Random Thoughts (Full Version)

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



Message


Big B -> Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 4:00:48 AM)

Musings..

Just thinking, AE is THE most fantastic simulation ever - and not likely to be surpassed by another game system - EVER...unless that happens to be a development of AE itself.

That said, I have always played the grand campaign as part of a team of players minimum 2, often 3 players, although the Japanese side was usually only one (masochist).

My rant here is about the enormity of the scope of the game.

From what I have observed, One player is just insufficient to play either side... there is so much going on that one player for a side will always get tunnel vision and not do the game justice....unless you are in a lull - there is too big of a map and too many units to keep focused on everything.

This is not surprising to me, because in reality - there were MANY key decision makers on all sides to keep things going - look at the Pentagon.

Sure, there can be One man with a vision, but One Player doing everything is just insufficient - the historical example that comes quickly to mind would be General Pershing of the AEF - wearing All the hats - and that lead the Washington War Dept. to appoint another field commander with (as first envisioned) equal authority during the Meuse-Argonne offensive...too many things just slipped and got bogged down. Pershing avoided this virtual demotion by beating them to the punch and appointing his own choice for Services of Supply... but the judgement remained - One Man cannot do it all.

Having tried a grand campaign game solo, I have come to the same conclusion.
Yes, you can do it all - but to do it justice, the pace slows down enormously to less than a turn a day....then to me - the enjoyment drops down accordingly.

To me, the only viable answer to keeping this games potential and high level of enjoyment - is to play it in teams (quite feasible) or to play smaller scale games.

I think if I ever do a what-if scenario of the grand campaign... it would be a 'Fantasy/A-Historical' game that would suit single player.

Just my ramblings. What are your thoughts?

B




jdsrae -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 6:39:07 AM)

I’d be very interested in a team game one day, introduce some “tension” between the allies for assets and objectives!




Hanzberger -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 10:44:56 AM)

As much as I like being 'in control', a team game sounds great for those of us who still have work and kids.....I think a deeper discussion needs to be had as to who does what and what might work in that scenario. So really Big B, what would be the break down? (who does what and how many players would work?)




Ian R -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 11:35:30 AM)

I agree.

However, I would prefer a game (against a good programmed opponent), with all the bells and whistles of AE, but at the scale of vanilla WITP - or dare I say it, 100nm "offset squares" like the old dos game.

And a seven day turn option.




Trugrit -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 11:54:30 AM)

First I’ll take issue with you on this: WITP-AE is not a simulation it is a game.

In my opinion it is still the best strategic WW2 game ever designed; I’m with you on that.
Also, I believe that your B-Mod is the best historical player mod ever designed for this game.

The nature of the historical grand campaigns can be brutal for many PBEM players.
It can take four or more years of real time out of your life, a large chunk.
That can get very tedious for players, especially for the Japanese on the down leg years.
There is a large drop out rate because of this.

I may never start another grand campaign PBEM game, I don’t have the time.

I agree with you on team play and I think it would be best to play it as a team relay.

Each player takes half a year (Game Time) and then hands it off to another player; then they rotate.
The other team players could act as advisors during play but the actual player acting as the
theater commander gets the final say.

That would break the grand campaign down into many smaller games which could be better handled
as players would get a vacation from play in regular intervals to recharge their batteries.

That would keep it fresh and interesting, like in baseball, when a new manager or pitcher enters the game.

Would the players have to submit their line up cards to the other team?

It would also allow new players to enter and leave the long running game if so desired.





Ian R -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 12:54:11 PM)

quote:

Each player takes half a year


Or make the game take half a year real time, in 1 week turns?




RogerJNeilson -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 12:58:31 PM)

Team games have been thought of in the past, and some have gone a reasonable distance I believe. The sticking point is always how the orders are done and unless there is team discipline it will slow down that way.

I lament the fact that I will never get a chance to play another grand campaign, I know I could with serious speed of turn responses, but I could not guarantee that and all these players who say multiple turns per day... ho hum. Currently my only game is taking a turn per 7 days as my long term opponent has other things in their life. I sometimes wonder if I will get to complete this before the grim reaper knocks.....

This relay concept is one I had never though of and I think it is worth some exploration by people. Good idea Trugrit.

Roger




Big B -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 2:15:05 PM)

For those above who have wondered how a team game would/could work, I'll quickly explain the way I and my friends and opponents play.

