Question?

Question? (Full Version)

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

Message

lordenforcer -> Question? (10/11/2000 7:06:00 AM)
What is the time frame for each turn.....1 day, 1 hour What is it?

Nikademus -> (10/12/2000 7:57:00 PM)
I'm hoping Matrix ops for days, instead of PacWar's 'weeks'. Though it would make for a very long game, I've always felt that breaking down turns by weeks (in PacWar) minimized and negated too many facets of the actual Pacific War, such as the US's latewar ability to conduct 'plane raids' thus isolating/weakening whole regions of the Empire when planning an invasion.

Don Bowen -> (10/12/2000 10:48:00 PM)
I too would vote for days. Weeks is just too coarse. This applies to combat operations and to simple movement (the cruise from San Diego to LA for example). Daily operations sounds great to me! Don

Rat Face -> (10/13/2000 6:12:00 PM)
Please, a game of this magnitude with daily turns? That's about 1400 turns! If this is a strategic game, then I'd vote for weekly turns. Rat Face

gdpsnake -> (10/13/2000 6:44:00 PM)
How about a system where strategic efforts are made in weekly turns but when battles occur they get represented in daily or even hourly segments. Shogun is an example of making strategic builds and moves but the battles are played out individually or resolved quickly at the player's option. Just an idea.

Nikademus -> (10/13/2000 9:02:00 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rat Face: [B]Please, a game of this magnitude with daily turns? That's about 1400 turns! If this is a strategic game, then I'd vote for weekly turns. it is daunting, thats what makes games like Battle of Britian and 12'o Clock high intimidating. Still, weekly turns just make things too blocky. You cant truely isolate airbases for example, since at the very next turn the base effects a week's worth of repairs on itself, its damaged planes and recieves replacements. It would also clear up alot of the confusion over carrier ops.

ChrisF -> (10/14/2000 1:19:00 AM)
I agree with the daily turns - a lot is abstracted in Pacwar because of the weekly turns. Ok 1400 turns is a lot for a campaign game - I'd still like the option to do that though. In addition, if there are "mini"-capmaigns or battles included as an alternative to the monster campaign, those would be more playable, and certainly more fun in daily segments...

Paul Dyer -> (10/15/2000 3:12:00 AM)
Wouldn't shorter turns dictate a larger scale map, ie more hexes for a given area? I don't think we'd want a map too large to see most of it on one screen / units being too small to make out. Just wondering.

ChrisF -> (10/15/2000 5:10:00 AM)
quote: I don't think we'd want a map too large to see most of it on one screen / units being too small to make out. Just wondering.[/B] I think with the right design for the map interface this shouldn't be a problem - if you can jump across the strategic map quickly and then zoom in to detailed views -perhaps with a couple of clicks of the mouse, it should be fine. But I'll let the developers worry about the details of the implementation for that.

Paul Dyer -> (10/15/2000 9:08:00 AM)
I suspect the folks building WITP have long ago decided such basic questions as this. How about some titbits? Mike?

Mike Wood -> (10/16/2000 5:52:00 AM)
Hello... He may have one day turns, two day turns or seven day turns. We may also have an option to allow the user to choose. We will have to wait until we finish the artificial intelligence, to know for sure. Any of these would work ok on the 50 miles per hex scale of the game. Keep talking among yourselves. We are reading what you have to say. Bye... Michael Wood ___________________________________________ quote: Originally posted by Paul Dyer: I suspect the folks building WITP have long ago decided such basic questions as this. How about some titbits? Mike?

