Is it too much like Pacific War? (Full Version)

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



Message

swatter555 -> Is it too much like Pacific War? (12/7/2002 6:02:49 PM)

The game looks promising in alot of areas, but other areas trouble me. I like how the map is based on hexes and it looks like the march paths are gone. That would be a nice change. It also looks like air combat is handled better, that is also nice. What troubles me is the way naval operations, particularly carrier ops, are handled. It looks like the same old super flawed Pac War. In theory the system isnt bad, but Pac War's execution was very bad in carrier ops. 2 task forces could be one square away and couldnt find each other even if they sat there for weeks. It got really absurd. Also target selection in carrier based strikes was just so terrible, it makes me ill. If they are using the same system, it better be 600% improved or there is no point in buying the game. If your going to spend such a long time making a game, it shouldnt be a rehash of a free download.



tanjman -> PacWar vs. WitP (12/7/2002 6:28:37 PM)

swatter555,

WitP is based on the UV (Uncommon Valor) game engine (check out the UV forum for more info). As such it is simular to PacWar in the sense of the scale of the game, but UV does not, and I doubt WitP will have the same problems/limitations as PacWar.

I still play PacWar (less since UV's release) and have been playing UV since it came out and I look forward to playing WitP.



Jeremy Pritchard -> (12/7/2002 10:12:47 PM)

I really don't see where you are getting the TF information from, since they have not released any info on how it works (with the exception being releasing Uncommon Valour!).

Check out your post in the PacWar area. The problem that most PacWarriors have with PacWar is that they use CV TF's incorrectly when trying to engage other CV TF's. The game has them engage enemy TF's with a much higher degree of success if they are set on REACTION.

So, I don't think it necessarily is a flawed system, but possibly that users are not exactly familiar with the correct way in using Carrier TF's, and are doing all of the wrong things and getting these poor results (the fault of the manual which was never very thourough).

If you want help in figuring out PacWar, find something called "Pacwar Hints 11", which gives you information that was not dealt with in the Manual.



pasternakski -> Re: Is it too much like Pacific War? (12/7/2002 11:14:03 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by swatter555
[B]The game looks promising in alot of areas, but other areas trouble me. I like how the map is based on hexes and it looks like the march paths are gone. That would be a nice change. It also looks like air combat is handled better, that is also nice. What troubles me is the way naval operations, particularly carrier ops, are handled. It looks like the same old super flawed Pac War. In theory the system isnt bad, but Pac War's execution was very bad in carrier ops. 2 task forces could be one square away and couldnt find each other even if they sat there for weeks. It got really absurd. Also target selection in carrier based strikes was just so terrible, it makes me ill. If they are using the same system, it better be 600% improved or there is no point in buying the game. If your going to spend such a long time making a game, it shouldnt be a rehash of a free download. [/B][/QUOTE]

Try becoming competent at playing a game before bashing it.



TIMJOT -> (12/7/2002 11:31:15 PM)

If UV is any indication, then WitP will be leap and bounds ahead of PacWar.



Jeremy Pritchard -> (12/7/2002 11:50:31 PM)

I am still figuring out how Pacific War works, after playing it for about 8 years, and editing it for 5. There were many aspects of the game that I never bothered to figure out how it worked (Air zones, reaction, HQ targets, etc...), and my game probably suffered because of it.

It is a very difficult game to understand your first few times. Many veterans find it frustrating as well. It will not be an easy game to grasp after your first few battles (unlike Steel Panthers, Hearts of Iron, etc. wich have relatively simple combat commands).



USSMaine -> (12/8/2002 6:40:41 AM)

I have logged more hours playing PacWar than any other game. I still learn new things and the AI continually surprises me on occasion - like the time they grabbed part of Ceylon and did a number of the Royal Navy. Of course it cost them too but that's another story. All in all PacWar was one of the best birthday presents I ever recieved !



swatter555 -> Re: Re: Is it too much like Pacific War? (12/8/2002 7:23:36 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]

Try becoming competent at playing a game before bashing it. [/B][/QUOTE]


I wasnt bashing Pac War, I said I didnt like carrier operations and that is only a small part of the game.

