RE: If I were King for a day... (Full Version)

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



Message

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 1:17:37 AM)


once there is real-time multiplayer (literally real-time.. 1 second is 1 second)

then AI will dissappear



i would make this a real-time 8 player game .. a lot more interactive and social than pbem is

the ultimate evolution 20-30 years from now is the ability to pop into the cockpit of AC like in battle of britain 2



Blackhorse -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 1:21:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

For AE I vote a modern UI (probably too much coding work) or some option in between PDU Off "Nateapalooza" and PDU On "IJ Star Wars."

[:D] +1

For me . . .

1. simplify, simplify, simplify: Anything that helps the player through the turn with fewer clicks, without a major effect on gameplay. "Land Task Forces" are a great idea. The ability to combine air squadrons into groups. Automatic withdrawal of departing air and naval units, unless the player spends PP to keep them in theater.

2. Leaders: Kill them, promote them, let them advance from ship/unit to HQs command, yank them when they were sent to Europe.



PizzaMan -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 3:46:26 AM)

I would like to increase the viewable size of the map to fit 1920x1200 (not increase the size of the hexes).



treespider -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 3:51:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

I would like to increase the viewable size of the map to fit 1920x1200 (not increase the size of the hexes).



Create a shortcut on your desk top to the AE exe in your folder...then right click on the shortcut and in the target field add the command prompts as below...

"C:\Matrix Games\DBB WitP AE 031712\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -f -px1920 -py1200


...assuming your monitor supports 1920x1200



treespider -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 3:56:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


2. A better "Sigintel" system.



Describe "better"...sounds subjective.



Sardaukar -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 4:03:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Break down supply and resources into more detail like avitation fuel, ammo, tanks, guns, small arms, rubber etc etc.


Now you have gone and done it! [8D]



treespider -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 4:03:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



2. Leaders: Kill them, promote them, let them advance from ship/unit to HQs command, yank them when they were sent to Europe.



Automagically or by player control? ...I recall a Civil War game where the leaders progressed... I forget the mechanism...however what made it interesting was some leaders were better suited for Corps Command and got worse as they were promoted...whereas others were better suited for Army Command and their numbers got better.

Would be kind of cool to see something similar...wherein some leaders are better commanding more units and some get worse with more units.

So perhaps a commander is ideal with 3 Division equivalents providing his Skill to, however at 4 or 5 units his skills begin to diminish...perhaps he and staff are overwhelmed.




Charbroiled -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 4:17:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


2. A better "Sigintel" system.



Describe "better"...sounds subjective.


Just about anything would be an improvement over a system that tells me that there are 10,000 soldiers on Iwo Jima......2 months after I took Iwo Jima. This system is adequate and a person can get some useful intel at times (if they are the allies), but it could really use some work in that area.

3. Also, do away with the pp system except for changing commands of restricted units. Using pp's to change the command of a base doesn't make sense, since there isn't any Command and Control based on HQ or Base assignments. The only people that get punished are us "obsessive compulsive" people that like organization.

4. Or have a Command & Control system where HQ and Base assignments matter.



Blackhorse -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 8:18:58 AM)


Automagically, I guess. Although a player option to kill my incompetent pixel leaders would be nice [;)]

Eventually having leaders' ratings change as they move up the chain of command would be nice. For now, I'd be delighted to have a system that accepts that Spruance and Halsey commanded task forces then HQs, and that "Lightning Joe" Collins started the war as a Colonel, was commanding a division in short order, left to the ETO, and returned as a three-star General commanding a corps.


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



2. Leaders: Kill them, promote them, let them advance from ship/unit to HQs command, yank them when they were sent to Europe.



Automagically or by player control? ...I recall a Civil War game where the leaders progressed... I forget the mechanism...however what made it interesting was some leaders were better suited for Corps Command and got worse as they were promoted...whereas others were better suited for Army Command and their numbers got better.

Would be kind of cool to see something similar...wherein some leaders are better commanding more units and some get worse with more units.

