RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

rattovolante -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 2:02:52 PM)

BTW, why is gun penetration considered so relevant in the overall game?
I mean, this isn't a naval battle simulator, there are tons of other abstractions and approximations that have a much heavier impact on the game anyway.

Consider universal supply for example, you can conquer an enemy airbase, drop an AKE in port and magically reload your BB guns with captured avgas, food and 20mm (or .50) ammo... [:D]

If your goal is a simulation, IMO this is much worse than underrating/overrating penetration of a gun model. I mean, in the first case you have "they misrated penetration, but it's still being portrayed as a gun", in the second case you have "my BB guns fire Japanese midget subs, huzzah!" [sm=00000280.gif]



ckammp -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 3:18:56 PM)

deleted



Ayradon -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 7:52:27 PM)

Ok, you have me there ckammp. [:D] Now that I think about it it's hard to find reality anywhere nowdays.



fbs -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 7:58:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ayradon

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.




If you say that, then nothing could have the name "historical", given that a historical movie about the American Civil War would certainly be un-historical if they portrayed anyone as Lincoln.

The way I see it, the attribute "historical" means that it is intended to be pretty close to historical facts, notwithstanding some degree of artistic freedom.

So, if a game has Nazis in 1941 and is built around historical events, with reasonable assumptions filling the gaps, then it is ok to call it a historical game. But if you add werewolves, an unsinkable Bismarck or a soy-powered Yamato, then it is certainly a fantasy or alternate history game.

Just my two cents [:D]

Cheers
fbs



Ayradon -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 9:20:57 PM)

I did not say that you can not use the name historical. A movie about Lincoln can still be historical if it portrays his life accurately. If it does not then it is not historical in the sense that you are using it in. A good example of un-historical is any movie about the Battle of the Alamo. Every single movie I have seen always shows Col Travis fighting to the bitter end when historically he was one of the first casualties of the battle.

I believe that you have taken my meaning out of context. Using AE as an example once the December 7th turn is run it is no longer historical in the sense that unless the exact same casulities and sinkings are reported then it becomes aternate history. Thus it is no longer historical in the sense of the actual results of WWII.

And you are right in the fact that every single game that claims to be historical is actually a alternate history game. This is because my original statement is true. After the first turn it is no longer following historical events and is thus alternate history.



Reg -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/18/2009 1:28:52 AM)


Oh dear, we seem to starting to stray upon the edges of Simulation 101.

I think you guys are being a touch too pedantic on the definition of historical. There is a difference between historical recreation and historical simulation which provides the observer with a historically accurate framework where he(she) has the latitude to made alternative decisions. However, the consequences of those decisions MUST be modeled in a historically feasible manner for the simulation to have any claim at all to the term historical. The validation of your model (a very specific term in the field of simulation) is that actual decisions lead to the observed historical results.

The tricky bit is validating events that have no historical precedent or didn't occur often enough to generate a statistically significant sample, particularly if there are a large number of influencing factors involved. Whilst it is obvious that a single division invasion of the West coast will fail, it is not so obvious how the USS Iowa would fare in a surface action against the Yamato. Good judgment or consensus would have to apply here.

Using simulations give the opportunity to explore the consequences of alternative scenarios to a degree that which a book cannot do especially if you do not have any idea of the potential outcome. Simulations also have a nasty habit of throwing up things you never thought of.....

The game comes in when we go through this process for entertainment (and maybe simplify certain aspects to make it more enjoyable). Doesn't mean a well written program can't be both.




Yamato_Blitzer -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/18/2009 3:17:30 PM)

Martin get bent and enjoy the game. if you don't like it, quit, simple as that. As long as you're a gamer, at least once in a while you'll end up buying a game and finding that you don't like it. That's a risk you run buying products of any kind. if you don't like AE, quit. What do you think whining in such a negative manner will achieve anyways? Quit and spare us your nonsense.

This isn't a product lacking in quality, nobody flat out lied when they told you what the game was about and would include. You technically didn't get ripped off. Put the game on the shelf and move on. Flaming accomplishes nothing.