And I have been spending alot of time learning Pac War. If I need to be intiated into some sort of secret society in order to be considered fluent in Pac War or need to spend a few more years learning it, it is flawed. Let us not get offended when someone states the obvious.

And I have spent alot of time reading the online resources recommended to me and I have adjusted my gameplay in the areas I was making errors. And Im not some idiot who just rolled off the turnip truck, Ive been playing wargames for 14 years. I have played games far more complicated than Pac War, but also far less obtuse.

To the other person, if you read the game description you will see that TFs are assigned the same kind of missions as in Pac War. This implies the same kind of system. It might be the same system in theory, but implemented alot better. I dont know.

Unless WiTP is based on the same code as Pac War, I dont see a point in using the same system. And yes, I will now retire to my dark room to continue my study of Pac War. I shall return in a few years when I can be considered enlightened.



Snigbert -> (12/8/2002 7:40:43 AM)

[B]It might be the same system in theory, but implemented alot better.[/B]

Bingo


I reccomend buying UV and it will give you a good idea of how WitP will work, as far as Carrier Ops. It will also convince you that you want to buy WitP.



swatter555 -> (12/8/2002 7:12:52 PM)

Yes, I have read that UV is good. Unfortunately, everytime I consider buying it there is a back order. I guess that says something good all by itself :)



DoomedMantis -> Re: Re: Is it too much like Pacific War? (12/8/2002 7:27:01 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]

Try becoming competent at playing a game before bashing it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you becoming grumpy pasternakski, or did he just catch you on a bad day;)



mogami -> WITP (12/8/2002 9:28:29 PM)

Hi, Jeremy do you recall the great "Cenpac or SoPAC" debate in the Pac War forum? WITP will certainly give Japanese players reason for pause when deciding where to turn their efforts after securing the Southern Resource Area round late April early May 42.
WITP cannot even be fairly compared to PacWar. PacWar is "Grand Strategic" While WITP is more "Operational level"



ricurrie -> Is it too much like Pacific War? (12/20/2002 6:18:31 AM)

In support of Swater555:

I agree the WITP looks promising but am also concerned that the development direction for the AI, and therefore the product as a whole may be lacking.

I have played PACWAR regularly since 1993 and have always considered the AI to be really flawed, even based on the standards of the time. With playing practice, you learn to develop workarounds (to a degree) for the poor AI, as well as simply enjoy the game for the many fine attributes that exist within the product. I have spent many enjoyable years playing this game – absurd AI and all. However, the reality is that the AI in PACWAR really is “really absurd”. Many fine comments in this respect have already been made so I do not think I need add anything further. Also, the more recent work to fix / improve the original game along with the AI has been truly outstanding.

I have also purchased UV and it is based on this product where my concerns exist. Don’t take me the wrong way, this game is light-years ahead of PACWAR, and so it should be. But based on my observations, it appears that GG and team has simply used an updated version of the original AI that existed in PACWAR within UV; i.e. I suspect that the AI was not completely re-written as it probably should have been. One of the first things I noticed (and still notice) when playing UV is how the actions of the AI match the original PACWAR game in many ways -- AI absurdities and all.

For WITP, the game AI does need to be 600% improved over the original PACWAR game. More important, it needs to be 100% improved over the UV game. For this game to be truly innovative and enjoyable the AI needs to incorporate considerably more logic and some finesse on how moves are executed. In addition, the ability for the AI to learn over time from its opponent and previous games would be terrific.

Of course, all this discussion may be a mute point since with all the delays in releasing WITP, I am one individual who is starting to think that this product may simply be more “vapour-ware” never to be finally released; similar to another PACWAR remake in the late 1990’s (can’t remember the name now) that never did get released after successive push-backs in the release date. I suggest that some serious Product Management is required to get this project back on-track and this game out the door. It does not take over two years to quality develop and release a game like this one. I suppose these last comments are more appropriately for another post.