So perhaps a commander is ideal with 3 Division equivalents providing his Skill to, however at 4 or 5 units his skills begin to diminish...perhaps he and staff are overwhelmed.






oldman45 -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 10:31:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

The ability to build/upgrade road and rail links.


Huge +1



oldman45 -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 10:37:10 AM)

I would like to see some of the "supplies" broke down to various components. AV gas comes to mind.



Itdepends -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 10:55:17 AM)

I'm a lover not a fighter. If I was king for a day I'd synchronise earth's time/date with the Venus calendar. Then I'd have another couple of hundred days to consolidate my rule. Banzai!



cantona2 -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 11:16:59 AM)

To add to my coordination comment, movable windows within the game!



MateDow -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 1:26:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Automagically or by player control? ...I recall a Civil War game where the leaders progressed... I forget the mechanism...however what made it interesting was some leaders were better suited for Corps Command and got worse as they were promoted...whereas others were better suited for Army Command and their numbers got better.

Would be kind of cool to see something similar...wherein some leaders are better commanding more units and some get worse with more units.

So perhaps a commander is ideal with 3 Division equivalents providing his Skill to, however at 4 or 5 units his skills begin to diminish...perhaps he and staff are overwhelmed.



Yes. [:D]

I think that it should be mostly handled automatically. Leaders that have proven themselves in combat, or have skill should be promoted in a range. There should be some mechanism (PP?) that would allow a leader to be promoted outside of that range, and I guess you could make it so some poor guy didn't get promoted.

If I'm thinking of the same American Civil War game as you, the values were hidden until the leader entered combat. You also had the option of randomizing all of the values when you started so you had to go with the same unknowns that happened historically. In AE terms, maybe know leadership and admin skills, things you learn from peacetime operations, and have the "combat skills" unknown until they "have seen the elephant."

I would also add a command rating to each rank. This would allow them to control a certain amount of units without penalty. For naval units, it could be based on ship type (i.e. battleships cost more control points than a destroyer), and for air units maybe engines. There would be a penalty for controlling too many points or units with an inappropriate level of command. This would hopefully make realistic assignments of leaders happen because they are the only one available. Combine this with the delay system we have with pilots to have local leaders assigned.

Those are some of my thoughts about that.



Empire101 -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 1:29:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Automagically or by player control? ...I recall a Civil War game where the leaders progressed... I forget the mechanism...however what made it interesting was some leaders were better suited for Corps Command and got worse as they were promoted...whereas others were better suited for Army Command and their numbers got better.

Would be kind of cool to see something similar...wherein some leaders are better commanding more units and some get worse with more units.

So perhaps a commander is ideal with 3 Division equivalents providing his Skill to, however at 4 or 5 units his skills begin to diminish...perhaps he and staff are overwhelmed.



Yes. [:D]

I think that it should be mostly handled automatically. Leaders that have proven themselves in combat, or have skill should be promoted in a range. There should be some mechanism (PP?) that would allow a leader to be promoted outside of that range, and I guess you could make it so some poor guy didn't get promoted.

If I'm thinking of the same American Civil War game as you, the values were hidden until the leader entered combat. You also had the option of randomizing all of the values when you started so you had to go with the same unknowns that happened historically. In AE terms, maybe know leadership and admin skills, things you learn from peacetime operations, and have the "combat skills" unknown until they "have seen the elephant."

I would also add a command rating to each rank. This would allow them to control a certain amount of units without penalty. For naval units, it could be based on ship type (i.e. battleships cost more control points than a destroyer), and for air units maybe engines. There would be a penalty for controlling too many points or units with an inappropriate level of command. This would hopefully make realistic assignments of leaders happen because they are the only one available. Combine this with the delay system we have with pilots to have local leaders assigned.

Those are some of my thoughts about that.


