Am I watching a game or Playing one?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Am I watching a game or Playing one?

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 >> Am I watching a game or Playing one?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Am I watching a game or Playing one? - 1/25/2003 10:31:39 PM

YZ426f

Posts: 22
Joined: 5/11/2002
From: St.Louis Mo. USA
Status: offline

One of my biggest gripes with the system is that you only choose what missions types your AC perform instead of choosing where they go in most instances.

I wish there were a better way of giving recon and search orders that involved me into the game a little more. To me a better system would be as follows;

You AC will perform their set mission in the clickable hexes that you desire out to their max range if needed. If you choose a lot of hexes for a broad search then the chances would be minimized considerably. In this way you could really concentrate on a smaller area where YOU think activity will/is take/taking place.

On inland areas there is no need for naval search anyway so it seems pointless for the Sqdns. to cover those areas. It would allow you to have a feel of participation when you get to choose the active hexes plus add a degree of safety for the enemy if they choose a path that is not within the chosen hexes.

No longer would almost every action be detected but rather it would take some thought and skill in finding that elusive opponent while at the same time giving the feeling of PLAYING the game rather than just watching.

To me it is one of my only major gripes with the current system. Please allow us some more participation in this great game.

Thanks,
Yamadog

Post #: 1

- 1/25/2003 11:58:24 PM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

As far as I know the UV system allows more control over just about everything then the old PW system, and people did not feel that you were just 'watching' things happen in PW. Strategic level games of this scale do not require the manipulation of such detail, as this is the job of the tactical AI.

Carrier Strike (a contemporary of PacWar, of the South Pacific area) had a much more detailed aircraft/scouting set of orders (you set up a radius for your patrol aircraft to search). This was due to the fact that it was not a grand strategy game, but a theatre strategy game where you commanded a few TF's and gain tactical control over the air groups.

There are very few games of this scale that have ever been produced (to this detail). However, strategic scale games give you operational command (i.e., you give your generals orders) instead of being the individual generals fiddling with the details.

Possibly a more intelligent Tacitcal AI is required, that will not sent naval patrol aircraft over land hexes, but from what I have seen, it does not appear to drastically negatively affect naval searches. What you are asking for is something that would be good for UV, but well beyond the scale of detail for WitP.

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 2

- 1/26/2003 2:38:03 AM

YZ426f

Posts: 22
Joined: 5/11/2002
From: St.Louis Mo. USA
Status: offline

Thanks for your reply Jeremy. I for one am very glad that there is a strategic game of this caliber for my enjoyment and loved it since I bought it. Maybe the title of my thread was a little misleading to my true intentions though. Sure I understand that the main goal of this game is strategic, but there is always a certain amount of a tactical element involved too. You set altitude, order various ground attacks, and have the ability to order strikes on determined airfields.... etc. All of those are great because IMO a strategy only game would be completely boring to me.

The reason I would like more control is that I feel the best I can do is place my AC at the bases and wait until a opposing TF enters my AC range and it will be sighted. I want to screw up bad and be saddened when my opponent daringly sneaks a strike force from an unexpected direction. It pains me to think that the best I can do is shuffle the most planes that the field can handle and not have the satisfaction of patrolling 'The Slot' in heavy numbers and intensity while neglecting another area, especially considering such a wide expanse that the Sqdns. reach. It doesn't have to be mandatory to increase efficiency in a certain area, just an option to do so. I would loath to set up flight paths for hundreds of squadrons, but for a contested area or one where false intel concerns us, a choice would be very welcome IMO. If I chose to concentrate on let's say 4 hexes during a flight than the modifier would be quite a bit higher than if I chose to broaden my search area. The varying degree of chance modifiers would warrant it's inclusion alone IMO. Sometimes I feel there is not much of a chance of slipping through unseen when planes are assumed to cover the full area that the chosen mission allows. To me a slightly enhanced base option would rely more on skill than just by chance alone.

Or would one consider a more intensified search for a reduced range? It would not be my first choice, but a better option than none at all.

Thanks again and I look forward to more insight.
Yamadog

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 3

- 1/26/2003 2:54:18 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I agree it would be nice to have a mission range that the player can fiddle around with to determine how far out the planes will fly. However, the scope of WitP is so big, there are so many air squadrons it would be painful to be making sure they all have the right variables set on their patrol patterns, for example. Once you start playing I think you will change your mind about this because one of the things the designers/testers are trying to get a handle on is managability of the vast number of forces at the players disposal. Then again, having the choice of making mission parameters AI controlled or player controlled might be nice.

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 4

- 1/27/2003 2:40:09 AM

YZ426f

Posts: 22
Joined: 5/11/2002
From: St.Louis Mo. USA
Status: offline

I guess the real question is whether the code is mostly wrapped up and if so how much they are willing to consider.

If it is done than there is not much point in debating the issues.

I have faith in a quality product but can't help to want more than UV showed us.

Yamadog

Oh! I almost forgot...... GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 5

- 1/27/2003 5:22:18 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

You're from St Louis, eh? Sorry about what happened to the Rams last year.

