7 Day Turns

7 Day Turns (Full Version)

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

Message

jive1 -> 7 Day Turns (9/15/2002 9:54:10 PM)
It seems to me that 7 day turns may be essential to make a game as huge as WITP playable. At the moment with UV I would not consider using week long turns as I don't trust my units to look after themselves for such a period of time. I hope some work is put in to make 7 day turns more playable. Having a button either globally or on a squadron level to allow it to rest when fatigue hits a player defined level or player defined weather condition would be a great help. When the condition no longer applied the aircraft could then resume their previous mission. (This would also be a great addition to UV :) Chris

jules -> (9/16/2002 4:49:47 AM)
I don´t agree. Give us some good reasons for your suggestion...

jive1 -> (9/16/2002 5:33:07 AM)
I'm throwing the question back at you Jules - why would you disagree? Obviously the button could be set so your aircraft would always fly regardless of fatigue or weather conditions so it would have no impact on the game if you didn't want to use it. Even if you were only playing 1 day turns it would still be beneficial in order to cut down on the micromanagement of your forces. A common complaint has been the fact that you have to go through every unit in order to rest them during poor weather conditions. The more customisable a game is to the players taste the better. Give me options!

shark -> Weekly Witp a MUST!!! (9/16/2002 8:55:16 AM)
It seems to me that 7 day turns may be essential to make a game as huge as WITP playable. :D I agree completly Jive. We play PBEM UV on a 3 day turn period.It works OK but you have to be very careful if you put CVTF on reaction as you are committed for 3 days.In one case my cv was torped and self detached,then the remaining screen (no CV) reacted next to Jap CVs .OOPS :mad: The UV system needs several extra controls eg: Waypoints for TF movement. Reaction ranges In regard to aircraft i think altitude assignment should not be done by the player.The player should specify the commitment levil eg max effort, harressment etc and allow certain tactics. eg skip bombing,low levil etc for certain missions. Currently in UV You may want 100 ft for naval attack but 6000ft for the secondary mission of land attack. WitP is a true Strategic long term game. Weekly turns MUST Work WELL.

jive1 -> (9/16/2002 2:43:22 PM)
Some great points shark. WitP really needs such changes.

jules -> (9/17/2002 6:22:10 AM)
The point is that I want to have fully control of my units and really command them not hoping on agressivness e.t.c. of their leaders. This does not exlude your suggestions. I also agree in the point of handling the altitude of the different planes. Bye

shark -> (9/17/2002 9:59:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jules [B]The point is that I want to have fully control of my units and really command them not hoping on agressivness e.t.c. of their leaders. The agressivness-harrasment selection would be made by the player. This represents the orders the unit is given that define the units commitment levil eg how low will they let their morale fatigue get before reducing operational tempo.it would also affect sortie rate and altitude missions are flown at depending on weather.

Fred98 -> (9/17/2002 1:14:40 PM)
I have another solution: I would rather set the turn length to Continuos, but I have no idea when units have completed their tasks. Therefore I would love to see a message from each unit as soon as their task is complete. Then I would need the option to stop the game, issue fresh orders and then continue the game.

shark -> (9/17/2002 4:34:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]I have another solution: I would rather set the turn length to Continuos, but I have no idea when units have completed their tasks. Hi Joe The main reason for needing long tern periods is to play the game by email against sneaky and devious human opponents. Also WitP puts you in a strategic role so it is unrealistic to micromanage the whole pacific theater on a daily basis.PBEM works best for strategic games.

Fred98 -> (9/18/2002 5:31:23 AM)
I suppose that my point is: Imagine the turn length is set to 7 days. I need a supply taskforce to travel to its destination, unload and travel home again. Then to repeat the exercise. At the moment we can only automate one TF at a time and only from specific ports. When a TF arrives home, if I fail to tell it to make another supply run, it could spend 6 days in the port doing nothing. As to air units, I need them to change bases and then attack the enemy over there. On day 1 they change bases and then for 6 days sit around doing nothing because the turn length is 7 days. Generally speaking, when a TF or air unit or ground unit has completed its task, I need to assign a new task, otherwise it might sit around for 6 days doing nothing. The solution might be to have more automatic routines.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (9/18/2002 9:06:35 AM)
That is not how the game works, that isn't even how Pacific War works. Within that week, your air groups perform a series of missions against targets, not just one. Ship TF's spend weeks at sea. To have the level of control that you want, you almost have to go down to a 'squadron command' based game, not a war in the entire pacific. This is a strategic operating game, where you give the orders and your admirals do their best to follow them (or mess them up).