These are great ideas!![8D]



Speedy Gonzales -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 1:52:30 PM)

I am usually playing the allies against ai. My units usually end up all over the place, meaning SoPac units in Port Moresby, SwPac units in the pacific and so on. This happens because otherwise I am basically forced to follow the historic strategy and timetable, e.g. attack Guadalcanal when it really happened, defend PM when it was really reinforced and so on.
I don't have the pp's to change the hq and being a tidy person I find this a bit annoying every time I see the organisational mess. I'd rather have neatly organised theaters of wars with bases attached to the proper theater and the local units in the base too. I understand why I should pay pp to get restricted units out of home areas, I understand that the people of OZ or westcoasters are not too excited when I leave their homes undefended. But why I need to pay pp to change from SoPac to SwPac eludes me. What do the folks home care, where exactly in the pacific units are deployed?

So my tweak would be to have home areas and war zones. Within these areas it should not cost pp to change the hq of a unit.



janh -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 3:08:36 PM)

I'd probably not change a lot at this point, it all works quite well in most situations. If there really was the potential do some major rewrites...

- Concept of having AI taking over control over AOs, HQ's, and subordinate units (perhaps even so far as to start as a subordinate under AI orders and to relive the promotions until getting into higher positions).

- As Blackhorse suggested, simplify the micromanagement where possible without big disadvantages (keep it optional)

- Add Allied full production system

- Add FoW to leader stats, so I can only roughly judge their quality and have to see them act under pressure; have their stats develop (a randomizing stats starting option would do fine in that case, as well)

- Address the few left-over shortcomings of the game (supply as mentioned, logistics, large air and land battle scaling questions, anti-subwarfare handling of DCs and/or sensors)

- Add railroad-building or upgrading options, or allow the map to change automatically over time to mimic the building (Burma-Malaya RR, or Darwin)

My first and foremost concern would, however, be modding capabilities and the way AI is conceived:
- replace the scripting language and internal AI routines with a powerful, dynamic scripting language that exposes all hardcoded AI routines to be mod-able,
and that can be used to create a smarter, dynamically adapting AI (that would give Andy a lot more capabilities to allow it to react to a player, and I would trust that the community would squeeze out the last out of such an AI)



morganbj -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 3:19:14 PM)

I'd spend the day in the showers with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader applicants. There are always several hundred of them. I think I could handle those, er, ... I mean handle that.



treespider -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 4:13:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I'd probably not change a lot at this point, it all works quite well in most situations. If there really was the potential do some major rewrites...



Who said anything about major re-writes...the thread was supposed to be about tweaks.[:D] That being said it is nice to dream...

My originally posted idea IMO would be a tweak, as it would simply require the addition of an if -> then function in the supply spoilage routine coupled with a copy and paste of the original supply spoilage routine with a change to the formula.

so if location = malarial zone then use new formula. If location = non-malaria use existing formula.

Some of the ideas suggested, while nice, would simply require a complete re-write of the game.



Nikademus -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 4:49:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



2. Leaders: Kill them, promote them, let them advance from ship/unit to HQs command, yank them when they were sent to Europe.



Automagically or by player control? ...I recall a Civil War game where the leaders progressed... I forget the mechanism...however what made it interesting was some leaders were better suited for Corps Command and got worse as they were promoted...whereas others were better suited for Army Command and their numbers got better.

Would be kind of cool to see something similar...wherein some leaders are better commanding more units and some get worse with more units.

So perhaps a commander is ideal with 3 Division equivalents providing his Skill to, however at 4 or 5 units his skills begin to diminish...perhaps he and staff are overwhelmed.




Too much work for a game of this scale IMO. Maybe a small minority would enjoy spending hours "evaluating" their commanders, land air and sea and trying to find the best ones but its like running a nation's war economy whilst also being CiC at the same time. The pilot training program alone is already a nightmare. In the end the only way to really do this with the Grigsby spreadsheet style wargame would be to suppress the actual leader skill values and have them only exposed over time. Might as well dispense with leader "skills" entirely and just have to go the way the actual CiC's did it, by simple observation over time. This C/O seems to do well....he gets to keep his job (and his head) This C/O is sluggish or prone to shying away from fighting. He gets the Ax.

