Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000 From: Bad Windsheim Germany Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag This is not formal in any way shape or from so don't read anything into it. 2by3's schedule is already booked for quite some time to come with multiple games. How many folks would seriously be interested in a PBEM ONLY version of War in the Pacific with expanded scope and detail? (ie: WitP II) The limiting factor here is having a Computer Player means AI development which seriously limits the ability to move forward with the thousands of great suggestions that have been made. It also caps the scale as the lower the scale, the more computer processing power that it takes to have AI. Prices are assumed to be in US Dollars so factor in your exchange rate in picking the option. Please be serious with your choice. Due to some folks who don't understand the meaning of the forums posting rules, the content of this thread has been removed. Personal attacks on other members are unacceptable. For my part… I apologize. A question on expanded scope… what specifically do you have in mind? At present I play games against the AI and ‘Hotseat” with a couple of guys here whom have generally the same ideas as to limitation they wish to put on the game (no Deathstars for one). This year both 6-6 ands 2-6 are headed back to Iraq and Afghanistan so it is either AI or PBEM, and from reading the AARs I don’t find PBEM appealing. Would an ‘expanded’ WitP provide greater historic restriction on player’s actions? House rules are great, but actual historic restrictions on why China isn’t crushed in 1941 would work better. The same goes with massive ASW fleets, 200 plane B-17 bombings, naval invasions of India/Australia, etc. Would I pay $200 for a WitP which accurately (as much as possible) the operation requirements and restrictions as the existed in WW2, so that my opponent had to conduct himself under those historic limitations… I believe I would. Would I pay $200 for a WitP that adds more unit and/or complexity, but doesn’t not better recreate the historic feel of the era… no. I have no desire to limited my defense of Tarawa to a Naval Guard Unit and a Baseforce (near historical limits) to watch my opponent assault with four Divisions. While in game terms it might make sense to do it that way, historically it wasn’t possible. I don’t care about victory points, and have told both of my hotseat opponents before the games start they can consider themselves the victor. What I do care about is the operational level within historical limitation. If WitP2 is 500 Battalion Deathstar riding the Chinese rail by ignoring historic realities… what is gained? So… exactly what are you suggesting? Again, I apologize for any part I played in the deterioration of this thread.
_____________________________
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
|