I read all 7 pages of the Pacific post and here is a suggestion--Some games have a game within a game. So the big game is weekly turns then if combat occurs it goes to the "detailed game mode"- moving ships etc. Alvaro--Please look at Carrier Battles 4 Guadalcanal on steam- its excellent especially the flavor of carrier activities. Maybe on your Pacific game when an air strike occurs (like at Pearl Harbor or battle near Midway) you game could go into something like Carrier Battles game- hourly turns and detailed- if player did not want to do that detail then it could be simmed.
A tactical sub game is a neat idea and exists in a number of strategic Civil War games i have. But it has one serious draw back for PBEM games. If the game typically has multiple battles within each Strategic turn (assuming still 2 week turns) you can quickly bog a rather long game into a really long game for PBEM. Depending on how quickly the tactical game can go it may take multiple life times to finish a PBEM game.
Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012 From: Salinas, CA Status: offline
Please stick with the strategic combat system for a strategic level game, just not worth the wasted programming time to do a way-too detailed different tactical combat system. I've never really seen a good tactical battle system for a strategic level game. The current system works for me and I'm looking forward to seeing the new 1.00.09 changes that modify naval combat somewhat.
Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012 From: Salinas, CA Status: offline
Where is that 7 page Pacific post by Alvaro? Could it be made a sticky for easy access?
I assume that there will be two different maps, and basically two different games running? I see on the European map offmap areas that could be used to transfer units and stuff between the maps.
Will there be a WarPlan 3 with a combined map so the whole of WW2 is playable as in World in Flames? That would be the best!
WarPlan 2 will be the global. It will have a split scale map like WiF.
WP2 will have all the ironed out kinks from WPE and WPP. It will also be corps counter with divisions in it for that full feeling. Single capital ship And even air units will be divided into wings (~100 A/C) put inside a counter. Players will be able to 100% customize an air unit with probably up to 4 air wings.
WarPlan 2 will be the global. It will have a split scale map like WiF.
WP2 will have all the ironed out kinks from WPE and WPP. It will also be corps counter with divisions in it for that full feeling. Single capital ship And even air units will be divided into wings (~100 A/C) put inside a counter. Players will be able to 100% customize an air unit with probably up to 4 air wings.
Will we always have the possibility to split corps into divisions? Will this now also apply to tank corps?
_____________________________
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk: You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012 From: Salinas, CA Status: offline
I hated the split scale map from Wif, much prefer the combined single scale map. That could well be a deal killer for me. A real pain in the behind to keep track of different movement scales. Does that mean the Pacific War version will be at a different map scale than Europe? If so I may bail on that as well. If you're going to do the Pacific or the whole world please keep the map scale consistent. That was the biggest mistake of WiF! If you're going to go up in map scale why go lower in unit scale as for capital ships? The customizable corps counters sounds interesting but probably much ado about nothing. I like the scale and feel of WarPlan Europe, just wish you'd translate that to the newewr versions.
Got to agree with some here that I would prefer that Pacific War be kept to the same scale as WarPlan in Europe and for me even if that requires several Pacific front maps.
I hated the split scale map from Wif, much prefer the combined single scale map. That could well be a deal killer for me. A real pain in the behind to keep track of different movement scales. Does that mean the Pacific War version will be at a different map scale than Europe? If so I may bail on that as well. If you're going to do the Pacific or the whole world please keep the map scale consistent. That was the biggest mistake of WiF! If you're going to go up in map scale why go lower in unit scale as for capital ships? The customizable corps counters sounds interesting but probably much ado about nothing. I like the scale and feel of WarPlan Europe, just wish you'd translate that to the newewr versions.
I would love a world map at the scale of Europe but it will mean a world map where nothing happens like in South America, Africa, ...
_____________________________
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk: You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
While a few die hard wargamers would love a game at that scale most people would not.
HoI can do it because it is provinces. That is about 10,000 tiles.
Putting WarPlan Global expanding Europe to match a 25m per hex Pacific that would encompass Africa and parts of South America would be ~160,000 tiles.
You would spend an eternity waiting for A.I.
As is I have already talked to other developers on this subject. It really isn't profitable to do. There are also a mountain of variables that would impact the game. So many you would have to play test it for a decade.
WarPlan Global will be 40,000 tiles. WarPlan is 20,000 tiles. WarPlan Pacific is 20,000 tiles. Luckily I made an interactive show as you go A.I. to keep your minds busy.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before or if you can let us know. How are ports handled. Can they be expanded and/or created on atolls that don't have ports yet?
No. The pacific is based on taking large ports and bases as a long chain of secure logistics was required to push forward. What I don't want is in 1944 the USN appearing off the Japanese coast with the Death Star, making 2 tiny ports into 9's. Then just invading Japan at will.
The USA will need to take major ports or a lot of small ones.
I liked the War in the Pacific system of you could take ports that had the potential of being 1-9 but if they hadn't been already developed the US player had to "invest" in them and slowly build them up over time to their max level. That keeps you from taking some undeveloped Island and having an instant level 9 port. But that could also be superficial extra function that don't really effect the game play overall. WiP does suffer from being unplayable within one's life time.
Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/1/2012 From: Oxford, United Kingdom Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Omnius
Please stick with the strategic combat system for a strategic level game, just not worth the wasted programming time to do a way-too detailed different tactical combat system. I've never really seen a good tactical battle system for a strategic level game. The current system works for me and I'm looking forward to seeing the new 1.00.09 changes that modify naval combat somewhat.
Air specialties Ace - +10% air 2 air Navigator - +10% spot chance modifier (50% = 55% for example) Cannons - air anti-tank bonus during combat Kamikaze - lose 50% health do 2x damage (only land based air)
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Pacific Project-Alvaro 
Pacific Project-Alvaro - 
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