)

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 4
- 7/17/2002 1:53:58 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Bravo, Rob! It would also help if Matrix could arrange for a paid six-month leave of absence. Maybe they could write a letter to my boss explaining that I have an addiction for which I need a long period of home rest. Pacificwaritus. Long Lance Fever. Pre-traumatic stress syndrome. Something. Maybe Matrix could put a doctor on staff to write such letters for a fee. The alternative is going to work on four hours sleep every day.

Yes, I could this becoming a "real time" game like BTR was for me. I could execute about one game turn each day. Since each turn was one day, it would take as long to complete as my historical counterparts. Not sure how people like HardSarge knock so many turns out . . .

Joe's got a point that many of the details will have to be automated. Or, at least the player given the option of automating. I'm sure this will be provided. Gary has done so by various means in his games. Putting certain armies or countries under computer control (PacWar, WIR, BTR); having a computer "general staff" plan operations while providing a human input and override (BTR). There will have to be something.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 5
some ideas - 7/17/2002 6:38:19 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
1. It better have one week turns like PACWAR or it will be unplayable. No one except the retired have that much time on their hands!

2. Routine convoys and automated supply/replacement functions. Let units take replacements in place if supplied not hundreds of sub-units as in UV that add to the micro-management.

3. Computer-controlled commands as in PACWAR would be a big time but I never used them in PACWAR as the computer would take control of my units and send them off to Bali or Tahiti or other vacation isles.

4. PLAYTEST PLAYTEST PLAYTEST - that will limit the patches and urges to punch the pc as in UV! :p

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 6
Re: some ideas - 7/17/2002 7:36:08 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]3. Computer-controlled commands as in PACWAR would be a big time saver but I never used them in PACWAR as the computer would take control of my units and send them off to Bali or Tahiti or other vacation isles. :p [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed - except for the Chinese. That was always just a sideshow for me until late '44. Probably will again. I think the AI in UV has shown itself to be bright enough that you might turn over the CBI or ABDA over to the computer for short periods in WitP.

The description on the Matrix products page states that "Phases are one day, composed of two 12-hour impulses. A turn is composed of 1 to 7 phases, at the player’s discretion." Slow it down in delicate situations, crank it up during lulls. Hopefully, when you've got the whole war in front of you, you'll slow down for long breathers rather than trying to fight at the frantic pace that everyone is in UV.

I'm sure Matrix will make it manageable.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 7
- 7/17/2002 11:22:09 PM   
Frost

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 1/9/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline
Just don't make the whole thing so automated that there is no game left. If i'm going to pay $50.00 for a game I want to play it or at least have the option to play it in all it's detailed glory. Watching tthe computer do everything for me is not my idea of a good time, I might as well read a book on the subject instead.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 8
yes Automate the logistics.... - 7/17/2002 11:27:06 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline
Amatuers study tactics and professionals study logistics. True

Professionals get paid for that though....

It would be great to see automated replacement/upgrades/etc for all units in place (as mentioned above) for any unit in supply. Any base with a road or railroad to it (not a mountain trail but real road0 should just be in supply period. saves the time and hassle. Just slightly reduce the capability of all transports and say that this is the room allocated to new recruits, veterans rotating out, leaves, wounded, new co's, all that. That way the game doesn't have to track it, you just kind of build in the "overhead"

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 9
Re: How about - 7/20/2002 1:38:21 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rob Roberson
[B]A routine wife to bring me dinner and remind me to shower...
Routine kids to take out the trash and mow the lawn
A routine paycheck after I get fired for playing this all the time...

:) [/B][/QUOTE]

Not a very good solution as they all have the same destination, ensuring that they will all turn around shortly after beginning their routines and leaving you with nothing. :D

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 10
Re: yes Automate the logistics.... - 7/30/2002 11:11:23 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by doomonyou
[B]Amatuers study tactics and professionals study logistics. True

Professionals get paid for that though....

It would be great to see automated replacement/upgrades/etc for all units in place (as mentioned above) for any unit in supply. Any base with a road or railroad to it (not a mountain trail but real road0 should just be in supply period. saves the time and hassle. Just slightly reduce the capability of all transports and say that this is the room allocated to new recruits, veterans rotating out, leaves, wounded, new co's, all that. That way the game doesn't have to track it, you just kind of build in the "overhead" [/B][/QUOTE]

True but we don't get paid enough! :D

The logistics system should take into account port facilities at each base, none of this unloading of 200+ ships at a level 1 port crap. also ships zipping across 3000 miles in one week and being available for other uses too? more fantasy logistics. Lastly teleporting of ships, statistically necessary, but not very realistic either unless there is a one turn delay built in - that would be cool by me.