It seems to me, the main thing amongst your condescending and ignorant posts is that you seem to demand some kind of perfection in the historical factor of the game, which is totally ridiculous, I don't get why you weren't saying the same thing about WITP then.

Based on playing both sides rather extensively, I can conclude that they haven't really made the game biased in one way or another. Not to either side. But I won't even bother listing it all, what's the point?

The FACT is it wasn't just made biased towards the JFB players. Like Nik says, play the Japanese side and you'll see.

Why can't you just enjoy the game anyways? It doesn't make much sense, and that isn't merely speaking from a view of preferance. "oh this game isnt a total or close to a total historical simulation, what a pile of garbage"....regardless of anything, there is alot to enjoy in this game for any historical fanboy or strategy fanboy.



klhbekool -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/18/2009 3:48:00 PM)

Wow what a topic. I play these game to see  what results my plans would have on history. Many people put in countless hours of hard work to improve WITP and I am happy with results even though the KB parks outside Pearl Harbor for a week and sinks every battleship and cruiser. I remember once in WITP when  I decided to take on the KB with the Lexington and Enterprise I got my butt handed to me, so I learned to let Land Based Bombers wear them out then  use my carriers to pounce. This a simulation so enjoy it



Icedawg -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/18/2009 6:06:17 PM)

You'd have to give the Japanese nukes just to balance the effects of Deathstar Boise!

How can anyone claim the Japanese are favored when the allies have this uber ship killer?

I'm in the process of beginning a game as the Japanese and, on turn one, have diverted all four Kongo class BB's to the Tarakan/Balikpapan/Makassar/Kendari area just to try to take out Boise. When drastic measures like this are necessary to neutralize a single American CL, in what direction is the bias?



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/18/2009 11:30:21 PM)

Obviously, my message has been lost in my initial delivery. For that I appoligize.

However, my points remain. I've suspended playing after running into a IJN surface combat TF between the HI and SF. I had no idea IJN DD's were so fuel efficent. [X(] I'll wait at see how patch two does, but for now it seems the reach of the dev team exceeded their grasp. Honestly, I believe they are stuck with an engine that simply is not up to the task, and no amount of bandaids, smoke and mirrors, or harsh words against their detractors will fix it. I hope I'm wrong, AE has so much promise.

And just to be clear, Andy, I believe you have done the best anyone could given the tools you had to work with.

-CJ



JWE -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/19/2009 12:03:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
I had no idea IJN DD's were so fuel efficent. [X(] I'll wait at see how patch two does, but for now it seems the reach of the dev team exceeded their grasp.

Gosh, that's a new one. But easily handled. Bunkerage, and endurance at cruise, and specific consumption rates are right out of Watts, and Jentschura, and Conway, and etc ..

If you have different fuel efficiency values, it would be nice to have your data. Otherwise, it would be as informative as my saying I had no idea your lingerie was so old fashioned.



Yamato_Blitzer -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/19/2009 2:29:12 PM)

I didn't read the PM you sent me. Rather be out with the negativety and frankly I just don't care. The truth is, I don't care about any of this and I apologize for responding in the way I did and for not responding in a more sound and civilized manner and a less ignorant way myself after reading what I perceived to be flat out ignorance from you. If I misunderstood it all and myself just became the ignorant one I apologize. Responding the way I did is never right and it's just destructive.

I don't know why I said anything to begin with because normally I wouldn't care what one guy thinks about one video game, because it really doesn't matter, especially on such a trivial subject. But It just seemed like you weren't merely addressing a grievance you feel about the game, but rather, it seemed like you were overblowing things and going about it in a flaming manner, saying they ruined the game. Maybe this wasn't your intent but that's the idea I got in the way you expressed yourself for some of those posts. Which does nothing but dumps on the good work and real progression of the AE team. Even if what you said was true, the way you were acting dumps on all the good work they did. Sometimes seeing people do that really ticks me off. Seeing people dump on other peoples hard work.

Well, as said, there's more important things to worry about..This is just my apology to the forum for becoming bashful and doing my part in stirring up negativety.....Maybe i'm wrong, maybe not, i've said my peace. I don't care. I just hate that I stirred up negativety doing this, because either way I would have.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125