RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (Full Version)

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



Message

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 4:33:09 AM)

Hi, At issue is a very simple question. If the USN lost more CV then historical would they have built more? And when would these ships arrive. Now my problem with the rule is that the way it works the USN does not get ships it actually built with the historic loss and if they lose more then history they don't get extra but no matter how it works out they do not get real ships that really arrived in the correct period. I'm still worried because 1943 gets screwy.
Only the dates CV arrive change using this rule not the number. Who cares about CA they can't hurt the Japanese.

(PS the US shipyards could build an Essex in under 2 years. The time the rule uses is fine but it does not really help. The point of all this is that if the USN loses one of it's 6 starting CV it will have one with that name before the war is over. There is not enough time for a respawned Essex to count much. The rule is to preserve names not number of carriers. In order for Japan not to have a USN CV named Hornet sailing around it has to sink two of them. And it is there because that is how they want it. I say leave it alone and let the guys who made the game have it their way on a few issues. They have been changing things that were the way they wanted it all over the game.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 5:41:23 AM)

I don't know and have beaten this respawn topic to death since I found out about it after my health hiatus...but making a scenario which can satisfy both camps can't be a bad thing.



dtravel -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 6:09:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
and I will be even happier when everything works as designed.


Thereby highlighting the difference between "Design Specifications Finalized" and "Ready For Release".



emorbius44 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 6:54:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bordric

I keep hearing all this talk about pbem but I could not imagine playing like that. Turns are painful enough against the AI, 1 or 2 turns a day would take years to finish one of the long scenario's.

Do you just play the small scenario's ?


Nah, all you need to do is find someone as crazy as you are and go for it. I've had several games go two or three years. My present opponent with WITP and I are finishing up UV as we're down to the last 30 turns. We've been playing monsters since the early 90's. You just have to stop looking at it as playing a game and more as a way of life. LOL

Bob



emorbius44 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 7:04:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Yes that is true. Also the game is much more fun once you forget about winning or losing it and concentrate on doing the best you can and winning a battle here and there along the way. A person who frets about losing a game of WITP should never play the Japanese in the long campaign. (It is almost a done deal)
The fun is in messing up the plans of the enemy when you can and keeping out of his clutches when you can't.


I almost always play the axis. Fascinatnmg to try "what if's" and see how well you can do versus history. A human opponent reacts to your plans. I got hooked with 2nd front way back when. Don't have as many opponents (just one main one right now) and only do five to seven turns a week but we'll finish eventually. Right now I'm having my 150-300 turns of fun before I get crushed by the eventual allied steamroller.:)

Bob



emorbius44 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 7:12:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bordric

So basically unless you play PBEM the game is broke and there is no need to even have it? Because the AI is broke and can not/will not be fixed...

That is not good news for someone who just started playing. Especially considering the price. I would venture to say most did not purchase it to play PBEM.

All the talk about fretting I am not sure where that came from. Not fretting about losing, if there was no chance to lose then not much of a game. Although playing the Allies you would have to be really horrible to lose.


You have alot of veteran game players on this forum who have been wth Grigsby since the early 80's, have probably done alot of playtesting and played a zillion e-mail games. They can pretty much crush the computer opponent because it ius so predictable and just not very smart. Playing against the computer is not a waste of time and for less experienced players may be quite challenging. For more experienced players having a human opponent is much more interesting. Right now mine is driving me up the wall with those damned dutch submarines!

Bob



emorbius44 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 7:25:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

The AI is not broke it is as good as any AI out there. And we have made improvments to the AI, read the patch notes. No one has sent me any saves showing the AI doing something stupid over and over again. Sure it will never be as good as a human but to call it broke it totally unfair.


People want a computer opponent that "thinks." they'll have to come back in about 50 years or wait for WITP pr Pacwar 3 (I once asked Gary Grigsby during Pacwar playtest if he had to do it all over again would he? It took about one nano-second for him to say NO!!!!!) Yet low and behold 12 years later WITP was done so you never know. LOL)

Bob



jwilkerson -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 8:04:08 AM)

The US absolutely would've built more CV if needed 8 Essex and 3 Midways were cancelled IRL.

That being said ... experienced players ... as are on this thread ... certainly know that "game victory" has little to do with how many "widgets" one guy has ... but instead the consistency with which one player exceeds his own and his opponents expectations by superior planning and execution ... many a game has seen me feel ( and be declared to be ) victorius even though I'm playing the Italians or the Turks or even the Japanese and I know going in I will not win an absolute victory ... but the reason I play these hopeless entities is that if I exceed my own and my opponents expectations ... then I win regardless ...

That being said ... should the US get extra CVs ? Sure ... should it be tied to how many get sunk ... nah ... all the cancelled units should be in there regardless ... the player can cancel them if he doesn't need them and if the game doesn't support cancelling ... then he can promise to keep them docked on the WC USA and thereby increase his "bragging rights".



pasternakski -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 8:33:03 AM)

...but let's be sure to give the Japanese player more and more and more advanced aircraft types earlier and earlier and earlier with each patch while continuing to pretend that Allied aircraft development ended in late 1944...



mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 9:26:37 AM)

Hi, I think that's a typo. Allied aircraft development ended in 1934.


And rather then Garands after Guadalcanal the USMC will be issued and retain throughout the war the excellent 1863 Springfield of .58cal



2ndACR -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 10:37:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

...but let's be sure to give the Japanese player more and more and more advanced aircraft types earlier and earlier and earlier with each patch while continuing to pretend that Allied aircraft development ended in late 1944...


