RE: Zero Corsair etc (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


Charles2222 -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/17/2006 9:46:34 AM)

Good point, because if you did WITP ala BTR, you would have to figure out which side was to be the planners and which the reactors, if you played strictly from the BTR book. So naturally that means they would have to go one up on BTR and get both sides to be reactionary as time elapsed for WITP.

I'm not sure what you mean by stating that a turn of BTR is longer. If you mean it's continuous time, as in the case of the Germans, then yes, but if you mean in terms of the amount of personal time absorbed in planning either I would have to heartily disagree. WITP takes MUCH longer in my case, but then I am playing Japan. I never did play the allies in BTR (but never did complete playing as Gerry either - because of, shall we say, game bugs) but all that allied raid planning might be comparable to the WITP Japan. I don't think there is any game turn in the history of computer gaming that has compared to how long it can take mustering up Japan as you want it on it's turn one. The only thing comparable that I can imagine would be the allied WITP turn one[:D].




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/17/2006 2:31:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Good point, because if you did WITP ala BTR, you would have to figure out which side was to be the planners and which the reactors, if you played strictly from the BTR book. So naturally that means they would have to go one up on BTR and get both sides to be reactionary as time elapsed for WITP.

I'm not sure what you mean by stating that a turn of BTR is longer. If you mean it's continuous time, as in the case of the Germans, then yes, but if you mean in terms of the amount of personal time absorbed in planning either I would have to heartily disagree. WITP takes MUCH longer in my case, but then I am playing Japan. I never did play the allies in BTR (but never did complete playing as Gerry either - because of, shall we say, game bugs) but all that allied raid planning might be comparable to the WITP Japan. I don't think there is any game turn in the history of computer gaming that has compared to how long it can take mustering up Japan as you want it on it's turn one. The only thing comparable that I can imagine would be the allied WITP turn one[:D].


Charles, what bugs were killers? I've just started my first campaign as Luftwaffe but I won't waste my time on any more buggy releases. Please explain.




Charles2222 -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/20/2006 3:17:10 PM)

I would rather not get into it Ron. They have "ears" and they will fight with me even in this forum should I bring it up. It was so even before they had a forum here when I brought it up before. 




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/20/2006 3:36:15 PM)

Charles, can you PM me then with your concerns?




Charles2222 -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 9:54:38 AM)

2 PM's sent.




RevRick -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:10:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
[its usually easier to find a PBEM partner too using stock since the majority play with it] If trying Nikmod, there is a FAQ detailing all the changes.


Those must be lemmings or with suicuidal tendecies. Anyone who has ever tried NikMod -or other mods of course- would NEVER return to stock after it.


No, not lemmings (which by the way is just a bit less insulting than calling us morons) - but people who would like a game to just possibly continue in a stable setup for more than two weeks or so. Right now it seems as if there are more changes coming out every7 two days or so in the newer mods.




Nikademus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:19:07 PM)

I'm stable.

sort of......<giggle....snort>




Terminus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:21:54 PM)

Yeah, about as stable as the San Andreas Fault... and about as intelligent...




Nikademus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:22:43 PM)

jelous(tm)





Terminus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:23:32 PM)

Fat-Ass(c)




Nikademus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:28:47 PM)

I already knew that about you but thanks for the heads up.




Speedysteve -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:44:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I would rather not get into it Ron. They have "ears" and they will fight with me even in this forum should I bring it up. It was so even before they had a forum here when I brought it up before. 

[sm=nono.gif]

Charles these 'bugs' of yours were discussed in the BTR forum IIRC.............

Ron don't be put off...........




goodboyladdie -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/21/2006 4:50:12 PM)

BTR - the only game that I have ever played that even comes close to being as great as WitP! Can't wait for the new improved version....




Charles2222 -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 9:15:35 AM)

Oh yes, I checked that forum to see if they made any progress on the most pressing issue for me, and, as expected, it has not progressed and never will. Ron has heard my voice and that's all I'm willing to say at this point.




AmiralLaurent -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 9:42:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Good point, because if you did WITP ala BTR, you would have to figure out which side was to be the planners and which the reactors, if you played strictly from the BTR book. So naturally that means they would have to go one up on BTR and get both sides to be reactionary as time elapsed for WITP.

