RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (Full Version)

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



Message

Takeshi -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 5:25:27 PM)

I guess it makes me weird, but I love the micromanagement. I agree the UI leaves a lot to be desired. As others have pointed out there, are a lot of PC wargames out there that abstract or simplify much more of the detail but there is only one game like WitP-AE.



Chris21wen -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 5:26:27 PM)

I do find and always have found individual pilots a pain.   I never bothered with them in WitP and wouldn't in AE except that now I can send good ones too training.  As some one pionted out earlier why not included sgt, cpls for LCU or junior officer for ships.  Then you can micromanage ship and air unit upgrades but nothing in a LCU is micromanagable as far as upgrades go. 

I would like to see more consistancy over micromanagement but I could do wthout the individual pilots.





Graymane -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 5:58:45 PM)

To me it is all about the user interface and ease of use. With a good interface, you can hide all manner of complexity underneath.



wpurdom -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 6:01:01 PM)

     I enjoy the game. I loved TOAW too, that has similar attributes. The level of micromanagement possible in this game is one of the points that is supremely unrealistic. IRL, there is a large FOW about how your own side is doing. In WITP-AE, you know precisely and instantly the effect of battle on your own units, precisely their morale, supplies, casualties, combat effectiveness, number of planes, flying, skill levels of all leaders, etc. Well over 50% of the friction of war within your own side has been eliminated, and still there are complaints about the subordinates not following their orders with precision.

Contrast this to rea life. IRL you will have subordinates misrepresenting how they're doing, gung-ho leaders telling you their crapped out unit is unimpaired, timid CO's saying the opposite and misrepresenting their supply status, etc. Think of Patton doing his own thing in Sicily and France - how many days does it take to even figure out what he's doing if you're Eisenhower or Montgomery? You may lose control mementarily of an individual fleet co. in WITP, but at least you immediately know what he did.
IRL the commander's role, particularly with mass armies and WWII levels of communication and lack of computers, is to make simple, difficult judgments about the big picture and find competant subordinates to make the detailed plans. IRL a CO in Nimitz's or Yamamoto's position who attempted to do what we routinely do in WITP-AE would be an utter disaster.
    For all the fun chrome we added in AE (that I enjoy), we lost the ability to operate more realistically by taking a threater command and leaving the rest to the computer. (Not a criticism - probably required by the AI transformation). Every level of precision in control and information about your own side detracts from the realism of the simiulation. It's like having God as your aide de camp or 1,000 telepathic clones to command the Pacific War.



Nikademus -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 6:24:23 PM)

I feel that AE demonstrates the value of abstractness in computer wargaming. There is such a thing as too much detail, and too much micro-management. I've always loved detail but AE has been an education experience for me so my viewpoint has evolved as a result. I still like detail, but now I am more in favor of a balance between detail and playability. I stress the word "detail" vs. say "historical accuracy" because the two are not mutually exclusive. One can still have historical accuracy without ultra levels of detail that require, as Mike Scholl commented....for players to manage and pick their sgts along with individual pilots for an entire war zone the size of the Pacific conflict including mainland Asia and the USSR.



Mynok -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 7:10:52 PM)


I thought Victory Games Pacific War got the detail level just right for the War in the Pacific.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 7:17:01 PM)

quote:

For me, the schizoid level-of-detail in AE is part of the fun


There is no way you could find sending an entire division on an amphibious assault and then have to have the motorized transport switch to strategic move mode, create another task force and then ship them by that task force to a port that is probably to small to unload them. That level of detail is silly. There is no point in that level of fragmentation. Realistic or not that is just an annoyance[sm=fighting0045.gif]



stuman -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 7:18:04 PM)

quote:

When I want to hide my panzer in a bush......


I like that game also [:D]



Feinder -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 7:33:07 PM)

My 2 pfinnigs...

While I do appreciate ~some~ of the detail of the WitP AE, I think it over-all becomes a detriment (too much of a good thing as such). Even if you do want to spend the time managing every PT and pilot (that's not really the problem), we see issues on the "scalability" of the product. The much harrangued ground combat model is a great example. Is it cool that you can see every fricken LMG and and mortar in your division? Sure. But unfortunately, a minor error in representation or even if every device is correct, that aggregate of all the minutia working trying to work together is a model that leaves much to be desired. Furthermore, these scalability problems are also fundamental in some of the issues that plague the AI.