First, the Japanese side - pretty straight forward, one is the Navy and Pacific Ocean/South Seas Area Expeditionary Forces...the second Japanese player is the Army and Air Force- his bailiwick is China/SE Asia/India/Russia/ and the Home Islands.
They can operate absolutely independently (and are encouraged to do so) as they pretty much historically did, and they already have pretty much separate pools for everything - but when a conflict of interest arrives - The Army player (Tojo) gets the decision.

The Allies
- the way we have always played is by Theater of command and Nation (I usually play the Allied side).
Two players - One takes China/Burma/India and Indian Ocean - and by extension the USSR...all their ground/air/naval units. The other plays USA/Canada/Australia-New Zealand - and by extension the DEI.
Both players are responsible for supplying their own theaters - British get off-map supply from UK/Cape Town/Aden/Abadan the US player gets the USA of course, the merchant shipping of their nationalities operating in their theaters are sole property of either player.

Adding a third Allied player works the same way - he just takes his own theater and assigned forces, though usually it's a separate nationality such as Australia/New Zealand/Dutch and their theater is their areas - with their own national forces.

The understanding is that regardless of nationality, reinforcements that appear in your theaters of command - are assigned to you.
The only competition is for aircraft replacements in the pools. The American player decides what replacements and upgrades are available to USAAF units in Asia, we have always accomplished this with a direct chat,
for example... "hey I'm really low on P-40E's, but I'm the one most heavily engaged - can I get first pick on the P-40K's when they come out - I'm not asking for P-38's...but if you're done with the P--38E's I could sure use what's left of them?"

As for the turn itself The Japanese, when finished, email the turn and combat replay to all the Allies, the first guy to notice a turn texts his fellow players "working on the new turn", then emails it to team mates as soon as he is finished, also texts "over to you" to keep everyone informed - that way no one drops the turn and sits around wondering what ever happened to it.
I go one step further and copy my Japanese opponent on everything so everyone knows who's working on the turn now.

I have played a few games through the end in 1945 this way, and it works well, and shortens your turn time down a lot - we usually get two turns a day.

B




btd64 -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 2:28:58 PM)

I've used team play with RHS twice before. It's an interesting way to play....GP




HansBolter -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 3:18:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

First I’ll take issue with you on this: WITP-AE is not a simulation it is a game.




People really need to stop harping on this incorrect point.

All games ARE simulations. AE is both a game and a simulation.

Of course, no game will ever be a 100% accurate simulation, but it's still a simulation.

Even Chess is a simulation.


That necessary rant out of the way, I couldn't disagree more with the OPs point that only a team can do the game justice.

Design by committee always produces an abomination.

Decision making by committee always does the same.

The prosecution of a real war by committee is an unfortunate necessity, the handicaps of which can be easily avoided in a game by giving control to one person (something impossible in a real war).




geofflambert -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 4:12:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B



My rant here is about the enormity of the scope of the game.

From what I have observed, One player is just insufficient to play either side... there is so much going on that one player for a side will always get tunnel vision and not do the game justice....unless you are in a lull - there is too big of a map and too many units to keep focused on everything.

B


One player is sufficient to play the Japanese, as long as he takes sufficient time. The test is to be good at all facets. I think my next campaign could be really good, if I'm able to face up to beginning one and all the setup necessary. My biggest flaw so far is handling HQs, very disorganized. That is most apparent when receiving air replacements. My replacements show up on one side of the planet and I have to move them to the other.




geofflambert -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 4:19:56 PM)

Teams would be necessary if the tactical ground system were equal to many games that don't cover the naval side very well. For instance, if you had a game, say Vicksburg, where you really had to have a Gen. Grant and an Adm. Porter to do both areas justice.




IdahoNYer -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 5:44:59 PM)

Big B - I'd have to disagree a bit. I don't think you "need" a team game, single player PBEM is perfectly viable - if you're willing to take the journey. And that's what's special for me, the journey - not a win/loss playing this all encompassing and wonderful game. Have done a couple of PBEMs in the old WiTP, and currently one in AE. But that "one" started in Sep '14 and is still going strong in mid '44. Large Slow Target and I probably have averaged about 3 or 4 PBEM emails back and forth a week. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes life gets in the way and we do less. Even with 2day turns, the actual war took much less time.