I'm not sure what you mean by stating that a turn of BTR is longer. If you mean it's continuous time, as in the case of the Germans, then yes, but if you mean in terms of the amount of personal time absorbed in planning either I would have to heartily disagree. WITP takes MUCH longer in my case, but then I am playing Japan. I never did play the allies in BTR (but never did complete playing as Gerry either - because of, shall we say, game bugs) but all that allied raid planning might be comparable to the WITP Japan. I don't think there is any game turn in the history of computer gaming that has compared to how long it can take mustering up Japan as you want it on it's turn one. The only thing comparable that I can imagine would be the allied WITP turn one[:D].


I agree that the first turn of WITP is a monster, but then following turns will be far shorter, especially in the second half of 1942. WITP interface is not the best possible by far but has some improvement compared to BTR enabling to give the same orders to all units of the same type in a base at the same time, and orders are kept from one day to another, while in BTR you have to add manually each unit to a raid, and each turn, when playing BTR.

A normal WITP turn takes about 40 minutes to me, divided in half bewteen watching the replay and planning the next turn. But a good part of my turns are done in 5 minutes, when things are rolling and I have nothing to change. An Allied BTR turn usually takes at least one hour,and when I played German more than half an hour just doing the turn (in PBEM, where there are more raids tahn against the Allied AI, especially at night).




Charles2222 -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 10:00:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Good point, because if you did WITP ala BTR, you would have to figure out which side was to be the planners and which the reactors, if you played strictly from the BTR book. So naturally that means they would have to go one up on BTR and get both sides to be reactionary as time elapsed for WITP.

I'm not sure what you mean by stating that a turn of BTR is longer. If you mean it's continuous time, as in the case of the Germans, then yes, but if you mean in terms of the amount of personal time absorbed in planning either I would have to heartily disagree. WITP takes MUCH longer in my case, but then I am playing Japan. I never did play the allies in BTR (but never did complete playing as Gerry either - because of, shall we say, game bugs) but all that allied raid planning might be comparable to the WITP Japan. I don't think there is any game turn in the history of computer gaming that has compared to how long it can take mustering up Japan as you want it on it's turn one. The only thing comparable that I can imagine would be the allied WITP turn one[:D].


I agree that the first turn of WITP is a monster, but then following turns will be far shorter, especially in the second half of 1942. WITP interface is not the best possible by far but has some improvement compared to BTR enabling to give the same orders to all units of the same type in a base at the same time, and orders are kept from one day to another, while in BTR you have to add manually each unit to a raid, and each turn, when playing BTR.

A normal WITP turn takes about 40 minutes to me, divided in half bewteen watching the replay and planning the next turn. But a good part of my turns are done in 5 minutes, when things are rolling and I have nothing to change. An Allied BTR turn usually takes at least one hour,and when I played German more than half an hour just doing the turn (in PBEM, where there are more raids tahn against the Allied AI, especially at night).



Yes, I would say that echoes my experience, only I have never got beyond the first two months of WITP and never have played PBEM. Yes, it's easy for me to forget the convenience of issuing orders to multiple groups in WITP, but then again that's only been somewhat of a recent discovery for me. But, playing IJ it's still none to quick as you remember the portion of the game I have played is all about attacks and making sure I prep units and so on, to say nothing of trying to keep up with how my industry is going.

I suppose beyond my first 5 turns in BTR, very long ago, I probably played the planning phase in like 15 minutes or less playing Gerry and in my case often I spent more time with the execution and scrambling than the strategic portion.

A WITP IJ turn for me, is the minimum of an hour. I just have to go over every base and every combat TF every turn. The most major improvement I've made timewise in the game is to note the weather in the strategic map and sometimes in the lower level map also, to get a general idea of just where it's a good idea to fly or not. If the weather is generally lousy throughout I will grab the list that shows all land-based a/c and shut them all down, and of course do the same to the naval ones. Then I go through things to find the exceptions and then bring some of them back up. The opposite of course is true for the better weather, where I will have to recall the prior turn's general weather and then decide to leave them alone or stand them up. From what I've seen, and it's just a cursory look at best, it doesn't seem the idea of standing up the entire land force, for example, works as well as standing them down, for they invariably will take missions I don't want to assign them and have to adjust them anyway. So as far as quick turns go, bad weather is my friend[:)].




Ursa MAior -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 12:40:33 PM)

Rev Rick and stock players
OK. My bad. Did not know that lemming has such a strong emotional meaning (i would rarely call someone a moron, of course as always there are exceptions).

IMHO if someone played the stock (and has at least some idea about how in reality this whole thing happened) and after played any of the mods, then he/she would NOT return to stock scens, at least till the next official patch. I am not saying that Matrix is responsibel only some people now it better.[;)]




Nikademus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 3:56:52 PM)

I have found in my experiences that the shorter your first turn of WitP is [as japan], the longer your subsequent turns of WitP will be. Thus, the first turn must be a monster. It's daunting to be sure. I've tried to create a "template" ala Mogami in order to speed things up but of course, if there's a version change you have to start from scratch again.