*snicker*

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 6

SEARCHING for truth - 1/27/2003 9:16:18 PM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by YZ426f
[B]I guess the real question is whether the code is mostly wrapped up and if so how much they are willing to consider.

If it is done than there is not much point in debating the issues.

I have faith in a quality product but can't help to want more than UV showed us.

Yamadog

Oh! I almost forgot...... GO RAIDERS!!!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

It's hard for me to find myself in aggreement with a RAIDERS
Fan---but I guess nobody's perfect. 'Cept maybe the BUC'S
Defense.... But I'm defenately with you inhoping 2by3 will put
in an improvement of the current "search system" for WitP---
and retrofit it to UV as well.

It's a way around the current problems with "naval strikes"
that they don't seem willing or able to deal with that avoids
all of their current reasons for not doing something. Even if
we grant that "naval Strike Missions" are actually tactical
choices made by the base and squadron commanders "on the
spot" during the turn---they are still BASED on the results of
"naval Search Missions". And setting out the search areas
for each base to cover IS a strategic choice! So if the player's
could chose WHERE the want to search, they could have some
meangful control over what they DIDN'T WANT their "naval
strikes" going after. Like TF's too far away to be a danger; or
on the other side of New Guinea; or in a port covered by 100
fighters. Even this slight form of player control could eliminate
most of the really irritating results that "Naval Strikes" come
up with.

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 7

I agree - 1/28/2003 12:05:46 AM

MemoryLeak

Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline

I agree with YZ2426f. I play UV a lot, but I have given up trying to plan a mission that requires a Task Force to remain undetected to be successful. I am spotted everytime. I think it would add a new dimension to the game if you had to plan searches and if you were wrong, the enemy could use the element of surprise to hit you. And vice-versa.

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 8

- 1/28/2003 3:08:46 AM

Point Luck

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: East Coast-US
Status: offline

I also wholeheartedly agree! Since Matrix chooses to permit a limited selection of naval air attack missions, then it is my opinion that the search mission should be more interactive, thus limiting the chance of discovery. I�ve been playing UV since it�s release and all an opponent has to do is put up enough LR recon and all ship movements are detected. By requiring a player to vector his search planes to specific search grids would add a real level of strategic planning to the game. (a formula based on the percentage of aircraft launched which would be assigned 15 degrees of an arc in a 360 degree search pattern, a 100% assignment would give the player a 360 degree pattern) The player would then choose the direction/hex to start the search grid from. This way a player would have to decide on how best to expend his search aircraft resources.

On another note the expansive size of WitP and the amount of activity a player will have to perform should not be a concern. I�ve been playing a modified (edited) UV scenario for the last few months, just to hone my skills for WitP. I�m playing a PBEM game that has EACH side operating with over 600 ships and 2500 aircraft in theater at anyone time. NO PROBLEM with micromanagement it just requires a simple routine to work through each turn and the battle actions are just Unbelievable!

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 9

- 1/28/2003 3:25:17 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Point Luck
[B]
I�ve been playing a modified (edited) UV scenario for the last few months, just to hone my skills for WitP. I�m playing a PBEM game that has EACH side operating with over 600 ships and 2500 aircraft in theater at anyone time. [/B][/QUOTE]

You made an edited scenario that big? Post it on-line in the UV forum so others can download it. If you fould someone to play it PBEM then it must be at least reasonably balaneced. Share it with others.

Yamamoto

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 10

To Yamamoto - 1/28/2003 3:45:41 AM

Point Luck

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: East Coast-US
Status: offline

The game is in no way historical so I haven�t posted the game because of so many players on the UV threads are tied up into how historical UV has to be. As far as balanced what my PBEM partner and I did was set up of some preliminary rules regarding equipment types, amounts and deployment assignments then we each edited our respective sides by choosing what we felt our OOB was needed to bloody the other side. We never checked to se what each side picked for their OOB. So each turn is a surprise in it�s self. Whole lot a fun playing this way. Example I have over 50 subs in theater he just happened to pick enough DD�s with a high ASW rating to protect his transport convoys only, I�m busy hunting his surface TF�s instead, forcing him break off his escort DD�s and form up hunter killer groups.

The real fun with regards to balance was each player built his navy on what tactics he wanted to use. We just set the max number of carriers each side was permitted to use keeping in mind the superiority of US �A/C. IJN was permitted to have a 3-1 ratio in carriers. Deployment at the start of the game was no more than 8 IJN carriers and 4 US after that the computer decides when the rest of the carriers will arrive. All other equipment was whatever

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 11

Re: To Yamamoto - 1/28/2003 11:11:03 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Point Luck
[B]The game is in no way historical so I haven�t posted the game because of so many players on the UV threads are tied up into how historical UV has to be. [/B][/QUOTE]

Aw frogshit! Don't let that scare you ! A game is a game is a game....and it sounds like you have made a monster one!:D

Go ahead and post it on Spookys web site....sounds like fun!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 12

- 1/28/2003 11:19:38 AM

bradfordkay

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

I like the idea of setting patrol sectors for my a/c, but not by automatically adding sectors as more a/c are added to the search pattern. It does no good for Cooktown to build up to a 360 degree coverage, since a good portion of that would be searching for Japanese TFs in the outback! Rather, it would be nice to use a system similar to that used in Carriers At War: the player decides which sectors (the eight cardinal points of the cimpass, IIRC - so obviously a re-arrangement to the hex system would be a no-brainer) are to be searched and how many a/c total are performing search. That system did not allow you to concentrate your search in one area, unless you searched only that area. You could cut out searches in areas which you yourself have eliminated as a threat (by whatever logic), and put searchers out in the direction which you believe to be the correct one.

