|
wobbly -> RE: WITP Alternative with Less Micromanagement? (9/29/2008 2:01:36 AM)
|
Hi All;
Short time lurker, then long time player, then curious dog: sniffing his way back to teh forums to reminisce.
Sarconix:
It was my memory that I kept the game under control by playing it at a couple of levels: Essentially there is:
The strategic level: I am going to take the Gilberts in the next 6 months
The area level: what am I doing in SWPAC (obviously the Allied perspective):
The tactical level: What ships and planes are doing something for me in this area.
I just remembered the jist of what I was doing, and then use the situation within a game to remind me. As long as I knew the strategic goal I could decipher most of the rest. This meant no big lists of notes (although caveat here - there is no way you're going to get away without micromanagement when you're executing a large operation - but then you wont want to - this is the meat and drink of the game), and more importantly: no need to 'check every base every turn'. I just found that you don't have to. Most people play the game in single day turns. Other than the hot action it really doesn't matter than you forget to send the 102 Seabees to Fiji as soon as they are available etc Those people that love micromanagement will keep on top of these things, and they are 'likely' to play a more precise game. But if you have a good tactical understanding you can still hand them their backsides in battle after battle. For me that was enough. This meant that I could do a turn in about 20 minutes. Again this changed if there was a major engagement on. I would also, usually in the weekend, have a once over of bases by using the reports - check on levels of supply, fuel and such.
As in a war of this type, the 'hot' action is only really taking place in a few locations. I would always concentrate on those. When I didn't have the initiative, it was react, when I did, it was plan those encounters I expected.
The next thing to point out is that you are going to play the AI to get the feel, but then, as with most games, you will tire of its endless tactical blunders and lack of strategic awareness. So I can't recommend PBEM highly enough but it is also at this point that I feel I should warn you.
PBEM is the only way to play this game. I have made lasting friendships with the people I played against, and that is a testiment to something you've already noticed: the quality of people that this game seems to attract. My opponents were always ready to pull my leg if they hoodwinked me, able to cheer my successes when I hoodwinked them, and also seemed such quality guys to shoot the breeze with.
However, that turned out to be the problem. This game, if played like we usually do: a turn per day of the actual Pacific War, is of such a long duration, and the quality of the guy you are playing is such that 'you don't feel you can let them down'...
The game turned into a job. I had to provide a turn for my partner the next day no matter what happened. I mean, I wanted one back, I had to oblige him his turn to do this. While you can obviously organise a hiatus, that's all it was. So, for me, it wasn't the size of the game or its duration (although was more weighty), it was the obligation to my playing partner that eventually killed it for me. My wife literally laid down the law about that, and she was right.
So, that said and done, I will add my voice to the chorus of 'don't go anywhere else'. This is, without doubt, the best game I have ever played. You will get over the knowledge curve. You will make mistakes and not understand why things didn't work, but you can find the answer in these forums, and often from your opponent. I would recommend you play your first PBEM as the allies because you can absorb these failures while you learn far more easily. I would simply reiterate the advice given by another poster: do a little more, in another area, every turn: try changing altitude on a bomb run, try ferrying troops with transport planes etc. Slowly take control off the computer. While the game is "War in the Pacific", I always played it like it was a string of scenarios: Battle of Gilber Islands, Battle of Caroline Islands, Invasion of Malaya etc sticking them all together to make my "War in the Pacific". I won some of the scenarios, in which case on to the next scenario, and I lost some, in which case retire and look to try again or somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