Sapphire -> (10/16/2000 8:49:00 PM)
How about a compromise: orders could be given weekly but much of the action resolved daily. Ideally this would include ome ability to daisy-chain orders: "sail from San Fransico to L.A., pick up escorts, head to Espiritu Santo" but maybe not that flexible. Particulary for air combat days would work out so much better. It's just not realistic to resolve all the air combat between two bases as a single air raid once a week. Especially since the same planes can then fly anything from zero to a very high number of raids on passing ships. But I think it would work to only change the orders given to the planes once per week. This finer time resolution would also fix some of the goofiness that shows up in PacWar because the action is resolved by location, not timing. An example would be simoultaneous attacks on adjacent bases that end up not supporting each other because as far as PacWar is concerned, when the first attack takes place the second group is still in port.

ncsu90 -> (10/17/2000 12:01:00 AM)
Since all carrier battles were usually decided in a few critical hours, shouldn't we have hourly turns? :-)

Paul Goodman -> (10/17/2000 5:33:00 PM)
Do you realize where this time increment conversations leads? It leads to a real time based game with a clock accelerator. Many of the people in this thread would be appalled at a real time (as opposed to turn-based) model. But... Do we actually know what the engine will resemble. We are all (I think) looking at a more sophistocated version of PacWar. However, Mr. Grigsby's latest engines have no resemblance to PacWar at all. Shouldn't we be looking at Battle of Britain. It is certainly very suitable for fleet actions. It has a variable time base and, in fact, the engine might work even better for the massive scale of the Pacific. I don't know how it would work for land combat. And, of course, we all looking over our shoulders for TalonSofts lawyers! Paul Goodman

Marc -> (10/19/2000 2:34:00 AM)
When I played Pacific War the first time I was very disappointed because I already knew Carrier Strike and hoped that this system would be part of PacWar but it wasn't. Weekly turns are good for War in Russia but not for a naval game where one single bomb can have a great impact on the war. I think ncsu90 is right that the best would be at least hourly turns like 'War in the South Pacific' from QQP. I don't think it would have the drawbacks of a realtime game because you can set the speed as you want. But this system isn't very suitable for playing as an e-mail game. Another possibility would be designing an interface for a future game to resolve engagements in a tactical game like Carrier Strike or Action Stations!. I think Road from Sumter to Appomatox had such an interface. BTW I would like to see a Land Combat System like War in Russia. But it's not as important as a good naval and air system. Thank you for your work!!! Greetings, Marc [This message has been edited by Marc (edited October 18, 2000).]

RevRick -> (10/20/2000 10:55:00 PM)
The issue of days vs. weeks has to center on whether you want this to be a tactical or a strategic game. Force, Theater, and Fleet commanders have very little to do with what each ship, squadron, or battalion does. That is why many of us have silently (or not so silently) wished for an "Interrogative What the %@^#$$&^" button when someone took a TF off and destroyed an airbase twelve times when a perfectly good TF sat in the same harbor because of what was called the "Commander Klutz" factor? But, that was part of strategic gaming as well - witness the dithering that went on in the South Pacific command for real before Halsey arrived and Ghormley departed. Suggestion. Refer to the old SPI WitP. How about week long turns with multiple combat cycles in each week. This allows for movement, combat, results, and even changes of orders based on those results and also for weekly things like supply, reinforcement arrivals, routine convoy deliveries and submarine attacks, training upgrades, etc. Daily turns would make it almost impossible for some of us to have enough time to play the game for anything other than the shortest scenarios, forget campaigns. (Yeah, and I saw what one wag, or wit, wrote about that and still have to face the facts that I have other things I have to do besides play any computer game no matter how much fun it is!) Daily turns in a game of this magnitude would mean that it wouldn't be the least bit of fun for me anymore because of the time constraints I have in the real world. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman

ChrisF -> (10/21/2000 1:54:00 AM)
quote: . (Yeah, and I saw what one wag, or wit, wrote about that and still have to face the facts that I have other things I have to do besides play any computer game no matter how much fun it is!) Daily turns in a game of this magnitude would mean that it wouldn't be the least bit of fun for me anymore because of the time constraints I have in the real world. [/B] Very respectfully sir, some of us who have opinions on this board that are different from yours do have lives, families, and are gainfully employed. I like your idea about multiple combat phases within a weekly turn - it could be a neat and workable alternative to my comments about daily turns. Having said that, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to rip me over it, and hope that we can have differences of opinion in this forum without resorting to such invective going forward.