Actually that last idea seems like it could work. You would execute a "get transport" or whatever it's called, and you get to choose what ship unit(s) you want from all ship units in existence. The computer diverts the ships to your base and they get there in 1 turn (perhaps a delay based on distance from where the ship unit currently is), filled out from the pool or other ship units as needed to transport your units. and NO Automatic MCS transfers with the get transport command, that would be a SEPARATE function. That way your MCS fleets won't get all jumbled while you assemble an assault fleet.

This is after all what the allied did - they had a "worldwide shipping pool" which McArthur constantly tried to subvert by not returning ships to the "pool". requests for assault of other shipping went to the pool for assignment, unledd the needs could be met locally.

I like it, does anybody else???

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 11
- 7/31/2002 7:45:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Yup. Works for me. The "get" command worked pretty well in PacWar. Having two separate commands would work better. Can you figure a way to "get" the exact number you want, or are you relying on the computer to do the math ala PacWar?

Seems to me you were railing against the transport unloading/inadequate harbor facilities/dumping on the beach thing in UV. Or maybe it was here. It may be worth resuscitating that argument here; it was very good.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 12
- 8/2/2002 7:46:49 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline
[QUOTE]A routine wife to bring me dinner and remind me to shower...
Routine kids to take out the trash and mow the lawn
A routine paycheck after I get fired for playing this all the time... [/QUOTE]

ROFL

_____________________________


(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 13
- 8/2/2002 10:33:29 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Yup. Works for me. The "get" command worked pretty well in PacWar. Having two separate commands would work better. Can you figure a way to "get" the exact number you want, or are you relying on the computer to do the math ala PacWar?

Seems to me you were railing against the transport unloading/inadequate harbor facilities/dumping on the beach thing in UV. Or maybe it was here. It may be worth resuscitating that argument here; it was very good. [/B][/QUOTE]

The computer should do the math based on the size(s) of the activated unit(s) in the base.

But it should not throw in and APDs or MCS in a "get troop transport" command, likewise only cargo ships in a "get cargo transport" command. The latter should be based on the port capacity and the supply status of the base.

And perhaps there shoule be a get "air transport cargo" command which would get one ship UNIT for each range 4 or less air unit in the base each ship unit capable of carrying one such air group.

In each case there MIGHT be a delay, based upon the location of the closest appropriate ship unit and / or pool strength. The delay should be staggered depending on distance, like the timed vectoring in Warlords III.

This way, it is not "teleporting" ships but there is still the abillty, at a cost in pps, to rapidly assemple sealift in a needed area, whch with this level a game would be needed.


My other beef with the PacWar supply system was that you could take a TF with over 100 ships in it all loaded to the max and unload it in a base with a level 1 port, and all the supplies get unloaded instantly, where the real situation was that it would take weeks to do that. Over 150 ships were piled up waiting to be unloaded at Milne bay at one time in 1943, and the situation repeated itself many times. (For the Allies, the Japanese were so short of shipping after the first six months, that they didn't run into this problem very much). The instant unloading (or even loading) of virtually unlimited numbers of ships should be curtailed and the amount limited to a factor of the port level, with a NON-linear progression, because true large port facilities like Pearl, the US west coast, Sydney, and a few Japanese ports, could load and unload as fast as the ships could gome and go. These selected ports should have a higher level than other "game built" port levels can attain with engineer building.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 14
Port Facilities - 8/3/2002 12:56:58 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Yup, still like that comment. A good argument always bear repeating. I hope the lads at Matrix take notice.

I can't remember what your suggestions were in the other thread, but how would it work dumping on a beach? Would you have lighters in the game? Or would MCS's just unload very slowly? Or would APD's and LST's dump faster on the beach? Maybe an unimproved facility downloading factor for MCS's that improves over time with the assumed introduction of DUKWs and other ferrying equipment?

Too many restrictions would force both players to operate invasions on a shoestring, which isn't unrealistic. Guadalcanal was a relatively small affair for a long time. It sure would slow down the ahistorically high pace of operations we see in the game (e.g., I'll just take these three divisions and invade that island tomorrow).

Still, all beach assaults were kept well-supplied even at the end of the war when they were massive affairs. Permitting MCS's to unload only at a very slow rate on a beach probably would result in insufficient supplies reaching the shore to maintain the historical rate of supply. I'm thinking the missing element is the small craft that ferried materiel in to shore. Given enough of these craft, you could probably unload a ship almost as fast as you could in port. What about the idea of having invasion lighter units that would be sent with an invasion fleet that would substantially accelerate the unloading of ships. These would represent the myriad small craft used to transport stuff to shore. Probably neither side would start with any, and the U.S. wouldn't get any until probably early 1943. The U.S. would get just a few of these, though they could grow in size and effectiveness. They could not be attacked, would not use fuel, etc. Unlike the other units in the game, these would be more abstract and would represent the theatre commander's decision to send a large percentage of these small craft to one place. If one of these units is at Guadalcanal, it cannot be at Kwajalien, so the unloading of supplies at Kwajalien would be painfully slow. This would also keep the Allies from invading four places at one time, which historically would have placed too much of a drain on Allied resources. If you have enough MCS's and transports in a game, you can invade four places at once, but this does not take into account all of the little logistical things that could only support one or two operations at a time.