Whatever happend to "KISS". Every grognard knows "attack-defense-move, flak and maybe CD capabilty, and steps and modfiers".
Frankly I think something a bit more generic like (roughly)
Btn = 1 step
Rgt = 2 steps
Bde = 3 steps
Div = 6 steps (whatever, you get the point).

I don't care about every jeep in my division (much less having to produce them).

For production purposes, I get steps as reinforcements (or produced). Maybe separate Inf from Arm.
But I always thought in WitP and AE the ground model was too much emphasis on the minutia and when trying to scale up to the division, and esp by 1944/1945 you're working with entire Corps and Armies. Those kinds of "stacks" just don't produce realistic results. But you certainly can't blame the player for creating them, because even if you take the historic 6(?) divisions landing on Iwo, the model still doesn't reflect even that well.

Whatever. It doesn't matter. AE isn't going to change that. It's a fine game, but I do wish that esp in the case of an operation level game (that WitP and AE ultimately are) , that we could get "back to basics".

-F-



John Lansford -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 8:03:13 PM)

I like AE as much as anyone, but I feel like the developers got confused as to what kind of game they were trying to create.

Did they want a strategic level game, where TF's slugged it out with each other and divisions assaulted defended islands, and logistics and the build up of same was vital?  Or did they want an operational kind of game, where individual ship captains, pilots, the positioning of search arcs and the availability of torpedoes may mean the difference between victory and defeat?  Because, if you've got a strategic game the level of detail in AE is ridiculous, but if you've got an operational game trying to cover the entire Pacific Theater with that kind of detail is just too much for most players.



pompack -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 8:17:48 PM)

I played my first Grigsby game almost 30 years ago (on an Apple II)- I think the first one was Guadalcanal

My first thought was "This is the greatest game I have ever seen". My second was "This is the worst interface design I have ever seen" and for someone working in military electronics in the late 70's that was really saying something.

Through the decades I have continued to repeat that every year or so as he produced new games. About the time of Second Front (early 90's) I added "Hasn't this guy every heard of probability distributions?" as I watched combat results play out one shot at a time across thousands of miles of front.

But the point is that this guy stands alone above everyone else in producing incredibly neat games that offer tens of thousands of hours of enjoyement. The interface was ALWAYS clunky and there was usually a brute force approach that often swamped the computer (and the operator) in a morass of detail: but he gave me the games and no one else ever came close.

My hat is off to the AE team for giving us this game, but it is at heart a Grigsby game: brute force nitty detail with an interface intermingled with the game logic that defies anything but minor changes and a GAME (not a simulation) that is immersive for thousands of hours.

So if anyone can EVER provide a Grigsby game with a clean, user-friendly (repeat buzz words as required[:)]) user interface than I will certainly buy it, but until then I am grateful that there continues to be a succession of Grigsby games. [&o]



fbs -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 8:40:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

But the point is that this guy stands alone above everyone else in producing incredibly neat games that offer tens of thousands of hours of enjoyement. The interface was ALWAYS clunky and there was usually a brute force approach that often swamped the computer (and the operator) in a morass of detail: but he gave me the games and no one else ever came close.




Cheers to that. By the way, anyone knows what happened to that 1905 Russo-Japanese War 3D game that Mr. Grisby was working after he dropped from WITP?


Thanks,
fbs



crsutton -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/25/2010 10:10:35 PM)

The game is complex but anybody who has been around some time remembers the massive boardgames. Pacific War, Europa, Advance Squad Leader. (Have you ever seen the rulebook for Advance Squad Leader?). Thing is, most of them were beautiful but totally unplayable. Not only did you need massive amounts of space, you had to actually have your friends come over to play which is sometimes impossible even in heavily populated areas. Good luck if you were in a rural area. ( FTF is still the best way [;)]) And one rampage by your f**king cat could ruin a half year's worth of gaming. Sometime I will have to tell you about the roast beef that killed a game of Red Barricades.

Computers now make it possible to tame the beast and make a monster playable. We are in a golden age of wargaming right now. I can wait to see Grigsby's Russian Front game.

I have two great campaigns of AE going right now. One opponent is in Poland and the other is in Germany. Since I took up computer gaming about ten years ago, I have made good friends with people all over the world. I dreamed about gaming like this for 30 years. I owned and loved the old Avalon Hill Flat Top and wished that I could see it on a computer. For years I wished for this....and, now it is here and better than I ever expected.   I am having such a good time in so many ways. Only problem is that my wife just can't stand to see me so dang happy.......