Also probably more appropriate for another post; it amazes me on just how cliquish this forum appears to be. A relatively small group of regulars who claim they want this forum as platform for new ideas and comments. The only problem; when a newcomer adds a comment that one of the “regulars” does not like the (in this situation, really intelligent) comment; the new individual is usually left picking the led out from all the bullet holes he has received (speaking figuratively). I have been a member of this forum since 2000, but have remained a silent observer for this reason and others. I think I may also return back to my dark room as well for a few years.

….RC



Mike Wood -> Re: Is it too much like Pacific War? (12/20/2002 6:57:45 AM)

Hello...

I have some insight into this, as I wrote the PacWar update that Matrix Games released and am one of the programmers on War in the Pacific.

WIP is a game of WW II in the Pacific. So, there is a simularity, right off. WIP is being written using the UV engine and uses no code from PacWar. The AI has been written from scratch. Not one line of PacWar code any where in WIP. WIP will have many, many features that PacWar lacked.

We have three programmers, several artists, a testing department and a research department working on the game. It is a big project, as was SPWAW and Uncommon Valor. We will finish up, as soon as possible. We have a running version right now, but are adding enhancements and fixing bugs.

We appreciate input from our clientel and host these forums for that very reason.

Thanks for Your input...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games



DoomedMantis -> (12/20/2002 11:29:44 AM)

Keep up the good work Mike, its well appreciated



Fred98 -> (12/20/2002 11:42:20 AM)

Unless a game is very structured like chess, you can never get a great AI opponent. The best opponents are human.

I use the AI for testing. I get no satisfaction from beating the AI.

But if a game had no AI, I would never buy it. The truth is, most time is spent playing the AI. I could never have the time to pay a human in the longest campaigns.


On games of older technology (like chess) the AI could be difficult to beat because the variables are few. As technology improves, the number of variables will increase and the AI will probably be worse.

But playing humans is great because they can make 5% errors and you can exploit those errors. A computer opponent cannot make an error. It can play very dumb.



FAdmiral -> (12/25/2002 12:37:40 PM)

Remember one other important fact, AI programming takes alot
of memory and horsepower to make it work close to human
thought. 10 years ago, the computers we had to work with didn't have much in the hardware department. Now we have PCs
many times faster & with large amounts of storage & memory.
So the AI should be much better than it used to be and it is
when the game mfg. puts in the time & effort to make it so.
When will the AI be as good as a human, probably not for a
time yet, at least till the time we get organic computers. And YES, they are testing that very prospect as you read this.......

JIM BERG, SR.



dail -> Evolution of a Game (1/1/2003 3:40:51 AM)

PacWar was very similiar to its tactical predecessor, "Carrier Strike: South Pacific", but it was not exactly the same.

I expect the same development model was used. Uncommon Valor is the tactical engine for WiP, but the final "Grand Strategic" product will not bog down into a tactical wargame attempting to recreate a strategic war.

On the other hand, there are not a lot of other products out there that simulate the pacific theatre, so we'll all probably play what we get. Perhaps someday Grigsby will merge PacWar, War in Russia (or the old Eastern Front), and Western Front into a game that simulates WWII on a global scale.



kaleun -> Re: Evolution of a Game (1/1/2003 6:18:13 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dail
[B]PacWar was very similiar to its tactical predecessor, "Carrier Strike: South Pacific", but it was not exactly the same.

I expect the same development model was used. Uncommon Valor is the tactical engine for WiP, but the final "Grand Strategic" product will not bog down into a tactical wargame attempting to recreate a strategic war.

On the other hand, there are not a lot of other products out there that simulate the pacific theatre, so we'll all probably play what we get. Perhaps someday Grigsby will merge PacWar, War in Russia (or the old Eastern Front), and Western Front into a game that simulates WWII on a global scale. [/B][/QUOTE]

When that global WWII comes out we might as well quit our jobs and go on disability to play it!



byron13 -> (1/17/2003 1:57:44 AM)

Yes, we would have to quit. Or win the lottery and buy a wargamer commune for all of us to live off the winnings.