Alternatively, you could use units like the LST's in PacWar, but have them be lighter units and not transport units.

I also like the idea of not teleporting ships using the "get" command. While it certainly saved by bacon or allowed me to exploit weaknesses a number of times, it is highly unrealistic. In PacWar, you could mount a multi-division invasion instantly. "Colonel, I decided this morning that we're invading in three days with the 24th and 25th Divisions. Get some ships from San Francisco and Pearl, load the troops and supplies, and let's get going!" I think the game needs to force the player to spend a certain period of time collecting the assets he needs to mount an invasion. Requiring ships to transit to the embarkation point at realistic speeds would help. (Of course, that's not even entirely realistic since you can't just strip the West Coast ports bear of ships at a moment's notice or it was create havoc with planned shipments.) Even better would be a system where you had to declare that you were going to mount a regimental/division/corps sized invasion from a certain place, the assets required would disappear from the game and be placed in a holding file and would appear at the embarkation point after a period of time, e.g., two weeks for a regiment, four weeks for a division, etc. That would be the game's way of simulating the logistics of pulling together an operation, conducting the planning, creating load listings, loading ships, etc. Alternatively, if the player can steam ships to a place manually, he can do what he wants. But no "get" function for instant invasion. As it is, a player can mount a corps-sized shake-and-bake operation too easily and quickly.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 15
auto ability v. manual - 8/3/2002 3:19:32 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
"the assets required would disappear from the game and be placed in a holding file and would appear at the embarkation point after a period of time, e.g., two weeks for a regiment, four weeks for a division, etc. That would be the game's way of simulating the logistics of pulling together an operation, conducting the planning, creating load listings, loading ships, etc. Alternatively, if the player can steam ships to a place manually, he can do what he wants."
While I agree with the general tenor of building some delay into a "get" function, I fear the result of going too far in that direction. Most of us are detail addicts in the first place. If you make it possible to consistently micromanage, we will do it rather than use a function that eliminates grinding detail at the cost of performance. The auto functions are certainly more realistic for operational and strategic games, but we seem to always opt for detailed unrealistic control. It's fun to be able to do this with the warships and planes, but its not even fun to do it with the supplies and supply ships. Give the automated functions some equality of performance with the mircomanagement of detail, please!

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 16
Re: auto ability v. manual - 8/3/2002 5:26:28 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wpurdom
[B] If you make it possible to consistently micromanage, we will do it rather than use a function that eliminates grinding detail at the cost of performance. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. Of course, I was just running my jaw and spinning random thoughts together. The problem really is that the game allows a player to do what is theoretically possible but not realistic. It would be possible to request a transport to leave San Francisco within four hours, sail directly to Seattle, pick up an emergency shipment of widgets, and then sail straight to Australia and then participate in an invasion. Possible but not likely. The game allows you to jerk every soldier, sailor, airman, and piece of military hardware hither and yonder at a moment's notice without repercussion. All of this is possible in real life, but at the expense of absolute bedlam and chaos. Realistically, there should be delays set for everything. You want a ship? Fine, it will sail next week. But understand that I am not advocating this. Players will demand that they be able to relocate entire armies at a moment's notice, and I know of no computer game that tries to implement delays due to planning. Patton is considered a genius for being able to disengage a corps and attack in a different direction in a matter of days in the Battle of the Bulge. Hell, I must be Superman, because I can do it in one turn in every game I play!!! But, again, I don't advocate changing this.

Having taken that position, I don't know how you slow down a shake-and-bake operation that is done manually other than de-teleporting the "get" function, or possibly implement load times, e.g., you can load 250 men per hour so that a division takes two days to load. Those are both probably realistic impediments that, in combination, may work to slow you down some. But it still doesn't stop the problem of the shake-and-bake invasion. Even with these impediments, you could still shove a division off to invade a hostile beach within days or a week of realizing the opportunity. Real invasions of any size took months to plan. Gamers will scream at being so hamstrung, but I wouldn't mind being required to commit to an invasion site and having to wait two months before I can hit it.