Toro -> (9/18/2002 10:12:36 AM)
Perhaps some time-slewing concept? Days pass when no real activity is happening, but when contact is made, go back to 1-day turns? Or when certain conditions are met (a TF has no orders, an enemy TF is spotted, etc). Just a thought.

shark -> (9/18/2002 10:48:09 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]I suppose that my point is: Imagine the turn length is set to 7 days. I need a supply taskforce to travel to its destination, unload and travel home again. Then to repeat the exercise. At the moment we can only automate one TF at a time and only from specific ports. When a TF arrives home, if I fail to tell it to make another supply run, it could spend 6 days in the port doing nothing. As to air units, I need them to change bases and then attack the enemy over there. On day 1 they change bases and then for 6 days sit around doing nothing because the turn length is 7 days. Generally speaking, when a TF or air unit or ground unit has completed its task, I need to assign a new task, otherwise it might sit around for 6 days doing nothing. The solution might be to have more automatic routines. [/B][/QUOTE] Currently in UV the routine convoy system is ok but a more versatile system would be nice in WitP, however the distances in WitP will mean 7 days is less of a problem. As far as aircraft transfer goes the one transfer limit now in UV is inadequate if you play multi turns. You should be able to do a number of consecutive transfers based on the turn length the game is runing.Like in the old Pac War where multiple trans were done but you payed for it in damaged aircraft.

Fred98 -> (9/18/2002 12:05:22 PM)
To Jeremy: I would love a lesson on how UV works. I enjoy some aspects of UV but some other aspects turn into a drudge. Which means I am in 2 minds about WITP-SAG. For me, setting the game length to 1 day is simply too short. I tried 7 days and I also tried continuous. But I found that supply ships return to base and then sit there because I have not issued a fresh order. How to overcome this? And some fleets move very fast across the map. When they arrive at their destination they will do their thing and then head home. After they have finished doing their thing I would rather have the choice to issue fresh orders, send them to a nearby base to refuel, or to send them home. If I don’t catch them in time I find them half way across the map before I know it. How can I stop this? And to aviation support. In one scenario I had, I think, 4 ground units spread across the map that carried aviation support – and they each had differing amounts. I had to think about which one to send where. This is not fun. Its more like work. And so on and so forth. This is a great game. Perhaps I am not understanding it properly. I want to feel tense in a tight situation., the feeling I love in a wargame. I don’t want to feel that I am back in the office. Now is your opportunity to increase my enjoyment of UV and to sell me WITP-SAG.

Raverdave -> (9/18/2002 3:02:28 PM)
One day turns would be fine. Remember it is such a huge area that there will always be something going on somewhere. I would hate to have it set to 7 or even 3 day turns but then that is me, I am happy to sit back and play a long war using 1 day turns. I guess that it comes down to what a person is looking to get out of the game and what they are comfortable with.

jive1 -> (9/18/2002 11:34:22 PM)
My objection to 1 day turns isn't boredom - just the unlikelyhood that a pbem would ever get finished after several years of play. Whatever ones good intentions 4 or 5 years of a single game is an awful long time!

