RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (Full Version)

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



Message

Puhis -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/11/2011 7:52:19 PM)

Sooo... Is this disregard-thread now? [:)]



Rainer -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/11/2011 9:03:01 PM)

quote:

Sooo... Is this disregard-thread now?


Don't think so.
Asdiscus gave us just a reminder why most of us visit this forum.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/13/2011 7:33:45 AM)

Disregarding the reason for the 50% damage: Is it realistic that a port the size of Singapore at 50% damage can be fully repaired in just 5 days?

Looks like some Allied version of "Speedo - Worko". A construction site can only "support" a certain workforce and certain work does require a certain time, no matter how many Eng units and supplies are at hand (setting/hardening of concrete for example).  There are also diminishing returns for more of everything, sometimes to the point of getting in each others way and actually slowing things down. 
It is my impression that repair and construction for ports should be much slower, esp. compared to airfield repair/construction which appears to be the 'easier' task.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/15/2011 7:31:19 AM)

No takers? My objection is too stupid to even comment on? [:(]



Sredni -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/15/2011 8:56:17 AM)

I kinda agree. It always seems too easy to repair major base damage. You can knock a base back to the stone age and then after a couple days of resting your bombers the base will be operational again.

However there would be issues with slowing down repair of base facilities in witp. Namely the way building forts and repairing damage is linked. If we had drastically reduced repair rates for port damage (or AF) then it would become impossible to build forts anywhere that's contested. Think of any of the starting locations for the allies; we'd never get them beyond level 1 forts because the feeble bombing effort the IJA can put forth in the beginning would be enough to keep all allied bases in range repairing port damage.

All it would take is a couple bombers every so often and singapore couldn't build forts before the japanese army got there.

Sail some carriers through the dei once a week conducting port strikes and palembang, batavia, soerbaja, balikpapan, tarakan, cagayan, ambon, ect ect would all be unable to build any forts before invasions happened.


So while I would like to see port and even airfield repairs take longer, I don't think it would be a good idea with the current model with forts linked to repairs.



Puhis -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/15/2011 11:21:04 AM)

I think repair speed is fine. Like Sredni said, player cannot deside not to repair facilities. For example IRL Munda airstrip was totally destroyed, and japanese did not even try to repair it. Instead they build heavy fortifications around the airfield. Impossible in this game. (I'm not complaining!)

But I think expanding facilities should take much longer, espesially expanding ports.



mdiehl -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/15/2011 9:55:58 PM)

quote:

Does hard coding results that help the Japanese while making results that help the Allies variable demonstrate a bias?


Yes.

Also, it sort of violates the whole "can you do better than history?" subtext of consim gaming. WitP is, however, not unique in its dedication to hardwiring Allied defeats and in making the rest "optional."



mdiehl -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/15/2011 10:01:40 PM)

quote:

The only thing that actually sticks in my craw is the two standards applied; to wit:

1)If any Japanese commander screwed up, let's give them the ability to fix it in the game.

2) If any Allied Commander screwed up, let's hard code it or make a house rule about it to make it so in the game too.


Funny to have Hand Bolter commenting that he was a playtester of A3R in this thread, because A3R is one of those games that really tosses production disparity between the Western Allies and the Axis straight into the trash can. It's one of those designs that takes note of all of the Allies' fears and builds them structurally into the game and none of the Axis' ones.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/16/2011 12:10:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

No takers? My objection is too stupid to even comment on? [:(]


Do you really WANT an answer to this question??? [:D]



Mynok -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/16/2011 12:31:49 AM)


Don't worry about asdicus. The guilty posters have been doing that since the original Witp days.



HansBolter -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/16/2011 2:31:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

The only thing that actually sticks in my craw is the two standards applied; to wit:

1)If any Japanese commander screwed up, let's give them the ability to fix it in the game.

2) If any Allied Commander screwed up, let's hard code it or make a house rule about it to make it so in the game too.


Funny to have Hand Bolter commenting that he was a playtester of A3R in this thread, because A3R is one of those games that really tosses production disparity between the Western Allies and the Axis straight into the trash can. It's one of those designs that takes note of all of the Allies' fears and builds them structurally into the game and none of the Axis' ones.



Regardless it's still a classic. Futhermore, I wasn't holding it up as an example for comparison here, merely using the reference to establish creds regarding longevity of my experience with grand strategic games. I also played ETO/PTO and WWII to death during the heyday of boardgaming. [:)]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/18/2011 9:42:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

No takers? My objection is too stupid to even comment on? [:(]


Do you really WANT an answer to this question??? [:D]


[sm=00000106.gif]

[;)]



mdiehl -> RE: Singapore 50% port damage 7 Dec why? (4/18/2011 7:23:51 PM)

quote:

Regardless it's still a classic. Futhermore, I wasn't holding it up as an example for comparison here, merely using the reference to establish creds regarding longevity of my experience with grand strategic games. I also played ETO/PTO and WWII to death during the heyday of boardgaming.


Absolutely a classic. It was best really when the variants were used. The "research rules" skewed the game so far to the Axis side that they weren't worth using. ETO and PTO were good games too, each with their limits. I still play PTO (the last SPI version) with a set of house rules for carrier combat search and attack that worked out pretty well. Francisco Colmenarez and I put that together.

Thinking about it, the subsequent products in all three lineages mentioned here GGPW-WitP, A3R-AWAW, PTO-Advanced PTO, are all markedly inferior to the previous design. Not sure why that is.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625