In the end, this idea simply is not possible. I can think of no way to program the distinction between an orchestrated invasion that would take months to plan and a hasty emergency move or the quick insertion of a regiment into an unnoccupied spot. Just not practical. So, I'm left with de-teleporting ships to ports and de-teleporting supplies and men aboard ships as the sole constraints to shake-and-bake invasions. That also eliminates any differences between the automated or manual assembly of assets.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 17
I don't know about the scope of your idea... - 8/3/2002 5:43:22 AM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline
but a basic SNAFU factor of a few days on given things (depending on complexity and size) would be VERY cool and a great button for realism.

Wanna change the target of a bomber squadron that's already in place and armed, fine that takes 10 minutes

Wanna change teh direction of a regiment that is marching towards one end of the island and needs to head towards teh other because the tokyo experess just popped up? Fine that takes 10 hours

Wanna assemble a TF with two carriers, three cruisers, 6 destroyers two replenishment ships? That could take between 1-3 days. Frustrating but I'll bet we'd all have it on just so when we smashed something we could say....Yup, I did that.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 18
- 8/3/2002 6:54:55 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
I know I'd have it on. But I'm not sure about may of the others.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 19
- 8/9/2002 3:49:38 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Well, here I am with my two pennies in hand again (as often as I've spent these, I'll never be able to come up with the fare to pass over the River Styx - sorry, Charon, I ain't goin').

I absolutely hated the "get transports" command in PacWar. I would hate to see it replicated in any form in WITP. To be honest with you, I equally despised the "pool" concept for troop transports. If you've got 24 Henderson APs stored away somewhere, what sense does it make for you to be able to make several of them appear instantly at will at any port where you have at least one of the same class of ship? If, for example, the repository (which is never specified, by the way) is San Francisco, how is it that Pearl Harbor can be just as near for deployment as Brisbane or Noumea, and why should the deployment at any distance be instantaneous?

Your responsibility at strategic-level command is to see to it that your major offensives are planned thoroughly in response to your perception of the strategic situation, changeable though it may be (and flexibility is another characteristic of effective strategic command). When something as vital as a major amphibious assault against a tough enemy base supported by LBA and, potentially, by significant naval forces including naval air is at stake, you keep your operational commanders on a short leash and ensure that they are carrying out your plan on the basis of the most complete information, impetus, and instruction possible. You trust them to take independent action only to the extent that their initiative has been demonstrated to you in your command experience with them to be valuable to accomplishment of the strategic objective. This is the heart and soul of UV and, I hope, WITP. Impromptu, small-scale assaults to take advantage of a fleeting tactical situation are a different deal IF THE RESOURCES ARE TACTICALLY AVAILABLE!

If you lack the foresight to have the resources available at the right place at the right time in the right numbers, your name ought to be Mud, not Yamamoto, Numbnuts, not Nimitz. Luck plays a part, of course, but luck favors those who are intelligently prepared.

And I speak as an expert, having won any number of world wars and police actions, having squashed, or triumphed in, any number of insurrections, and having led any number of nascent civilizations to world dominance. I am always right, and I never lie. Now that I have won the election, I am the people ... (play video of goofball pseudo-messiah being led away in straitjacket to nearest rubber room) ...

---------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 20
Attention Those in the Rubber Room! - 8/9/2002 6:24:47 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
I agree. I always tried to force myself to plan any operation, collect assets manually, and provide a long build-up period to represent the long lead time required. But it required self-discipline and nothing game-imposed. And there were always times when my discipline would break down, and I would teleport fleets to invade half a world away to take advantage of a fleeting opportunity.

I think the game should impose some kind of limitations on performing large operations at short notice. The "get" function is good because it lets the computer handle some of the manual administrative stuff that players often hate to manage. Most players consider themselves generals and not logisticians; let the staff/computer handle it. But the "get" function allows teleporting. There should be some kind of penalty. Whether it is a built in delay, a requirement to declare invasion targets in advance, a limitation as to how many ships can enter a port in one turn, or something else, there should be some kind of limitation. Otherwise, we are left solely to our own self-discipline to maintain accuracy.

(Actually, the self-discipline model is a good one for Matrix. Players can then mount operations either way and satisfy both crowds. Having the game impose delays would only piss some players off.)

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 21
- 8/10/2002 3:15:26 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
The only reason for keeping any type of to pool / get pool functionality would be to adjust the size of the ship unit to account for fluctuations in the size of the units. Units not a full strength have the ammoying habit :p of gaining size while the transport fleet is sailing towards the port.

But I agre that is should only be used in a base or a small cluster of bases, say the marshals for staging an attack on the marianas. If I'm doing a major operation, I'll concentrate all my shipping in 3 or 4 forward areas where the divisions are, and when they are all there make 1-2 ship adjustments to load everything, since splitting divisions is not desired. If I have three units in a base needing shipping usually no two will be the same size so the to / get pool functions help in this regard.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The length of the long campaign Page: [1]
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

0.781