Yamamoto -> (9/19/2002 1:51:10 AM)
I assume that the current plan is to have turn length selectable between one and seven days, as well as continuous. Most people will play single player in one day increments. For PBEM I think the option to adjust the time scale in-game would be excellent, since there would be times when both players would want to speed things up. I don’t think PBEM will be such a big deal in “War in the Pacific – the Struggle against Colonialism” because they are including TCP/IP. I know I’d much rather play someone live than do the email thing. Yamamoto

shark -> (9/19/2002 6:42:20 AM)
[ I don’t think PBEM will be such a big deal in “War in the Pacific – the Struggle against Colonialism” because they are including TCP/IP. I know I’d much rather play someone live than do the email thing. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] In a strategic game you are Nimitz or Yamamoto NOT Nagumo or Spruance. You are not on a carrier deck you are in cincpac. You issue your orders according to your campaign plans and ajust same according to results. When you are controling the whole pacific theater you have plenty to do. TCP/IP is inconvient but my main dislike of it is that it allows too much micromanagement for a strategic game, thus reducing the tension you get as a player when you commit your commanders to an operation.You have to plan ahead and commit, not just continualy adjust ship positions and shuffle planes. UV is essentialy an operational game.Its systems form a great BASIS for WITP but they need some mods to suit the scope of WITP. Regarding mods I hope the designers bring in an auto convoy system for rear areas to do non combat supply routes. Also hopefully US sigint will be simulated in WITP as it is CRITICAL in allied strategic decision making.

Fred98 -> (9/19/2002 9:07:20 AM)
Quote: “……when you commit your commanders to an operation. You have to plan ahead and commit, not just continually adjust ship positions and shuffle planes.” Yes, I agree 100% with that. [B]It is exactly what I am looking for in a game.[/B] Yet I still have a problem. Playing a PBEM game, I set the turn length for 7 days. After 2 weeks at sea, my Task Force arrives home on the first day of the third week. For the next 6 days the ships sit around doing nothing. How can I overcome this? This could be the most important Task Force on the map. It is not a question of micro management. It is more a question of victory or defeat.

shark -> (9/19/2002 9:22:57 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]Quote: “……when you commit your commanders to an operation. You have to plan ahead and commit, not just continually adjust ship positions and shuffle planes.” Yes, I agree 100% with that. [B]It is exactly what I am looking for in a game.[/B] Yet I still have a problem. Playing a PBEM game, I set the turn length for 7 days. After 2 weeks at sea, my Task Force arrives home on the first day of the third week. For the next 6 days the ships sit around doing nothing. How can I overcome this? This could be the most important Task Force on the map. It is not a question of micro management. It is more a question of victory or defeat. [/B][/QUOTE]

shark -> (9/19/2002 9:50:59 AM)
hi Joe Hopefully matrix will add more reaction options so when you position a TF on reaction, either at sea or in port,you will be able to define the reaction range better.Hence if you dont react then you have fresh units for next week.If you do react and engage the enemy both sides will need to recover to refuel and rearm.CVs become very vunerable when AA ammo runs low. If the TF is a supply convoy then it is probably a routine convoy anyway.They continue to cycle regardless of turn. However in a strategic context your ships need down time in port regularly to repair the system damage you get from regular steaming.If you dont do this you are asking for trouble, even in UV .BTW I think attention to aspects such as this in a game is a great feature of UV. From a gamers point of view if you are penalised by this be consoled that your PBEM opponent is operating under the same conditions.If you play the computer it probably needs all the help it can get. And lastly the game utilisation of ships always has a higher tempo than in real life anyway.

jive1 -> (9/19/2002 2:31:52 PM)
One further option could be to disband or maintain a TF when reaching port. At least if it has to spend 6 days in port it could get some rest - but it would be a pain to have to keep creating it. Carriers could maybe have a rest aircraft when docked switch. There could be alot of buttons! :)

Jeremy Pritchard -> (9/19/2002 8:13:51 PM)
I can see an option for 1 day turns, but I don't see it used much. Most people will find that it is just too redundantly boring to do micromanagement for 1000 turn games. It takes literally hours to plan a PacWar turn (7 day turn) and games 'rarely' run into 1944 due to tiring micromanagement. It would not harm anything to incorporate it, as it would be realitively easy to put in. However, the use of it will probably be minimal once you realize exactly what you are in store for.

