Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

That said. Try checkers. Might be more your speed. Oh by the way, I bought WPO and WITP before AE and I joined the forum just after I bought AE. I had been reading the forum for years and with AE I needed some help and support. I asked all the wrong questions and sometimes a brief spanking. You just joined the forum and broke the rules. Your first few posts should of been questions. Not an attack on something a lot of people love. Think about that for a while....GP

quote:

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

quote:

ORIGINAL: ubwart

This has got to be one of the most tedious things and god-awful games I have ever played. It has all of the detail and much more of pacwar and none of the charm. PW had all kinds of tool to let you see where the battles were and so on. Not this dog, you have one battle report thing with 800 reports to wade through after each turn to find your one carrier battle.

Then take into account that carriers are generally not going to attack the other side even with reaction range of 6. No they would rather sit in their base and wait for the enemy to move away and attack your force with a much larger attack than the computer ever seems to mount for my carriers.

I paid 20 or so for it and it is not worth $1. No support no updates and Matrix still wants 79 for this old dog. I would rather pull my teeth via my ass than play this again. PW was about 50 times what this game is worth.
Someone please explain to me how my 3 carriers consistently get their asses kicked by one opfor carrier.

Here's a quarter. Call someone who cares.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ubwart
... then I see some kind of political points needed to assign a leader, where does it show my pool? No fing ware. I loved the old games for their complexity but this is just complexity for complexity's sake. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Will_L

quote:

ORIGINAL: ubwart
Then take into account that carriers are generally not going to attack the other side even with reaction range of 6. No they would rather sit in their base and wait for the enemy to move away and attack your force with a much larger attack than the computer ever seems to mount for my carriers.

Your CV TF won't react unless you set it with a reaction range to either a destination hex with remain on station orders or give it patrol orders with up to three patrol points. If you sit the TF in port with a reaction range it'll simply sit in port. (Please correct me if I got any of this wrong guys.) Maybe you should have checked the forums for advice before you took the plunge into the deep end off the learning cliff, there is plenty to be found.

quote:

I would rather pull my teeth via my ass than play this again.

Please do so, I really wanna see you pull this off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ubwart

You gotta use your brain. Son I was one of the original players of the old PW game and even that SW game was better than this. What does this game offer? Every man, unit of clothing and roll of TP in theatre. No easy way to see combat reports, no real reason why my carriers never launch, then I see some kind of political points needed to assign a leader, where does it show my pool? No fing ware. I loved the old games for their complexity but this is just complexity for complexity's sake. with nothing to help make managing a pacific war easier, you really want to scroll through 40 pages of **** to see the one combat report that is important to you? Go right ahead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ubwart

Wow reaction range wow i never would have thought that i needed to do that. Of course i have RR set to limit but even my SC units don't seem to move in reaction. in fact the only time I have had a surface action is when my SC force with a 3 or 4 RR arebased at midway and the japs sent a fleet. to midway, they were seen but did my ships ever move to intercept not once. So the battle takes place at .... midway not in the sea near midway. PW and UV both reacted correctly.

I remember testing UV about 20 times with the same attack by an american TF against japs. 20 times moving to the same location with exactly the same number of bomb and torp hits. i have no idea how you hard code attacks to come up with the same results each iteration of the game. WITPAE this game is just too tedious and I love sitting for hours working out my plans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I like the complexity ....

TFs react correctly in this game. In fact, if I have a complaint, it's that reactions are too frequent, leading to far more action in the game than occurred in the real world. Admittedly this makes it more approachable and less frustrating to play, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I like the complexity ....

TFs react correctly in this game. In fact, if I have a complaint, it's that reactions are too frequent, leading to far more action in the game than occurred in the real world. Admittedly this makes it more approachable and less frustrating to play, however.

The game puts compression and other abstractions that make for more action than historically, while maintaining a historical feel. I believe striking a good balance, personally though, like you, if it had to be changed it would change toward the less action, less accurate (bombers, naval rifles), more historical. But that can make a game what it can not be, a historical study; and can become quite tedious to play.

As you say it makes game play less frustrating and more approachable, less boring, for the average player who wants this level of detail. Still you have plenty of complaints on the forum from those who do not know their history well, or want more of a video game feel; lots of action, bomb hits, and naval rifle hits.

This player if not a troll seems to wants more of a theme video game. Much simpler with lots more action, more of a comic book feel. The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player. Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story. This level of detail combined with a historical feel becomes tedious and complicated instead of adding depth and playability.

Everyone has their preferred style of game play. Just like shopping one person's quick interesting shop is another's longest, tedious day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I like the complexity ....