Joe D. -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 12:18:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I like AE as much as anyone, but I feel like the developers got confused as to what kind of game they were trying to create.

Did they want a strategic level game, where TF's slugged it out with each other and divisions assaulted defended islands, and logistics and the build up of same was vital?  Or did they want an operational kind of game, where individual ship captains, pilots, the positioning of search arcs and the availability of torpedoes may mean the difference between victory and defeat?  Because, if you've got a strategic game the level of detail in AE is ridiculous, but if you've got an operational game trying to cover the entire Pacific Theater with that kind of detail is just too much for most players.


Perhaps that kind of detail should have been used for a redo of UV, which is a more manageable AO than the entire Pacific.

There is a tendency for game sequels to always be "bigger, better," but I would prefer more "manageable, playable".



Cribtop -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 12:46:28 AM)

I'd love fewer clicks, but to me the big advantage of all the micro-managing is very simple - you can't "beat the game." The complexity and detail mean a relative paucity of simplifying abstractions. While this fact is carpal-tunnel inducing, it reduces dramatically the likelihood that one or more of those abstractions will result in reality-warping uberness for any one strategy, unit, etc. (Sure, we had to put paid to uber cap and arty exploits and things of that nature, but there are no Zergling rushes or Stugs that pivot on a dime and thus don't need turrets a la Steel Panthers).

The result of all this? When I play some games, I think "I need to race down the tech tree to get the MacGuffin unit, after which I can sweep all before me." In AE, I find myself thinking things like: "How can I gain air superiority over New Guinea?" "Is this a strategic objective worthy of committing my carriers?" "How can I solve the logistical issues that will allow me to continue to advance along this axis?" That, in a nutshell, is the beauty of the game.

I join those who would love to see the interface improved even further, but I realize there are some limitations resulting from the Grigsby license to the original code.



bradfordkay -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 12:51:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I like AE as much as anyone, but I feel like the developers got confused as to what kind of game they were trying to create.

Did they want a strategic level game, where TF's slugged it out with each other and divisions assaulted defended islands, and logistics and the build up of same was vital?  Or did they want an operational kind of game, where individual ship captains, pilots, the positioning of search arcs and the availability of torpedoes may mean the difference between victory and defeat?  Because, if you've got a strategic game the level of detail in AE is ridiculous, but if you've got an operational game trying to cover the entire Pacific Theater with that kind of detail is just too much for most players.


Perhaps that kind of detail should have been used for a redo of UV, which is a more manageable AO than the entire Pacific.

There is a tendency for game sequels to always be "bigger, better," but I would prefer more "manageable, playable".


But you were given just that with the Guadalcanal scenario in AE. A two in one deal!



Mynok -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 2:46:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have two great campaigns of AE going right now. One opponent is in Poland and the other is in Germany. Since I took up computer gaming about ten years ago, I have made good friends with people all over the world. I dreamed about gaming like this for 30 years. I owned and loved the old Avalon Hill Flat Top and wished that I could see it on a computer. For years I wished for this....and, now it is here and better than I ever expected.   I am having such a good time in so many ways. Only problem is that my wife just can't stand to see me so dang happy.......




Amen! I love what the net has brought to wargaming.



Marty A -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 4:56:56 AM)

If they were to put the naval patrol and waypoint functions into witp and remove the 1944 allied cap bonus i would think that be a better game. read that to mean more fun to play.



spence -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 5:55:57 AM)

quote:

My only micro-complain is search arcs. IMO it's not Yamamoto's or even TF commander's job to play with the search arcs every day...



Really...the assignment/lack of assignment of search aircraft had a much more important and decisive impact on the outcome of the Battle of Midway than who was the section leader in the 3rd Watch on Hiryu.

IMHO AE has a lot of detail that matters not at all. I still love the game but some of what the player needs to worry about is not properly a concern of the the theater commander or even TF commanders.



Joe D. -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 12:29:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Perhaps that kind of detail should have been used for a redo of UV, which is a more manageable AO than the entire Pacific.

There is a tendency for game sequels to always be "bigger, better," but I would prefer more "manageable, playable".


But you were given just that with the Guadalcanal scenario in AE. A two in one deal!


Yes, the one scenario, and that's the reason I finally went off the deep end and bought AE.