So now in addition to WitP: the QM struggle against Japan, you have WitP. HR and the fundementals of leadership and managerial direction. [:)]





treespider -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 5:05:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



2. Leaders: Kill them, promote them, let them advance from ship/unit to HQs command, yank them when they were sent to Europe.



Automagically or by player control? ...I recall a Civil War game where the leaders progressed... I forget the mechanism...however what made it interesting was some leaders were better suited for Corps Command and got worse as they were promoted...whereas others were better suited for Army Command and their numbers got better.

Would be kind of cool to see something similar...wherein some leaders are better commanding more units and some get worse with more units.

So perhaps a commander is ideal with 3 Division equivalents providing his Skill to, however at 4 or 5 units his skills begin to diminish...perhaps he and staff are overwhelmed.




Too much work for a game of this scale IMO. Maybe a small minority would enjoy spending hours "evaluating" their commanders, land air and sea and trying to find the best ones but its like running a nation's war economy whilst also being CiC at the same time. The pilot training program alone is already a nightmare. In the end the only way to really do this with the Grigsby spreadsheet style wargame would be to suppress the actual leader skill values and have them only exposed over time. Might as well dispense with leader "skills" entirely and just have to go the way the actual CiC's did it, by simple observation over time. This C/O seems to do well....he gets to keep his job (and his head) This C/O is sluggish or prone to shying away from fighting. He gets the Ax.

So now in addition to WitP: the QM struggle against Japan, you have WitP. HR and the fundementals of leadership and managerial direction. [:)]





Well if I had my druthers I would do away with individual ship captains and pilots. Would also do away with all but HQ leaders and TF admirals.

Pilots would be generic in the form of Victory Games Pacific War...where there was a training cue but there were only three levels replacements. Would also do away with the 100 point Exp system.

I like your idea on hiding the leader values altogether... expose the quality of a leader through results...such as the plus/minus system in the combat results.

If leader A contributed positively to a battle he is denoted with a plus sign in the combat results, negatively he gets a minus....but only use corps commanders and above.

So you know if a leader is constantly a plus on the battlefield he probably has good ratings.

In the spirit of spreadsheets an information screen listing leaders with data points for positive battles, negative battles, avg rally/reorg time etc for the admin stuff....






Nikademus -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/13/2012 5:30:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider



Well if I had my druthers I would do away with individual ship captains and pilots. Would also do away with all but HQ leaders and TF admirals.

Pilots would be generic in the form of Victory Games Pacific War...where there was a training cue but there were only three levels replacements. Would also do away with the 100 point Exp system.

I like your idea on hiding the leader values altogether... expose the quality of a leader through results...such as the plus/minus system in the combat results.

If leader A contributed positively to a battle he is denoted with a plus sign in the combat results, negatively he gets a minus....but only use corps commanders and above.

So you know if a leader is constantly a plus on the battlefield he probably has good ratings.

In the spirit of spreadsheets an information screen listing leaders with data points for positive battles, negative battles, avg rally/reorg time etc for the admin stuff....



agreed. This is a theme i continue to beat as we progress into the age of Skynet. More is not necessarily better. I'd rather the increased budgets and computing power be spent making a wargame more playable and fun as well as 'historical'. On a game the scale of the Pacific war......representing indiv pilots and captains, sub commanders, and low level LCU leaders is way too much detail for questionable impact. Remember the whole "illusion of control" thing that Mike Wood once mussed about....a Grigsby specialty. Its enough detail to represent indiv air squadrons.....ships and major LCU units. Move them into position and let the minions do their thing. You don't have to be an HR manager to get a good game. I've had personally countless hours of enjoyment playing the old Pacific War and War in Russia where the main task was simply to move those major playing pieces and form operational and strategic plans.

Now......practically have arthritits of the mouse click. To a degree one can ignore the grittier levels of detail, but against a human who chooses to micromanage, your at an automatic disadvantage.