I am reminded of an article in the General or in S&T Magazine before there were any computer wargames. Monster games like Campaign for North Africa were in vogue, and someone wrote an article about the ultimate board game. The scale was man-to-man and individual vehicles and covered something like the entire Western front. The guy had it set up in a gym or something, and he got around the map by using a trapeze suspension system. And I was thinking, "Yeah, that would be totally cool." Ah, the naivete of youth.

I would like to see global WWII done well. There have been some real disasters like High Command (sans Pacific) and the new one that is out now by the French that is an awful effort. To be worth anything, the AI would have to be stellar, or it would have to be strictly PBEM. While the WitP engine could probably be expanded to do the entire war, I don't see it being practical. The scale would have to be altered since I just don't see fighting the entire war with individual squadrons and keeping track of each individual pilot. Technically possible, but we're not even sure anyone can finish the entire WitP campaign. Adding the entire German effort, and you're talking about . . . . . well, quitting our day jobs an becoming professional game players.

We'll see someone do it, but probably at a larger scale. I just hope it is someone with a commitment to quality, like Matrix, that will do it justice and make a competent game. Isn't someone trying to put World in Flames on computer?



James Taylor -> (1/17/2003 3:35:48 AM)

There is a game that plays superb on the scale(ETO) you would like and its only version 1, with 2 in the works. The AI is most challenging, but the PBEM/TCP games are the real rage. Its got a simple look, but a lot under the hood. Ask the sarge, he'll tell you to go to battlefront.com (yes the CM people), and look for Strategic Command, but for PTO, GG is the man.



Grotius -> (1/17/2003 6:56:41 AM)

Strategic Command is indeed fun. Really addictive.

Still, its scale is distinctly more "strategic" than UV and, I suspect, than WiTP. My fantasy is a worldwide game with something like the WiTP engine. I've downloaded the alpha build of "War in Flames," (wish I could remember the URL to post it here), and the scale of that seems very appealing to me. But it has no AI at all yet. Maybe they'll forego AI and sell it as a PBEM-only game. I'd buy it.



FAdmiral -> (1/17/2003 7:50:41 AM)

What I am waiting for is a WW2 global scale strategic game
starting with a step above WITP. Then it would drop to an
Operational level like WITP in whichever theater you wanted
to operate in. Then when oposing forces met, we would fight
like in Combat Mission (land battles) IL-2 (air battles) and
Destroyer Command & Silent Hunter 2 (naval battles) or something to that effect. The ultimate game from top to bottom.
Some day, it will come......

JIM



James Taylor -> (1/18/2003 6:17:25 AM)

I hear what your saying FAdmiral, but can you magine how long it would take to complete a campaign/war, like a lifetime. There still may be hope, at battlegoat.com the boys are working on a world base game set in the near future, Supreme Ruler 2010. I've been told that if it is well received a WW2 version is very plausible.



FAdmiral -> (1/18/2003 7:04:25 AM)

The "Hearts of Iron" game that just came out is sort of a
beer & pretzels version. All the stuff is there, just modeled
in a general sort of way with abstract battles. But it's a
start......

JIM



Feinder -> RE: (5/24/2008 12:53:13 AM)

Bump for one of the oldest threads in the forum.

-F-



FeurerKrieg -> RE: RE: (5/24/2008 1:08:33 AM)

Wow....



Fishbed -> RE: RE: (5/24/2008 1:27:42 AM)

Now that's what I'd call excavating...



Terminus -> RE: RE: (5/24/2008 1:48:46 AM)

Was this thread worth resurrecting?



Feinder -> RE: RE: (5/24/2008 3:41:44 AM)

I was just looking for something from the forum that was from before WitP came out.  I didn't actually read thru the entire content.  (* shrug *).

-F-



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.25