Changes to game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

Twotribes -> Changes to game (11/29/2019 5:02:43 AM)

Please don't make changes just cause someone wants you too. I have seen games ruined for me at least by players demanding changes and the programmer caving to their demands. Reasoned change is ok but I like what I see so far and being very conservative hate change for no other reason then it "feels" good.



Barthheart -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 10:26:18 AM)

+100



Franciscus -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 1:38:19 PM)

Yep, agreed



mroyer -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 2:24:36 PM)


Also agreed.

Some change is good and some is bad. Some change is essential and some is inconsequential.
The trick is careful, deliberate evaluation to separate good/essential from bad/inconsequential.

-Mark R.



gwgardner -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 2:39:26 PM)

+1



sol_invictus -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 3:01:09 PM)

It seems that Alvaro is taking the appropriate course by considering suggestions but thinking about any ramifications and testing them first. He certainly isn't making changes on a whim just because someone made a post.



elmo3 -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 3:44:35 PM)

No wargame design survives contact with the enemy, uhm I mean the customers....[;)]



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 3:47:41 PM)

I take down suggestions. I discuss them with my top beta testers. I try to expand all the ramifications of the implementation of them.

It is nice to see a post from all of you on this subject though calling for DON'T change. My premise is that if I see two sides arguing an issue and I don't find an issue with it then the item is pretty balanced.

When there is only 1 side then I know something is wrong.
When my math is wrong there is something wrong.
When I noticed I don't use a function something is wrong. Like we will have a BB change for advancements because it was pointed out no one is using the Large Warships advancement and I agreed because I never used it either. But with the splitting of the WW1 and WW2 type historical battleships I can make that a functional tech.

Some other things like the supply system, winter effects, and partisans the beta testers and myself think are correct. It is a matter of learning how to play the game better.

I look at the AARs and try to determine skill levels of players and strategies. Even in Beta I did. One thing I noticed that there are many ways to approach the game and counter your opponent.

Some things I noticed....

If you are constantly short on oil.... you might be building too many oil dependent units and not leveraging them correctly.
If you are constantly short on manpower... you are making too many low odds attacks.
If you are short on logistics... you are building too many fancy high logistic units.
If you are having partisan problems... you don't have enough units in key locations.

It's really interesting see players play in varying styles from my own. I learned some things and had to balance others.

The real results will be seen over time as hundreds of games are played and feedback given.



sfbaytf -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 7:43:45 PM)

Its been suggested the one thing missing is a "soul". I would suggest looking at how Decisive Campaigns Barbarrossa handles it. The use of cards that influence the game is very, very well done. I think just outright borrowing (pirating) the system is something that would be a very good addition not only to Warplan, but the upcoming Pacific version.

Games like War in the Pacific and most other Pacific games just never feel right. Don't get me wrong I love Witp, but games, especially PBEM are just outright formulaic. Any competent Japanese player forms the navy into Kiito Buto -a giant death start and rampages in the early going.

The use of the same system like Decisive Campaigns Barbarrossa could do much to bring a soul into WP.

Many reviewers have commented that in General Eastern Front games, just don't feel right, but Decisive Campaigns does. There were reasons why the Eastern Front was the way it was as was the Pacific Theater and Decisive Campaigns cards system could simulate that as well as give realistic historical alternatives without becoming ridiculous. In any case you have the option to just play without them if you so choose.



AlbertN -> RE: Changes to game (11/29/2019 8:38:03 PM)

For the manpower part I feel the game game'd me.
Whereas I had no priority in upgrade / replacement, the game simply upgraded everything first no matter what, replacing 0 when manpower was like at 99% - so had many turns of wasted manpower. I've not asked for a manpower change.

But the strategic bombing that is unstoppable and 39-41 Allied air dominance must be sorted. The production loss for Germany compromises the game by how I see it, between aerial losses to be replaced that are insane, and the strategic bombing (Reiterating Uk bomber gone from the start, and its range lowered, they'll gain range through techs, in due time).

Oil is too low for Axis, sorry. It's not about building fancy units. It's simply too low. Or the cost of units too high.
How much Axis gains a turn? A variable but let's say 70-80 at some point (barring bombing).
Subtract 30ish of unkeep once you're in total war. (units out of rail, passive units sticking there). So, net, 40 oil.
That's like averagely 20 unit usages if not less.
Move panzer, pay 1, attack with panzer, pay 2, add bomber to attack, pay 2-3, fighter escorting, 1 more! Oh! I've made 1 proper attack, and dang, 20-25% of my per turn oil is gone.
It's math, and it is not confutable.



Rosseau -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 12:37:40 AM)

I just change what I want, and I'm happy. But that doesn't work for multiplayer, obviously. So yes, real challenges in getting the balance right. Look at all the tweaking for WitE, and I'm sure some are still not happy.