TFs react correctly in this game. In fact, if I have a complaint, it's that reactions are too frequent, leading to far more action in the game than occurred in the real world. Admittedly this makes it more approachable and less frustrating to play, however.

The game puts compression and other abstractions that make for more action than historically, while maintaining a historical feel. I believe striking a good balance, personally though, like you, if it had to be changed it would change toward the less action, less accurate (bombers, naval rifles), more historical. But that can make a game what it can not be, a historical study; and can become quite tedious to play.

As you say it makes game play less frustrating and more approachable, less boring, for the average player who wants this level of detail. Still you have plenty of complaints on the forum from those who do not know their history well, or want more of a video game feel; lots of action, bomb hits, and naval rifle hits.

This player if not a troll seems to wants more of a theme video game. Much simpler with lots more action, more of a comic book feel. The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player. Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story. This level of detail combined with a historical feel becomes tedious and complicated instead of adding depth and playability.

Everyone has their preferred style of game play. Just like shopping one person's quick interesting shop is another's longest, tedious day.

“The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player.
Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.”

False...It is not “some general guidance from the player.” This game takes a
great deal of player input. More detailed player input than any other wargame
in my humble opinion. Nowhere near a video experience for most players.

Seems the OP was looking for a fun tactical wargame instead of a strategic wargame.

It is a common problem with some people who try this game.

Everyone thinks “carrier battles” when they think of the Pacific War.
This game is not about “carrier battles” it is about the strategic aspects
of brutal mid 20th century industrial warfare. That is very complex and
the workload can be tedious at times.

The Pacific War was more about non-sexy logistics than carrier battles.

This is one of the reasons that I always recommend a new player start with the
main campaign scenarios instead of the small scenarios. They give a much better
understanding of the game right from the start.

A new player can get the idea that the small scenarios are real easy and they can
jump right in, not look at the manual, not do their homework and get some
fun carrier battles which they can easily win. After getting beat numerous times
they blame the game and quit.

This game is not for children or casual gamers it is for very hard core wargamers.

The game carries the label “Expert level” in the game description. Amen!

There is a very good argument for never dropping the price of this game because
a very high price weeds out the casual players and children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I like the complexity ....

TFs react correctly in this game. In fact, if I have a complaint, it's that reactions are too frequent, leading to far more action in the game than occurred in the real world. Admittedly this makes it more approachable and less frustrating to play, however.

The game puts compression and other abstractions that make for more action than historically, while maintaining a historical feel. I believe striking a good balance, personally though, like you, if it had to be changed it would change toward the less action, less accurate (bombers, naval rifles), more historical. But that can make a game what it can not be, a historical study; and can become quite tedious to play.

As you say it makes game play less frustrating and more approachable, less boring, for the average player who wants this level of detail. Still you have plenty of complaints on the forum from those who do not know their history well, or want more of a video game feel; lots of action, bomb hits, and naval rifle hits.

This player if not a troll seems to wants more of a theme video game. Much simpler with lots more action, more of a comic book feel. The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player. Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story. This level of detail combined with a historical feel becomes tedious and complicated instead of adding depth and playability.

Everyone has their preferred style of game play. Just like shopping one person's quick interesting shop is another's longest, tedious day.

“The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player.
Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.”

False...It is not “some general guidance from the player.” This game takes a
great deal of player input. More detailed player input than any other wargame
in my humble opinion. Nowhere near a video experience for most players.

Seems the OP was looking for a fun tactical wargame instead of a strategic wargame.

It is a common problem with some people who try this game.

Everyone thinks “carrier battles” when they think of the Pacific War.
This game is not about “carrier battles” it is about the strategic aspects
of brutal mid 20th century industrial warfare. That is very complex and
the workload can be tedious at times.

The Pacific War was more about non-sexy logistics than carrier battles.

This is one of the reasons that I always recommend a new player start with the
main campaign scenarios instead of the small scenarios. They give a much better
understanding of the game right from the start.

A new player can get the idea that the small scenarios are real easy and they can
jump right in, not look at the manual, not do their homework and get some
fun carrier battles which they can easily win. After getting beat numerous times
they blame the game and quit.

This game is not for children or casual gamers it is for very hard core wargamers.

The game carries the label “Expert level” in the game description. Amen!