BTR is a monster but i find as allies i can scratch out a "decent" turn in under 30 minutes. But of course by "decent" it means it won't be anything to send to the wargamer's hall of fame or else there will be one or two well planned missions with the rest being somewhat haphazzard thrown together or let the AI plan them. So far i only have PBEM exp as Allies.




AmiralLaurent -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 6:01:29 PM)

Charles, the losses of CAP and naval search AC flying in bad weather compared to clear ones are minimal... less than one on 10 000. In WITP op losses occured mostly on raids and even in good weather about 1% of the AC will be lost.

So grounding all air units and so on is in the game a waste of time, and of clicks. I agree that the first turn of WITP are very long, and my tactic to do them is to not do on the first turn the long-term decisions (modifying industry, building rear bases, etc...). In fact I'm used to play all that I want to do the next turn, and then if I have time, am not tired or bored, I will continue to do some planning. So some units may not receive orders and do nothing for some turns, but 1) WITP is a long game 2) units never do nothing, they will at least train or rest or build fortifications, etc....




anarchyintheuk -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 6:17:17 PM)

I could usually get an allied turn out in BTR in about 30-40 mins, unless I was behind on recon (which I usually was). Planning recon felt like work with no pay.

BTW, what was this thread about?




Nikademus -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 6:20:25 PM)

I usually direct the AI to assign recon missions. You have to do it multiple times as the AI routine only plots a few missions, but overall it has worked fairly well for me, hitting the major targets i want examined. really speeds up my turns.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/22/2006 6:26:27 PM)

Wish I would have used that more back when I played. Must be an inherent distrust of AI.

In any event, high hopes for the new game.




Charles2222 -> RE: Zero Corsair etc (9/23/2006 9:16:40 AM)

Yes, well I think by-the-book it claims that units whcih are stood down are training, but I've never seen it playing as IJN. I think part of the deal is that the very low experienced units train, or at least get somethign out of it, whereas the 70+ ones do not. There is a couple of IJAF stationed with the Kwatung Army I believe. in a coastal city. One of them is an Ida unit and the other is a Kate I believe. Both of them have epxerience in the 60's. I have never seen either of them gain experience whether they were allegedly flying that turn or not, so I move one of them out and get some experience that way at a better base.

Of course if what you're saying is true, about them being stood down making such a small difference, then I would have to wonder what was the point in putting stand down ability in the game in the first place? Anyway I would tend to think that the IJ planes are more suspectible to damage not only because of the non-armored prejudice in determining additional losses in just flying alone, but also because the weather in Japan is so bad for so long. It's something to keep in mind, what you said, but for the time being it does keep me a bit more aware of what is going on in doing it the way I have and I am a bit disbelieving on that point anyway. It's probably better, particularly in the Kwatung Army, that I keep them grounded if I wish them to not be a nuisance to me, during the bad winter months, and then maybe set them for patrols in the better weather without grounding them for any inbetween bad weather turns. In such a manner they could be my little laboratory for a possible more widespread use of practically not standing anything down. One thing I do wonder about though, is how susceptible stood down planes are to aerial attack as opposed to those who are doing naval searches for example? The stood down ones may be camoflagued while the ones searching have the advantage of being in the air, but with the disadvantage of some of them fueled up and on the airstrip. GG probably didn't go through all the trouble of making the damage any different for a fueled up plane on a strip (talking non-CV here) and one camo'd off somewhere, but there might be some noticeable difference.

I don't like the first turn, but what would be worse for me would be to do it as you do. Simply that is because my brain has accepted the first turn is a killer, whereas it would rebel in protest over doing what I left out the first turn on the second. It can be a brainful trying to alter everything the first turn, but it does go in line with the general technique I have about managing the entire game. What usually happens is I will miss one or two adjustments I wanted to make and then catch it on the 2nd turn. Part of the beauty of doing it on turn one is that everything is as stable as it will be for a long time for IJ. The last thing I need is to not be quite set on adjusting other things and then see an allied CV group steaming into who knows where and then throwing me off some industrial adjustments, etc. I also believe that though the benefit is slight, the earlier I get everything adjusted to how I want it, the earlier I reap the reward (such as changing some factories to better planes and especially to ridding the empire of some of the pointless a/c engines like Nissan).




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625