On a simpler note.....King for a Day? I'd eliminate the manual managed economy. Your a military leader.....not a CEO. I've never seen a Grigsby economic model work correctly yet. Players are too clever and representing a true economy is just too complex.

of course a future wargame might create a flexible enough system that some of the grittier details can be selectable options so the grog who doesn't get enough fun managing an HR dept in his day job can play Leader Absolute at night whilst someone who just wants to be Nimitz or Yamamoto and fight his or her battles can dispense with that mind numbing aspect of a national war.



PizzaMan -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/14/2012 1:59:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

I would like to increase the viewable size of the map to fit 1920x1200 (not increase the size of the hexes).


Create a shortcut on your desk top to the AE exe in your folder...then right click on the shortcut and in the target field add the command prompts as below...

"C:\Matrix Games\DBB WitP AE 031712\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -f -px1920 -py1200



This switch option doesn't work with my AMD processor, but with my older Intel based machine I was able to run better resolutions, but the switch increased the size of the game screen by making the hexes larger, not be increasing the number of hexes. My preference is to see more of the map while planning.



treespider -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/14/2012 3:02:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

I would like to increase the viewable size of the map to fit 1920x1200 (not increase the size of the hexes).


Create a shortcut on your desk top to the AE exe in your folder...then right click on the shortcut and in the target field add the command prompts as below...

"C:\Matrix Games\DBB WitP AE 031712\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -f -px1920 -py1200



This switch option doesn't work with my AMD processor, but with my older Intel based machine I was able to run better resolutions, but the switch increased the size of the game screen by making the hexes larger, not be increasing the number of hexes. My preference is to see more of the map while planning.



hmmm...me thinks you have the wrong size dash or some other form of typo in your switch. perhaps an unintended extra space or some such...I have an AMD quad and it works just dandy.



Mundy -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/14/2012 4:03:19 AM)

Ditto here. Phenom II quad core.

Ed-



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/14/2012 9:54:09 PM)

For tweaks:

1. Easier TF creation, for example ships being added as long as the mouse button is held down - instead of click-click-click-click-click...

2. Filter in TF creation screen for "Ships already assigned to TFs"

Requiring more than tweaks:

3. leader stats FOW idea: +1

4. no PPs to change HQ of unrestricted units: +1

5. better naval sigint regarding ship movements (Allies often knew the where and when of IJN ship movements)



CaptDave -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/19/2012 11:02:42 PM)

As noted a few times before, it's difficult to know what would be a mere tweak and what would be a major overhaul.  My three biggest wishes, in perceived order of increasing complexity (I know -- because I've been told -- the third is major, so I won't hold my breath!):

1.  Change the combat reporting system so that you can see what bases your own aircraft flew from.

2.  Increase patrol zones to four waypoints (there are cases where I'd really like to patrol a parallelogram, rather than a triangle).

3.  Let two PBEM players have different settings for things such as auto sub ops, for which there is no logical reason for them to be the same.



Dili -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/20/2012 5:27:59 AM)

LCU's and airplanes use fuel.

Ships can transport other boats like LCVP's etc, chariots submarines etc.

Variable and composite hex ownership for special forces and a more mobile type of warfare.

Automate automate! - saving repeated actions and make them applicable to any unit.

Of course most of this is for the sneaky objective of making a Mediterranean mod...



richlove -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/20/2012 5:04:19 PM)

Small tweaks:

- clickable text in the combat reports, ops reports, etc, that bring you to the hex / unit in question
- the ability to go to a hex by typing in its x,y location



JWE -> RE: If I were King for a day... (4/20/2012 5:57:46 PM)

After a couple of years living with our development decisions, the only fundamental thing I would change is the Japanese amphib bonus. I would kill it.

Way back in Gary Grigsby's time, he didn't have the resources, or the people, to make this more specific, so it became a general thing.

We now know how the IJN/IJA actually configured the ships used in the early war ops, and how many (and which ones) were returned to commercial service. We now know which ships should be configured as 'AKs' (not xAKs) and which ships (xAKs) should have the -t switch set. We have been playing with this for over a year. For a more historicaly playable scenario, perhaps limiting any and all invasion TFs to specifically AKs, or xAKs with the -t switch set.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.40625