jules -> (9/21/2002 5:50:30 AM)
It´s easy to put in in !? Then just do it ! Don´t give us a second PacWar with mega units/task forces struggling in mega battles without the influence of their real Commander in Chief : the player.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (9/21/2002 7:15:42 AM)
I am not speaking for Matrix, nor do I REALLY know if it is easy, so don't jump on them if they do not. Also, they are the ones who can best determine the gamespeed of the game. There can be countless reasons for them to not add the multiple turn speeds. Input from the player is good, but that can lead to disaster when it is listened to too much and the game no longer resembles what they made it out to be, and turns into a jumble of options.

shark -> (9/21/2002 7:18:42 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jules [B]It´s easy to put in in !? Then just do it ! Don´t give us a second PacWar with mega units/task forces struggling in mega battles without the influence of their real Commander in Chief : the player. [/B][/QUOTE] Dont knock the original PacWar. Until UV it was the BEST PBEM Pacific Theater game around. Peole still played it for years and years even though the interface came from the dark ages (when it was originaly written). From your previous statement you dont like to command strategic in a strategic role so keep playing operational games.:) What i want IS!! an updated PacWar, another Grigsby masterpiece that will stand the test of time:D I want a UV interface with the extra inputs that will allow the game to run well on a seven day cycle. :D [B]Bring on SUPER Pac War and call it WitP.!!!!! [/B] :cool: :D

pasternakski -> (9/21/2002 8:30:42 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shark [B] Dont knock the original PacWar. Until UV it was the BEST PBEM Pacific Theater game around. Peole still played it for years and years even though the interface came from the dark ages (when it was originaly written). From your previous statement you dont like to command strategic in a strategic role so keep playing operational games.:) What i want IS!! an updated PacWar, another Grigsby masterpiece that will stand the test of time:D I want a UV interface with the extra inputs that will allow the game to run well on a seven day cycle. :D [B]Bring on SUPER Pac War and call it WitP.!!!!! [/B] :cool: :D [/B][/QUOTE] Dam*ed skippy. I'm one of those who has played it for years and will still play it for years, on its own merits, even after WITP becomes the 800-pound gorilla. How come you're always right about stuff, Shark? By the way (speaking of Grigsby masterpieces), do you know where I can get Carrier Force in something other than that awful Apple emulation version?

jules -> to shark (9/23/2002 3:37:09 AM)
I´d like to command strategically (ressources, displacement of forces, production, use menpower to fight or to produce... like WIR or PacWar) with DIRECT impact on operations. That´s ( in my opinion) now possible in a computer game for such a huge scale (with automation options). One example: I can easily disband all my APD as US in PacWar. In UV they are in my first line as supply vessels in heavily defended areas. But I should use them day(night) by day (night) ... jules

shark -> (9/23/2002 3:40:13 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B] Damed skippy. I'm one of those who has played it for years and will still play it for years, on its own merits, even after WITP becomes the 800-pound gorilla. Hi Pasternakski I dont think i could face that old interface and those##$^%*paths after playing UV. But if WitP becomes an unplayable monster i may have to. Cant help with Carrier force

shark -> Re: to shark (9/23/2002 4:04:14 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jules [B]I´d like to command strategically (ressources, displacement of forces, production, use menpower to fight or to produce... like WIR or PacWar) with DIRECT impact on operations. That´s ( in my opinion) now possible in a computer game for such a huge scale (with automation options). One example: I can easily disband all my APD as US in PacWar. In UV they are in my first line as supply vessels in heavily defended areas. But I should use them day(night) by day (night) ... jules [/B][/QUOTE] hi Jules The problem of lots of automated options are that they are like AI routines. hard to write and get correct and reliable . Adding lots of these is difficult as they have to be imbedded in the game to work well. On top of this the computer AI has to be able to use them. Computer AI is the hardest thing to get right, especialy compared to Devious and calculating humans. This is after all why eventually most players end up playing PBEM and running [B]the whole theater[/B] UV is undoutably the core of WitP. I just hope the guys at matrix put in the routines that will make the game tailored to work well on 7 day cycles. If they do this , it should not be hard to let people play on a one day cycle. The reverse wont work.:eek:

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7324219