Having said all this, I firmly believe that it would fit better in a game of UV's scope than it would in one like WITP. When playing as a combination of Nimitx, MacArthur, and Mountbatten, I'll leave it up to the local commanders to know their tactical situation. Even as Ghormley, I shouldn't be nosing into those details - BUT I fear I would be the type of theatre commander that all good officers hate: one who can't help but try to micromanage everything from my desk in Noumea.

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 13

- 1/28/2003 11:30:08 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

Perhaps it is already coded that Naval Searches automatically dont occur over land hexes.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 14

- 2/2/2003 7:03:13 AM

marc420

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline

Well, one of the problems here is the feedback you get from your searches.

For instance, if my pilots have orders not to search the interior of Austrailia, they aren't telling me anything to let me know that.

Also, in searching, where there was a negative result is as important as where there is a positive result. Currently, all you see is positive results. What you don't see is where they didn't see anything.

Is there any effect of local thunderstorms, rain etc on the ability to avoid a search? Is there anything programmed into the TF commanders to have them deliberately stay in a hex with a local thunderstorm in order to avoid detection?

To me, this is an area I'd like to see the whole interface reworked. I'd like to be able to see the following ...

For any Base or TF, I can pull up a Search orders dialog. From there I can see how many air units I've got available for search. Probably any unit with a Naval Search should be available from here so I can set mission or %Naval Search from here.

On the display, I should be able to assign search elements to both search arcs and search distances. Based on my choices, I should get some sort of feedback as to how effective my search in these areas will be. (10% Search rating, 60% Search rating, etc).

On the main map, I'd like to able to turn on an overall display of my search decisions. That way I can see the search arc from Lunda overlayed with the search arcs from my TFs.

For ASW, either the same sort of screens, or combine these decisions on the same screen as Naval searches but ASW in a different color.

I'd also like better info on reports. A couple of options I'd like to see.

a) An overall text report screen listing each spotting. Perhaps each line on the report is a link back to the map location, so a click on the text line takes me to that map location.

b) The ability to display search icons on the main map. So while I'm in my Orders Phase, I can turn on Icons that show each of last turns Sightings. Probably would want to combine this with the Search Arc display so I can see how these sightings fit in with my search pattern.

c) Shouldn't a sighting report include Bearing and Speed information as well as location?

d) Search planes could at times shadow a TF. If the TF didn't have CAP, and the plane was a PBY or an Emily or some such long range plane, it could shadow it for a while.

e) I'd like to have a screen where I can connect the dots. If my search planes spotted a BB TF at location 1 headed East yesterday, and today they spotted another BBTF further east, then I should have some way to connect these two sighting on a plot and get a better idea of how the enemy is moving. I'd also like the ability to put my own notes and text into this system, and draw range circles for how far the sighting could have moved since the time of the sighting.

Of course, on top of this you can add in all sorts of Fog of War and Murphy's Law type stuff. You can have search planes malfunction, have their radio malfunction, have them fly off course, have bad estimates of strength and ship-types, etc.

Even if you make the game decision to not allow the theater commander to set the search patterns for a base, then this sort of feedback and reports would at least let the player get a better grip on search information.

Yeah, I know, I ask for a lot.

_____________________________

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 15

- 2/2/2003 1:37:23 PM

demonterico

Posts: 292
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Seattle WA
Status: offline

I like to play Japan, and early in the game move on Gili Gili as a preliminary move towards Port Moresby. Of course I back up this move with my three carriers. During this operation I get quite irritated by reports of a minesweeper in the port of Cooktown, or whatever, when what I really want is for every air search asset to be scouring the Coral Sea for the American carriers. Thats all that matters.

_____________________________

The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 16

Contact reports - 2/4/2003 2:38:44 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by demonterico
[B]I like to play Japan, and early in the game move on Gili Gili as a preliminary move towards Port Moresby. Of course I back up this move with my three carriers. During this operation I get quite irritated by reports of a minesweeper in the port of Cooktown, or whatever, when what I really want is for every air search asset to be scouring the Coral Sea for the American carriers. Thats all that matters. [/B][/QUOTE]

So you don't want the scouts to report anything but carriers?
If you hit the "Z" key the reports go really fast. But you have to pay more attention. I like my scouts to report every contact.

(The USN CV may not be any where near the Coral Sea)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to YZ426f)

Post #: 17

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Am I watching a game or Playing one?

Page: [1]