There is a very good argument for never dropping the price of this game because
a very high price weeds out the casual players and children.

quote:

This player if not a troll seems to wants more of a theme video game. Much simpler with lots more action, more of a comic book feel. The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player. Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I don't think the OP is looking for a fun tactical wargame or "theme video game", with nice graphics and lots of action - if so, he wouldn't have played Pacwar! Yes, the OP is criticising the game results because they do not match his expectations - but that's because he does not understand the game mechanics - and for this he justly deserves the drubbing here! But on the other hand he is criticising the UI - and there he has a point IMO. We have had threads about this in the past - the game is a clickfest and can be tedious, and some UI improvements would be welcome. Be honest, if you hit the "C" key to bring-up the combat reports, wouldn't it be nice if clicking on a location name or coordinates would center the map on the location of the battle? IIRC Pacwar had a keyboard shortcut to display battle locations on the map. Apparently the OP misses things like that in AE - but when he calls the entire game "truly terrible" due to some shortcomings, he completely ignores all the good stuff it has to offer. His loss - everybody has to make his own mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.

quote:


“The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player.
Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.”

False...It is not “some general guidance from the player.” This game takes a
great deal of player input. More detailed player input than any other wargame
in my humble opinion. Nowhere near a video experience for most players.

Seems the OP was looking for a fun tactical wargame instead of a strategic wargame.

It is a common problem with some people who try this game.

Everyone thinks “carrier battles” when they think of the Pacific War.
This game is not about “carrier battles” it is about the strategic aspects
of brutal mid 20th century industrial warfare. That is very complex and
the workload can be tedious at times.

The Pacific War was more about non-sexy logistics than carrier battles.

This is one of the reasons that I always recommend a new player start with the
main campaign scenarios instead of the small scenarios. They give a much better
understanding of the game right from the start.

A new player can get the idea that the small scenarios are real easy and they can
jump right in, not look at the manual, not do their homework and get some
fun carrier battles which they can easily win. After getting beat numerous times
they blame the game and quit.

This game is not for children or casual gamers it is for very hard core wargamers.

The game carries the label “Expert level” in the game description. Amen!

There is a very good argument for never dropping the price of this game because
a very high price weeds out the casual players and children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.

warspite1

Authentic Frontier Gibberish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.

OK.

A football manager who plays a 1-1-8 formation and when his team is awarded a penalty, which is converted demands that it is worth 5 goals. Or a tennis player in the French Open who loses the first 3 sets 6-7, 6-7, 6-7 and then remains on the court demanding the match proceeds because he has already won 18 games and his opponent's 21 won games is not insurmountable as he can win the fourth and fifth sets 6-4, 6-4 giving him a total of 30 won games to his opponent's total of only 29 won games. Or a chess player whose ELO rating is 2300 who manages to draw with an opponent rated 2500 and claims that as he is the lower rated player, he deserves to be awarded 1 point and his opponent 0 point.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.

OK.

A football manager who plays a 1-1-8 formation and when his team is awarded a penalty, which is converted demands that it is worth 5 goals. Or a tennis player in the French Open who loses the first 3 sets 6-7, 6-7, 6-7 and then remains on the court demanding the match proceeds because he has already won 18 games and his opponent's 21 won games is not insurmountable as he can win the fourth and fifth sets 6-4, 6-4 giving him a total of 30 won games to his opponent's total of only 29 won games. Or a chess player whose ELO rating is 2300 who manages to draw with an opponent rated 2500 and claims that as he is the lower rated player, he deserves to be awarded 1 point and his opponent 0 point.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alimentary

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

Irrelevant baseball details...

If the batter hits the ball into the air and a fielder catches it before it hits the ground, this is called a "fly ball" or "fly out" and the batter is "out". He loses his turn at bat. He is not allowed to run to a base.

In an "inning", one player after another from the batting team take their place at the batters box where they attempt to hit balls thrown past ("pitched to") them. After three players are "out", the inning ends and the other team takes its turn. A standard game has nine innings. A "fly out" as described above is only one of several ways in which a player can be "out". He could also strike out, be tagged out or forced out.

Google tells me the "mercy rule" is that a team that is ahead by 10 runs or more after seven complete innings [or by 15 or more after five] is deemed the winner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Then only frustration I feel in this game is when I suffer a consequence because of my own stupidity or lack of understanding of a rule or game mechanic. I'm still learning. I've also had the game for years, played UV, and have been playing war games in one form or another since the 1970s. This is still the best game I've ever played. I don't fault the game because I fail to understand something. Instead, I think how much of a learning curve the actual war was for the real players, and thank God I am not playing with real lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Then only frustration I feel in this game is when I suffer a consequence because of my own stupidity or lack of understanding of a rule or game mechanic. I'm still learning. I've also had the game for years, played UV, and have been playing war games in one form or another since the 1970s. This is still the best game I've ever played. I don't fault the game because I fail to understand something. Instead, I think how much of a learning curve the actual war was for the real players, and thank God I am not playing with real lives.

Wish this attitude were adopted by all new players. It would make their life much easier and make the game much more enjoyable for them.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred