RE: Really basic question

RE: Really basic question (Full Version)

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

Message

witpaemail -> RE: Really basic question (10/27/2015 1:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Justus2 quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Justus2 Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you need to set the home base differently to pull this off? You could just set the destination for a point 18 hexes away, and set it to Full Speed manually, it will still run the full 18 hexes, regardless of where the home base is. Unless you are worried about the TF thinking it wont have enough fuel, and stopping to refuel partway thru the turn. But it doesn't. Set it up and test it out yourself. Just did so with the Guadalcanal scenario. Set a DD to run full speed 20 hexes toward enemy occupied Guadalcanal from Noumea. It ran 10 hexes-its full speed movement allowance. Redirected the same DD to move 10 hexes towards friendly Port Moresby and it ran 20 hexes. Ending with 10 sys and 8 engine damage. Retirement allowed was set for both moves. Interesting... I just quickly tried it myself, with a few variations (not to digress too far from the thread, or get into the testing debate). First I advanced thru the first turn of the scenario, to get that possible modifier out of the way. I set 4 DDs with different orders: 1. set at full speed to go to destination Lunga - only moved 10 hexes 2. set at full speed to go to a patrol hex adjacent to Lunga - moved 20 hexes (10 per phase) 3. set at full speed to go to a destination in mid-ocean over 20 away - moved 18 hexes (speed 9 per phase) 4. set at full speed to go to destination, with home reset to Moresby - moved 18 hexes (9 per phase) (the last two had a max speed of 9 rather than 10) You were right in the first case, it only moved 10 hexes. No idea why, it should have moved two phases. Maybe because it was targeted at an enemy-held hex, it stopped short, to wait so it could run in the remaining distance with ops points remaining (similar to how shore bombardment works)? That's the only thing that seemed different compared to the other three, which all moved their full speed for both phases. The reasons for this could be many. Air zones affect movement. The type of mission. Enemy strength and location. The type of movement. The TF commanders stats also play into it.

wdolson -> RE: Really basic question (10/27/2015 1:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson You mean the months I spent working on the manual for AE didn't happen? We did start with the WitP manual, but it was essentially stripped down to an outline and rewritten. It has the same basic format as the WitP manual, but every bit of the content was either written by the development team, or heavily edited to reflect how things work in AE. You are right Gary Grigsby had nothing to do with AE, they gave us the code and we had no further contact with 2X3 during development. The reason the current manual does not reflect the game as it is today is because there have been a lot of improvements since the initial release and the manual has not been updated. The manual was pretty accurate for the initial release of AE. As for testing with turn 1, that is probably good advice. There is a lot of special code that kicks in on December 7, 1941 that is not active on other game turns. If you want to sandbox something, I suggest using one of the smaller scenarios and data shift the start to the time period you want to test. I used Coral Sea quite a bit as the basis for sandboxing things. It's the smallest scenario, so turns run quickly. Bill quote: ORIGINAL: witpaemail Bill, I didnt mean to trivialize what you did. In that I am sorry. But the fact remains that you DID use the old manual and made changes to that manual and the manual wasnt 100% correct even at the time of launch. And I will repeat myself, I did not mean to trivialize the work you put into it. I know you put a lot of time into it. And a lot of pride. Again, sorry. The manual was not 100% correct on release and neither was the game or the OOBs. Any project like this will have bugs. The manual was probably the component that had the fewest errors of the three. 95% of any inconsistencies with the manual and the game today are due to the game changing since initial release. The manual should have been updated, but all efforts to get that done have failed. If anyone would like to rewrite the manual, Joe Wilkerson would love to hear from you. Anyone who is serious and capable of the effort can probably get the original documents for editing and producing an updated manual. I remember the writing and editing effort on the manual very well and the playtesters were not fully in the loop for all of that effort. Only the programmers and the leaders of each team were fully in the loop for each iteration. Bill

witpaemail -> RE: Really basic question (10/27/2015 1:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson You mean the months I spent working on the manual for AE didn't happen? We did start with the WitP manual, but it was essentially stripped down to an outline and rewritten. It has the same basic format as the WitP manual, but every bit of the content was either written by the development team, or heavily edited to reflect how things work in AE. You are right Gary Grigsby had nothing to do with AE, they gave us the code and we had no further contact with 2X3 during development. The reason the current manual does not reflect the game as it is today is because there have been a lot of improvements since the initial release and the manual has not been updated. The manual was pretty accurate for the initial release of AE. As for testing with turn 1, that is probably good advice. There is a lot of special code that kicks in on December 7, 1941 that is not active on other game turns. If you want to sandbox something, I suggest using one of the smaller scenarios and data shift the start to the time period you want to test. I used Coral Sea quite a bit as the basis for sandboxing things. It's the smallest scenario, so turns run quickly. Bill quote: ORIGINAL: witpaemail Bill, I didnt mean to trivialize what you did. In that I am sorry. But the fact remains that you DID use the old manual and made changes to that manual and the manual wasnt 100% correct even at the time of launch. And I will repeat myself, I did not mean to trivialize the work you put into it. I know you put a lot of time into it. And a lot of pride. Again, sorry. The manual was not 100% correct on release and neither was the game or the OOBs. Any project like this will have bugs. The manual was probably the component that had the fewest errors of the three. 95% of any inconsistencies with the manual and the game today are due to the game changing since initial release. The manual should have been updated, but all efforts to get that done have failed. If anyone would like to rewrite the manual, Joe Wilkerson would love to hear from you. Anyone who is serious and capable of the effort can probably get the original documents for editing and producing an updated manual. I remember the writing and editing effort on the manual very well and the playtesters were not fully in the loop for all of that effort. Only the programmers and the leaders of each team were fully in the loop for each iteration. Bill Absolutely. A lot of things people wanted to get in didnt make it in. Michael did an excellent job of making changes that needed to be made. I do remember requests from you during the dev period asking for info on changing of the manual and things of that nature. So like I said, I know you put a lot of time into it. I also know some changes were made to the game after the manual went to print as well that obviously would not have been in the manual. Like I said, didnt mean to make it sound like I was trivializing your work. And you may have not been informed of some things from various people. I get it. I simply meant to the original poster not to treat the manual (which would be the case in ANY game not just this one) as gospel. Didnt really mean to get into a lengthly discussion on WHY. The advice I gave frankly was the correct one in the case of something that isnt working like it says it should in the manual. Ask on the forum, and/or test it yourself.

sfatula -> RE: Really basic question (10/27/2015 5:47:32 AM)
I am surprised the manual is as good as it is, you did good work if it was you in whole or in part. Technical writing is a skill, good ones can be hard to come by, we had a very good one at Allied Signal who was a contractor. If you could rate technical writing skills from 1-100, I would be a 5 with luck and a relative rating me. Definitely not my thing. Nitpicking manuals is so simple. I know when I finally publish a howto for the community shortly, I will get endless questions. Most of which will have nothing to do with what the title and subject of the document is. But that's simply the way it is! And it IS frustrating as the writer. All the people involved in this project did a combined effort that is the best effort I have ever seen in a wargame. And I've played hundreds. Mostly boardgames, for which, the manual is always correct and assumed correct as anyone playing outside the manual is not playing correctly or cheating! Different with computer games obviously, as, the rule is actually in the code whether it's intended or not so to speak. Still have my copy of War in the Pacific by SPI from the 70's. Played a lot of games, not many people played it I don't think, though they owned it. This game reminds me so much of it. Obviously at a simplistic level.

crsutton -> RE: Really basic question (10/27/2015 2:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpaemail quote: ORIGINAL: Justus2 quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Justus2 Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you need to set the home base differently to pull this off? You could just set the destination for a point 18 hexes away, and set it to Full Speed manually, it will still run the full 18 hexes, regardless of where the home base is. Unless you are worried about the TF thinking it wont have enough fuel, and stopping to refuel partway thru the turn. But it doesn't. Set it up and test it out yourself. Just did so with the Guadalcanal scenario. Set a DD to run full speed 20 hexes toward enemy occupied Guadalcanal from Noumea. It ran 10 hexes-its full speed movement allowance. Redirected the same DD to move 10 hexes towards friendly Port Moresby and it ran 20 hexes. Ending with 10 sys and 8 engine damage. Retirement allowed was set for both moves. Interesting... I just quickly tried it myself, with a few variations (not to digress too far from the thread, or get into the testing debate). First I advanced thru the first turn of the scenario, to get that possible modifier out of the way. I set 4 DDs with different orders: 1. set at full speed to go to destination Lunga - only moved 10 hexes 2. set at full speed to go to a patrol hex adjacent to Lunga - moved 20 hexes (10 per phase) 3. set at full speed to go to a destination in mid-ocean over 20 away - moved 18 hexes (speed 9 per phase) 4. set at full speed to go to destination, with home reset to Moresby - moved 18 hexes (9 per phase) (the last two had a max speed of 9 rather than 10) You were right in the first case, it only moved 10 hexes. No idea why, it should have moved two phases. Maybe because it was targeted at an enemy-held hex, it stopped short, to wait so it could run in the remaining distance with ops points remaining (similar to how shore bombardment works)? That's the only thing that seemed different compared to the other three, which all moved their full speed for both phases. The reasons for this could be many. Air zones affect movement. The type of mission. Enemy strength and location. The type of movement. The TF commanders stats also play into it. Nope, you are overthinking this. [:)] Try my experiment out for yourself. It only takes a minute or two. Do it in open ocean or set the threat level to absolute to avoid any outside effect. You run a full double movement by setting full speed, retirement allowed and a home base ahead of the path of the TF. That is all. Then set the same TF to run towards a distant enemy base with all of the same settings and your home base in your rear. (But set the distance hex at least double the movement or you will retire). It will only move it's full speed movement allowance and not double. Commanders or air threats should not be an issue but the expenditure of any op points during the move will. Experienced players are well familiar with this tactic.

postfux -> RE: Really basic question (10/27/2015 7:15:36 PM)
Want to add that this was the first manual I have ever read in full (and I am not talking about only computer games). I think i read it three times beginning to end and have printouts at hand while playing. It is well written, good structured and absolutely necessary for someone new to the game. I did grasp the basic mechanics of the game before starting it the first time. Something the manufacturer of my chainsaw didnt achieve and these mechanics are simple in comparison. Well worth the effort that has been put into it.

Justus2 -> RE: Really basic question (10/28/2015 12:08:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Nope, you are overthinking this. [:)] Try my experiment out for yourself. It only takes a minute or two. Do it in open ocean or set the threat level to absolute to avoid any outside effect. You run a full double movement by setting full speed, retirement allowed and a home base ahead of the path of the TF. That is all. Then set the same TF to run towards a distant enemy base with all of the same settings and your home base in your rear. (But set the distance hex at least double the movement or you will retire). It will only move it's full speed movement allowance and not double. Commanders or air threats should not be an issue but the expenditure of any op points during the move will. Experienced players are well familiar with this tactic. Interesting, I hadn't noticed this before. From just a few test runs, it does not seem to be consistent, as one of my examples showed, I was able to move two full speed phases into an open ocean hex, without changing my home port. I was also able to get the same result moving to a patrol hex rather than a destination hex. That may be why I didn't notice before, I rarely use a destination with Remain on Station, I almost always use a Patrol Zone hex. I also don't use full speed setting often except with combat TFs, which definitely use the Patrol Zone option.

HansBolter -> RE: Really basic question (10/28/2015 10:59:34 AM)
There is also a way to transfer air some air frames twice in one turn. Game mechanics are what they are and players will creatively find ways to exploit them. When you transfer an air squadron to a new base that isn't linked to the starting base by rail the disabled planes will be left behind in a fragment. While this game, unlike the earlier version, will attempt to recombine the unit as the disabled planes become able, if the transfer distance is greater than normal requiring drop tanks to be enabled the tactical AI will not enable the drop tanks, implement the transfer and combine the units. Under these circumstances the player has to manually enable the tanks and execute the transfer. At this point you can leave the two pieces alone and in the night air phase of the next turn they will recombine. However, the player can force the recombination during the orders phase, by disbanding the fragment. It will automatically disband into the parent. You can then transfer the entire squadron to another base, which effectively means the planes in the fragment have transferred twice.

witpaemail -> RE: Really basic question (10/28/2015 12:21:23 PM)
Actually air units would recombine in WitP as well.

HansBolter -> RE: Really basic question (10/28/2015 2:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpaemail Actually air units would recombine in WitP as well. Actually I was referring to Uncommon Valor where fragments had to be recombined manually.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.15625