RE: Is the game I was hoping for (Full Version)

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



Message

mavraam -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/9/2004 9:19:09 PM)

quote:

I once played Panzer Leader Invasion Normandy for 2 years, with the same friends on the same game.


I believe it! You know what we needed back then? Digital cameras! That is the greatest tool for capturing a game position on a board game. That way you could play an extended board game like that over a period of months without the horror of having the dog, cat, kid, wife, or losing player knock over the game and throw 18 monts of work down the drain!

Of course now with Matrix games, we just hit 'save'! [:D]



dudalb_slith -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/9/2004 9:43:19 PM)

"I like the fact that my operations are hampered by lack of supplies or that I can choose to build supply at one area at the expense of another. "
I agree that logistics should be a limiting factor, but there is a difference between that and having to order every ship exactly where you want it every turn.
I wonder if some of the learning curve problem is due to the lack of a printed manual with the game. and that apparently it is going to cost about $25:00 to have a manual printed up at your local Kinko's or using up a ink catridge on your own computer.. I still maintain for a really complex game a printed manual is better then a onscreen manual, no matter how well done. For one thing, you don't have to miximaze and minimize screens constantly.
And more opertaional size scenarios would have been a good idea. The lack of a Midway one is a surprise. Yes, I know it has an editor but I am simply not good at scenraio design. Hopefully someone will desing and post a Midway Scenario.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/9/2004 9:46:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

I have other things (like getting my own game libraries done to start writing my own games) I'd eventually like to do.


I've been down that road a few times myself. You wana talk about time drag? That'll make WITP look like Tic-Tac-Toe!

Good luck though, I salute the effort!


I'm getting there. The GUI and graphics class libraries are the big holdup right now.



BoerWar -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/9/2004 10:37:44 PM)

Seems like alot of complaints about the detail involved with running the Japanese economy. If you don't want to plunge into that territory just set it on autopilot and let it run itself, the game allows that. Airplanes, troops and ships will still show up for you to move around the map. I personally find production to be an important part of the enjoyment of the game. Please don't dumb it down to satisfy the Axis and Allies "wargamer" set. There are dozens of RTS game companies out there we don't need another.

The game is terrific as is.



Scott_USN -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/9/2004 10:51:20 PM)

For those who played the orginal PACWAR back in the early 90's it was not exactly a quick turn either. Could take for ever for the turn to complete because of the massive information being processed. For computers of that day anyway.



Nikademus -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/9/2004 10:53:15 PM)

There's always...."Pacific General" [sm=00000117.gif]



brisd -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/10/2004 6:15:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Anyone that complains about WITP hasn`t played it much or isn`t into logical thought processes.




I truly don't understand what all the complaints are about! I think people who are complaining are just a little intimidated about diving in and playing.


Anyway, thanks to Matrix! We have enough mindless FPS's and RTS's out there.


I've played WITP as much as any other purchaser of the game and I am a logical thinker. I am complaining about the scale of the game (daily turns vs weekly) and design choices, not its complexity. I agree about the mindless games out there, been a wargamer for 30 years and want more strategic wargames and less tactical or operational wargames. Some of you make blanket statements that don't apply to everyone in this thread. I am glad WITP is here and I will stop 'complaining'. The original poster had some VALID comments and I agree with some of them. Just because you like something doesn't mean you can't wish for it to be BETTER.



MadDawg -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/12/2004 2:18:04 AM)

Personally I like te depth of the game, though there are times when Id really like the AI to be smarter to cut out some of the miromanagement involved. I guess this might be part of the danger of charging a higher price than average for a game - people want it to be exactly what they expected.

Dawg



Arnir -> RE: Is the game I was hoping for (7/12/2004 6:29:39 AM)

The negative comments are perfectly valid for those who feel that way. No game is going to satisfy everybody and that's fine. From reading these boards and the WitP website I feel that I got the game I was promised. I'm happy with it. I'm not really sure, though, how one can say that they didn't get the game they were told they would get. (Unless they heard it was an updated PacWar and didn't read the specifics).

This game fits its target niche perfectly, IMHO. It isn't meant, once again IMHO, for the casual gamer. Casual gamers probably won't want to buy this game (though they should certainly take a good hard look). For one, I'm happy that it wasn't watered down for the "casual gamer."

All that being said, I'm sure that Matrix/2by3 wants all the feedback it can get. Any game can be improved, but just because any one (or two or three) of us want a change doesn't mean it will happen. I get amused by many of the "I'm here now and here is what you do to fix the game - why didn't you just ask me first and save the time" comments. Arrogance uber alles. [:)] [;)] The flip side is just as amusing, "If you don't like this game you aren't a REAL wargemer."

Shouldn't we all just be playing? (Or a different game if you don't like it? [:)])



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625