Major Tom -> (10/21/2000 3:39:00 AM)
I think that weekly turns should be the norm. BUT, each turn would progress in sections of days. So, for the first day of the week you will see all actions that take place, then for the second, third, etc.. until the seventh day. The orders phase will have to be a little more detailed, and the local commander AI a little more competent. Your units would be given a battle plan, and, during the course of the week you see your plans unfold. Things could go perfectly as planned, but, maybe units meet harder resistance, and the commander on the field (a Tacitical AI) would have to modify the plan to suit the new encounter. A good commander will end up with better choices than a poor commander.

RevRick -> (10/21/2000 8:56:00 AM)
Chris: That comment was not directed at you. There was another post some weeks ago about gaming which "poked fun" at those of us who really are tied up in other areas - such as being on call 24/7, having families, and wives who look askance at us spending hours in front of computer screens wiping out pixel enemies. Seems to me he said that the only thing the wife was for was bringing him coffee or some such. THAT was the wit I was talking about. Not a very pretty post, that one, especially when MY wife read it - ooops. No offense intended. Back to topic: A weekly game turn with a number of cycles (personally I think seven would be too high for a strategic game, and parts of hours appropriate for tactical games) - would allow a great deal of flexibility. Most of the time in games of this nature time is really spent in transit - and ships take a long time to get there at transit speeds - especially the gator freighters. So a lot of the daily turns would be watching TF's move across the screen. (Average Transport TF has a speed of 15 kts, probably slowed to 10-12, in a day forward progress on the order of 240 to 260 miles. Four day transits for a thousand mile trip. I like watching the water go by, but not for that many turns.) Even CV TF's would only average 20 kts, and sometimes as little as 15 kts in reality. And, as someone pointed out - you really can't run ships the way PW assumes you can. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman [This message has been edited by RevRick (edited October 20, 2000).]

ChrisF -> (10/21/2000 6:16:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by RevRick: [B]Chris: That comment was not directed at you. Thanks Rick, sorry about my confusion over your remarks. If there will be some tactical control in the game (I hope!), then a flexible time scale that could be triggered when when some key event is initiated at the strategic level (e.g. carrier battle, surface engagement, amphib assault, etc.) would be a great idea. It would give the game a manageable "pace" and level of control for either the grand campaign or battles / scenarios.

kantor -> (10/23/2000 3:05:00 PM)
Grigsby's Game "War In The South Pacific" had variable "pulse lengths" of 1, 4 or 8 hours. The pulse length could be adjusted anytime during the game, so you could play in 1, 4 or 8 hour long turns. For "War In The Pacific", I would like a similar solution, i. e. the option to adjust the turn length during the game, starting from turn lengths of one week (for PBEM or people who don't want a higher resolution) down to turn lengths of one hour (for masochists and hardcore micromanagers like me [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]) Of course, this would demand high flexibility from the game engine, but I think it is possible. Ah... WitSP ... those were the times ... thank god for C64-Emulators today! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] p.s.: this is my first post to a Matrix forum, so please don't be too harsh with me.

Dave S -> (11/9/2000 2:24:00 PM)
I agree that WISP had an excellent time model which I would like to see as an option to the strategic Pacwar.Yes its scary to think of playing the whole war by the hour,but that didnt happen in Wisp,rather weeks would go by in moments,until contact was made,then you had better hit the "orders toggle"! QQPs version also had quick build scenarios where one could set up battles of your choosing,that feature,I thought,was the greatest,buy units ,go at it,for local objectives. I find it difficult to get the full flavor of the conflict with only weekly turns.If the real results of the war played out on my computer,and I was playing the Japanese side,when the results from Midway came in Id accuse the AI of cheating!