While the game is massive - it is manageable, but for me it does take time. But that time spent is the fun part - getting immersed in the detail is all part of it. A turn usually takes a couple of hours....and I usually forget something, hopefully not critical. Not to mention writing an AAR when L_S_T has the turn - and thinking about what's next for when I get the turn back. I seldom have done a turn in one sitting. I break it up by Theater - its manageable for me that way. I'm sure everyone has "a way".

I wouldn't mind doing a multi-player PBEM some day, but not to speed up the game, but rather to perhaps increase some friction in coordination. That could be interesting. I do think the file sharing between team mates would actually increase the time necessary.

I sometimes do envy guys who can knock out daily turns - I don't know how they do it! Must have much better organizational skills I guess.




spence -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 6:09:18 PM)

quote:

One player is sufficient to play the Japanese,


I disagree. In any game that even attempts to simulate the war in the Pacific the Japanese should have two players: one in charge of the Army and the other in charge of the Navy. Either of those two players should have to ask the other for any of each other's planes or ships or troops: that is if the IJN player wants to invade some place with a division of IJA troops he needs to obtain their release from the IJA player (and pay a political point cost to release to a IJN Command).

(I haven't worked the following out completely but the ideas below constitute an approximation of the desired division of command among the Allies)

Depending on how many Allied Players there are something similar should pertain: there being a UK Player and a US Player at the very least. As other players are added I would first add a Chinese Player, then divide the US between SWPAC (MacArthur) and CENTPAC (Nimitz). The SWPAC player would have first call on Army troops in the West Coast/East Coast Commands and Far East troops/planes/ships. The CENTPAC player would command SOPAC troops as well as CENTPAC troops and all other ships. Political Points would need to be spent to reassign troops/planes/ships to another player.
The Chinese Player would command all units in China but be able to move troops into Burma (only) w/o spending PPs

I agree with geofflambert and think that the HQ thing would need to be worked out much more strictly as well as slow the game down considerably if it was.




Trugrit -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 7:13:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

First I’ll take issue with you on this: WITP-AE is not a simulation it is a game.




People really need to stop harping on this incorrect point.

All games ARE simulations. AE is both a game and a simulation.

Of course, no game will ever be a 100% accurate simulation, but it's still a simulation.

Even Chess is a simulation.


That necessary rant out of the way, I couldn't disagree more with the OPs point that only a team can do the game justice.

Design by committee always produces an abomination.

Decision making by committee always does the same.

The prosecution of a real war by committee is an unfortunate necessity, the handicaps of which can be easily avoided in a game by giving control to one person (something impossible in a real war).



Hans,

A necessary rant?

Don’t feed me this crap, I’m not in the mood for it today.

WITP-AE is not a simulation of the Pacific War in any way shape or form.
It is a very good simulation of a Pacific War game.

As a hard rule for you, simulations don’t roll dice to get outcomes.

There are computer simulations of earth’s weather but they don’t roll dice to
determine what the weather will be like next week.

Chess may approach a type of game simulation but it is not a simulation of war.
Soldiers that can only move in one defined direction one player at a time?





gmtello -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 7:31:20 PM)

Matrix is trying the teams in Wite 2 and witw with multiplayer . Separating land from air. I Dont know how it is workimg suppose couples have to consult imp decissions. In the end is just a game . Depends of fun




HansBolter -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 8:07:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

First I’ll take issue with you on this: WITP-AE is not a simulation it is a game.




People really need to stop harping on this incorrect point.

All games ARE simulations. AE is both a game and a simulation.

Of course, no game will ever be a 100% accurate simulation, but it's still a simulation.

Even Chess is a simulation.


That necessary rant out of the way, I couldn't disagree more with the OPs point that only a team can do the game justice.

Design by committee always produces an abomination.

Decision making by committee always does the same.

The prosecution of a real war by committee is an unfortunate necessity, the handicaps of which can be easily avoided in a game by giving control to one person (something impossible in a real war).



Hans,

A necessary rant?

Don’t feed me this crap, I’m not in the mood for it today.

WITP-AE is not a simulation of the Pacific War in any way shape or form.
It is a very good simulation of a Pacific War game.

As a hard rule for you, simulations don’t roll dice to get outcomes.

There are computer simulations of earth’s weather but they don’t roll dice to
determine what the weather will be like next week.