TrogusP96 -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 1:06:05 AM)

Well maybe research time should be 365 days per advancement. The research success chance is 56%. what does this mean?
The upgraded units cost 20% more than their predessor. I like this as shows economies for sticking with older model. But I supposed the cost of techs underconstruction could diminish. Also, the number tanks in armor and panzer units continued to shrink as the war progressed except maybe SS and British Armoured Brigades. It seems the starting tech for certain unit types or techs that are mixee tech and doctrine like Breakthrough should be pre 1939 for certain units. The French Army was a mix of low quality reservists and better motorized and colonial troops? The pieces have a sameness that diminishes the national differences? although as the war progressed their was some convergence. The US perhaps should be the same across the board and maybe the UK. I guess their are the national effectiveness ratings, which I think is a great feature.



TrogusP96 -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 1:09:56 AM)

Maybe its the mixture of national differences for land units but then each side has the capacity to build the same ships and planes which just wasn't so. The German Luftwaffe was not conceived as a strategic force yet they can start with 4 engine bombers right away with a one year delay on tech. The Allies can never catch up on effectiveness. Someone said stick with the vision in another thread - so what is it. So the allies are given a jump on the Strategic Advancement.



TrogusP96 -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 1:13:32 AM)

Print games change but printing limits the ability to change. Man oh man board gamers have "house rules" all the time some become rules or options in subsequent editions, maps and counters change. On the surface computer games seem imminently more flexible.



tyronec -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 5:12:34 AM)

quote:

Its been suggested the one thing missing is a "soul". I would suggest looking at how Decisive Campaigns Barbarrossa handles it. The use of cards that influence the game is very, very well done. I think just outright borrowing (pirating) the system is something that would be a very good addition not only to Warplan, but the upcoming Pacific version.

I bought Decisive Campaigns after reading a good review but didn't like the game at all. The cards system seemed kind of random, maybe a way to simulate history but not great for a game that you play multiple times because over time you would just learn what the cards do and it is not random any more.
Also read the review that said Warplan lacked 'soul', but this is a great game.
Guess we all have our preferences.



raxulus2 -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 7:29:06 AM)

You are right Alvaro.
We have to do with the balance, fuel, manpower, partisans etc...
And that's the challenge.
You have made choice on the design and for my own I think you do the good ones.
Of course some tweaks may be done and the patches are doing these.
One more time thanks for the game.
I am playing wargames for a very long time I am 63,(remember AH ans SPI, or SSI games) and Warplan is a very good one.
Keep going on and if a Pacific version is possible I'll buy a copy.
Thanks
[:)]
[:)][:)]
[:)][:)][:)]



Almeron -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 1:04:58 PM)

I belive this game if fine. Of course there are some bugs, and balance changes needed, but overall, the developers did a great job. It's not overcomplicated, clean, and relative fast. I've spend 15-20+ hours with this game, and I enjoed.
My only issue, with this game is the debatable U-boot, and research system, but owerall I could live with them as well.



ago1000 -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 2:01:30 PM)

++Agree. Game is great. Thank you to all. Developers, testers and Alvaro for your hard work and dedication to the game and continued presence to help tweak it.. Much appreciated. Love playing it and will continue to do so for a long time. (or at least until my better half tells me to get off the computer. lol)



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 6:47:52 PM)

Everyone is very welcome and I am super please you all like it.



ncc1701e -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 7:45:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Also read the review that said Warplan lacked 'soul', but this is a great game.


Yes me too and I do not understand this remark honestly. Is it because there is no MS.406, no Sd.Kfz.222 or Sherman Firefly?
I think it is your imagination that brings "soul" to a game.

Alvaro, I have bought the game only recently. I criticized the game map and I continue. But other than that, this is really a good and fun game.

Enjoying it! (My wife not really [:)]).



Zovs -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 8:02:21 PM)

Technically speaking your soul is your mind, your will and your emotions. So not sure what the heck the fellow was griping about.

Warplan has a mind (the AI and yours in using the tools of the game). Warplan has a will (I will crush those units in my path to victory!) and Warplan does have emotions (that rascal John the Greek has confounded me again!!!!).



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Changes to game (11/30/2019 10:20:38 PM)

When the Wargamer said it has no soul I believe it's because I didn't have decision events (SC3), card play (DC), a moving scenario decision event (UoC), or a complex political system (HoI4)

I believe that is what they meant. I feel the reviewer didn't understand where the depth was.... hidden... in strategy that varies and could be countered. I play poker and there are many ways to play correctly vs how your opponent plays. WarPlan is like poker IMO. Third Reich was more like chess.

Feel free to comment on the Wargamer review and write your own comments good or bad. Either way it means people will at least look at my game and come to the forum driving sales via curiosity.

Wargamer Review
https://www.wargamer.com/reviews/warplan/



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.171875