moore4807 -> (11/24/2000 2:32:00 AM)
Re-reading the posts here, wouldnt a general consensus be that WitP should be a multi-tiered time period for play? I liked the 1-4-8 hr increments for game play and I would like to suggest that for player control the "real" strategic commands be done by theatre (ie; Joint Chiefs of Staff decide overall plans, then Naval Fleets/Army Regimental Commands decide "Who n How" and then Commanders decide battles...) This way each segment of the battles can be controlled by the human player with automation as needed by computer AI. I also have an idea about battles and "fog of war" each battle that gets generated should have an area of play that allows the player to request "help" from other units in the area with that battle. The computer AI can then decide if it doesnt interfere too much with the "helping units" order of battle then additional aid can come from them in the players battle. (but control of those units would remain with the computer...) Just an idea. By the way- for Thanksgiving -can you hard working folks at Matrix throw us a turkey bone and tell us some news about WitP?

mdiehl -> (11/24/2000 9:08:00 PM)
I like the 1-week scale of GGPW and the fact that theater commands and TF commanders sometimes do not do their jobs as well as we would like, and that I can't intervene at the tactical level during an engagement. I'd dislike a game that required my intervention for every 8 hours of "real time" modeled by the game and I'd dislike it if my opponent could intervene at that level (thereby requiring me to do the same). I suspect that level of detail and intervention would make the game unplayable as a PBEM effort. If the "coarsest" time scale available was less than 1 week I would not purchase the product. I'm not saying nobody would or that nobody should... just that such a game would not be for me.

nittany -> (12/14/2000 6:31:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by ChrisF: If there will be some tactical control in the game (I hope!), then a flexible time scale that could be triggered when when some key event is initiated at the strategic level (e.g. carrier battle, surface engagement, amphib assault, etc.) would be a great idea. It would give the game a manageable "pace" and level of control for either the grand campaign or battles / scenarios. I agree! Some other points: 1. Couldn't there be some type of "initiative " marker, to allow a side that is kicking butt to keep doing it. As the Japanese did at first and the U.S. did later in the war? 2. Also, due to the distances involved, reinforcing battles should be allowed for in advance. i.e., if I attack Guadalcanal, I must allow for reinforcements to support my initial attacking force. 3. Time scale must of course be flexible. The Pacific theater demands it, due to distances involved. Great distances to cover to come to grips with the enemy. How long the Battle of Midway last from the first bomb dropped to the last? 4. Land battle and island hopping are different due to the buildup of resources necessary to take an enemy held island. 5. Resources, is this going be model in any form? Suppose you want more subs, marines, carriers,etc. This is especially important for the Japanese, unless you follow strictly historical lines.

Charlie Galloway -> (12/29/2000 6:08:00 AM)
This is my first response to any forum, anywhere. I lived Guadalcanal Campaign in the early 80's and WITP in the early 90's. I'll even put in the time for a minute based game where I have to give shaving and tooth brushing instructions to every soldier, sailor, and marine in the Pacific. For me every minute in a GG game is heaven. But if we're going to keep 7 day turns, why not just play WITP again? The new game should be BIGGER and more detailed and more intricate. It should also be a steping stone to that global WWII game that I know lies somewhere in Grigsby's heart. My preference would be for 3 day turns with each turn containing 6 daytime pulses of 6 hrs each and 3 night pulses of 12 hrs. That should be enough interference for a theatre commander. If variable speed is offered, then daily orders could be generated by fleet commanders in harms way and single pulse control for task force co's AFTER contact. The battle itself would still be a spectator event, as befits a strategic format. A different but equally pressing concern for me is hex shape. Has that been determined? I vote (or urge or plea) for the 25 mile, 8 sided hex. The deluge of games with 6 sided hexes must evidence a strong inbred software design preference, but I like a straight line both north and west. If we're stuck with a 50 mile hex, then turns of less than a day are virtually useless and we're back to WITP.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.046875