However, I miss the 15+ ship battles off the 'Canal as the AI tends to use musch smaller TFs; perhaps the AI just isn't that interested in the island as it is worth far fewer points than in UV.

I have noticed that this scenario seems to have been "tweeked" since AE's release, but understandably it wasn't a priority for the developers.



MorningDew -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 12:42:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.




I'll agree and disagree with this. I think your first point is the most important...playability. The tracking of individual pilots is awesome, but it is important for these kinds of features to be able to be turned over the a competent AI-helper. Same with altitude etc.



Puhis -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 2:18:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

My only micro-complain is search arcs. IMO it's not Yamamoto's or even TF commander's job to play with the search arcs every day...



Really...the assignment/lack of assignment of search aircraft had a much more important and decisive impact on the outcome of the Battle of Midway than who was the section leader in the 3rd Watch on Hiryu.

IMHO AE has a lot of detail that matters not at all. I still love the game but some of what the player needs to worry about is not properly a concern of the the theater commander or even TF commanders.


I love the game too, it's the best strategy game I've played. There's no any major issues, but there is some small things I don't like/understand.

I can ignore squadron leaders or ship capitains if I want to, every squadron/ship have one default leader. But I can't ignore search arcs. The problem is that this game is grand strategy game, not tactical game. In this game turn lenght is 1-3 days, when IRL new search archs were set every day several times. If we play two day turn, the planes keep searching same sectors on a day 2 even when the enemy was spotted somewhere else on a day 1... I think that this is a (small) issue, the game is not nearly flexible enough to use that kind of detailed search.

Another problem is that one plane can only search one sector per day, no matter what the range is. Shorter range should mean that plane could search more sectors per day. So small search plane groups are virtually useless because they can only search so few sectors...

BTW, Midway is not good example why the game have to have search archs, because in this game when carrier TFs launch an airstrike it's detected anyway...


Manual 10.1.1.1 DL OF NAVAL TASK FORCE
...
Add 2 to DL - TF has Air Combat Mission and it reacts to an enemy TF
Add 1 to DL - TF has carrier(s) launching a strike Mission (per air unit that attacks/escorts from TF)



Sheytan -> RE: Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games? (1/26/2010 10:41:00 PM)

I owned SPI Terrible Swift Sword, War in the East, and War in the West. TSS was the only one of the three I wargamed against a opposing team. However, imagine playing either of the latter two solo. I did, so for me WITP and AE is actually quite easy to play. The computer manages much of the stuff I would have to dig into rule books to clarify, and I dont need a pool table as a map stand to play.

And the best part is, irrespective of the size of the computer game, or the number of counters...the dog or cat cant ruin weeks of gaming with one jump.

So for me at any rate the size or complexity isnt a game breaker. What is would be too much redundant clicky clicky. This presupposes the game is good to begin with of course. And in that context of WITP and AE are very good games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


While reading madgamers' concerns that AE is too complex and all, it got me to think about the following: the first computer wargame that I really liked was Panzer General. It was a beer and pretzel abstraction of reality with some 20 units that was very, very fun, and any kid could play. Then I found Steel Panthers, and it was a blast - another small, simple game with some 100 units where I had lots of fun blasting them allied tanks from reverse slopes.

The next significant one was TOAW, but then I didn't have as much fun. I liked TOAW much more in principle, because I'm a grognard and TOAW was definitely a grognard's thing. So I could revel for hours with the 4,000 units and detailed TO&E in the Barbarossa At Tactical Level scenario, but it was a much more serious commitment.

The next escalation is AE; it probably has in the range of 10,000 units plus 10,000 people around, and a game can last for months. The first turn can take days to plan, and the rules are so complex that you have to read a 300+ pages manual and read some 100-500 posts to get through exceptions, details, clarifications, etc...

Then, what's next? A game with 100,000 units that will take years to go through? Don't take me wrong in asking that -- I'm a grognard, and I like AE a lot. I revel in studying complexity (I'm paid good money to debug large, complex systems -- and I use to study Linux kernel as a hobby), so my opinion of the increased size and complexity of computer wargames will always be "Yeah!". I can't help myself. But I'm candid about that: these big, complex wargames are starting to look more like a scholar's research project than a game.

So I wonder what happened with the simple pleasure of hiding my Panthers waiting in ambush. Are we really on the right track with these large, hyper-realistic games?


Thanks,
fbs




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375