Chess may approach a type of game simulation but it is not a simulation of war.
Soldiers that can only move in one defined direction one player at a time?





simulation[ sim-yuh-ley-shuh n ]SHOW IPA
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR simulation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
the act or process of pretending; feigning.

an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham.

Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.

the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.

Your definition of simulation is far too narrow......




GetAssista -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/25/2019 9:45:51 PM)

Teamplay is fun, hard to deny it.
Unfortunately the game lacks some useful features to make teamplay great. First is independent orders setting among teammates - you have to do it in a succession, thus compounding all the timing, timezone and real life issues. Second is the command structure - it does require PPs to reshuffle even among unrestricted areas, hence depriving teams of a useful organizational and planning tool.




spence -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/26/2019 12:44:12 AM)

quote:

Unfortunately the game lacks some useful features to make teamplay great. First is independent orders setting among teammates - you have to do it in a succession, thus compounding all the timing, timezone and real life issues. Second is the command structure - it does require PPs to reshuffle even among unrestricted areas, hence depriving teams of a useful organizational and planning tool.


The first foible could be alleviated somewhat by using 2 day turns.

The second needs some work on the political point costs associated with certain of the so called commands: such as having to pay full PP cost to shift a division from I Corps to 6 Army or the other way when the I Corps is part of the 6th Army to begin with.




NigelKentarus -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/26/2019 2:43:08 AM)

I've never played PBEM so I can not comment on that. But as far as playing the Grand Campaign against the AI, I do get tunnel vision. But that's just me.




Kull -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/26/2019 3:42:09 AM)

So what is AE, exactly?

quote:

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.


[;)]




Trugrit -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/26/2019 10:25:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

So what is AE, exactly?

quote:

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.


[;)]


WITP-AE is a war game.





Zorch -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/26/2019 11:16:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

So what is AE, exactly?

quote:

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.


[;)]


WITP-AE is a war game.



AE is a time machine.




Trugrit -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/26/2019 11:25:32 AM)


AE is a Time Vampire.

Just in time for Halloween.


[image]local://upfiles/49386/5789067508964C168FF5521577C48073.jpg[/image]




geofflambert -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/27/2019 2:17:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

One player is sufficient to play the Japanese,


I disagree. In any game that even attempts to simulate the war in the Pacific the Japanese should have two players: one in charge of the Army and the other in charge of the Navy. Either of those two players should have to ask the other for any of each other's planes or ships or troops: that is if the IJN player wants to invade some place with a division of IJA troops he needs to obtain their release from the IJA player (and pay a political point cost to release to a IJN Command).

(I haven't worked the following out completely but the ideas below constitute an approximation of the desired division of command among the Allies)

Depending on how many Allied Players there are something similar should pertain: there being a UK Player and a US Player at the very least. As other players are added I would first add a Chinese Player, then divide the US between SWPAC (MacArthur) and CENTPAC (Nimitz). The SWPAC player would have first call on Army troops in the West Coast/East Coast Commands and Far East troops/planes/ships. The CENTPAC player would command SOPAC troops as well as CENTPAC troops and all other ships. Political Points would need to be spent to reassign troops/planes/ships to another player.
The Chinese Player would command all units in China but be able to move troops into Burma (only) w/o spending PPs

I agree with geofflambert and think that the HQ thing would need to be worked out much more strictly as well as slow the game down considerably if it was.



All you need is a split personality, then. Like gorn/?




geofflambert -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/27/2019 2:21:56 AM)

If you're playing Allied, you need one MacArthur to siphon off excess resources while your one Nimitz is winning the war.




Yaab -> RE: Random Thoughts (10/27/2019 7:13:01 AM)

The game lacks some features that enable more streamlined solo play.

Consider. The KB, controlled by AI, ramapages along Java in January 1942. Java is beehive of ship activity with over a hundred TFs carrying oil, fuel, resources, supplies, and patrolling PTs, AMc TFs etc. Their best bet to survive the KB raid is to disband in port under the umberlla of a fragile Dutch CAP. The KB bomb the ports, sinks some ships and sails away. Now, as a human player I would like to recreate the disbanded TFs with the same orders they last had. A SINGLE BUTTON click would put all disbanded ships in their respective TFs.

Alas, no, we can't have that. Enjoy manually recreating the TFs, so they may perform their duties for another week, when another KB raid comes knocking, and you have to disband the TF again, so you can....

You get my drift.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.453125