Where do you draw this conclusion from? Have you even tried to get advanced Japanese aircraft?

Nothing is confirmed, but I would be willing to bet that no matter how much R&D you pour into an aircraft, that until it is a year from it's availability date that you will never advance it's avail date. I have doubled R&D for the A6M3 and only advanced it's date by one month. And doubled the D4Y R&D and it also came in a month early.

It is not as easy as it sounds and it definitly is not 100 R&D per month automatically advances the date 1 month. It is too random, there has to be a hidden dice roll there somewhere.



pasternakski -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 8:26:58 PM)

I was referring to the changes that are apparently going to be wrought by v. 1.41...



freeboy -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 8:27:34 PM)

Not addressing the play or not against the ia..
simply want to thank the makers for pbem, and my worthy oponents who make this a true learner.. and while we can always look at what this game frustrates us in, it does manage to give a good reconning of the issues of both daily warfar.. and all its associated problems.. moral supplies etc
and strategic planning... playing pbem is so awesome in the later, do you fight now or run? where so you attack and how, if surprised by the enemy.. like Kaleun attacking Baker and Palmyria in Dec 41, when do you retake them? Do you commit to a quick attack and overwhelm against Indi in 42 or take SRA and digg in and wait as the Jap?

One could easily say they have these same issues in solo, but they are enhanced in pbem
because of the higher reasoning of the human you are playing.. and I see this as an enjoyment.. not as a destination... if the game simply did not end I am enjoying the three pbem games as much as any game ever, including probably 25 super games over the last 25 years



Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 8:48:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I was referring to the changes that are apparently going to be wrought by v. 1.41...


Is 1.41 going to repeat the mistake made in other games preceding WITP in that it allows players (Japan basically) to only manufacture and equip squadrons with the successful aircraft, thereby skipping entire production runs of less capable but crucial aircraft to the historical R&D progression?[:(][&:] Like, screw Oscars, man...go Frank all the way. Gawd I hope not.....[8|] Screwing with the ship OOBs and build queues was badenough.



2ndACR -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 10:00:32 PM)

I can say that I doubt very seriously if the Allies will be running into Franks/Georges in 1943 or early 1944.

If GG goes true to form, those advanced planes will not be very easy to build. You may have 60 a/c a month slated to roll out, but I bet you only get around 15 or so. I smell the TA152 roadblock coming.

Now yes, v1.41 with the upgrade paths will allow the Japanese player to equip (if he can) the entire land based navy with Frank/Georges and the IJA with the other one if he so desires. Fighters that is. All this does is allow the player to really streamline his production of a/c. No more producing 5 different IJA fighters, 5 different IJA fighters etc.

Plus it will allow the player to downgrade his units too. No sitting on the side line because no a/c are available.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 10:24:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I can say that I doubt very seriously if the Allies will be running into Franks/Georges in 1943 or early 1944.

If GG goes true to form, those advanced planes will not be very easy to build. You may have 60 a/c a month slated to roll out, but I bet you only get around 15 or so. I smell the TA152 roadblock coming.

Now yes, v1.41 with the upgrade paths will allow the Japanese player to equip (if he can) the entire land based navy with Frank/Georges and the IJA with the other one if he so desires. Fighters that is. All this does is allow the player to really streamline his production of a/c. No more producing 5 different IJA fighters, 5 different IJA fighters etc.

Plus it will allow the player to downgrade his units too. No sitting on the side line because no a/c are available.


Hear we go...another game that started with good intentions but...[:(]



WiTP_Dude -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 10:59:47 PM)

Why is anyone going to produce Oscars and other lesser aircraft if they don't have to? Just set all the factories to a few of your best aircraft and away you go. [&:]



Gen.Hoepner -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 11:10:50 PM)

I hope there's gonna be a compromise in the next patch for this "free upgrade path rule". It would be very very depressing to see hordes of Franks/zekes/georges vs hordes of Hellcats/corsairs and so on.... i do not know..maybe something like: " for every air-group you change the upgrade path you must spend xxx political points or xxx supplies...something to exchange with. It cannot be just a free choice!
Hope i explained my thoughts clearly enough



Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 11:11:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Why is anyone going to produce Oscars and other lesser aircraft if they don't have to? Just set all the factories to a few of your best aircraft and away you go. [&:]


Which completely sucks. And Allies can do the same so it is going to be a psuedo RTS build and blast kinda thing. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![X(][8|][:@]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 11:12:44 PM)

I thought it was agreed that this would not be done because of this BS hindsight side effect.[:-]



Halsey -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 12:16:36 AM)

This was why I brought up the Zero bonus in another thread. How many new upgraded Zero squadrons can be brought online before the bonus is gone? Maybe they should have left this for the mod scenarios.

Will this now be the standard for the historical scenarios too?

I don't think it's unreasonable to fix the deadend Nate and Oscar paths. I do think it's a mistake to allow the paths to be changed for everything. That goes for either side.



mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 12:45:47 AM)

Hi, The only aircraft that can upgrade to A6M2 is the A5M and it upgrades to that without any rule change. The only thing that regualtes upgrading A5M is production of A6M2 and that is not effected by rule change.



dtravel -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 1:06:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I thought it was agreed that this would not be done because of this BS hindsight side effect.[:-]


From the original description it sounds like this would be optional. If the player wants to stay with the original upgrade path he just doesn't use this. (Yes, yes, another house rule.)



Halsey -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 1:50:51 AM)

I can live with that![:D]



pasternakski -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 1:54:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
dblock coming.

Now yes, v1.41 with the upgrade paths will allow the Japanese player to equip (if he can) the entire land based navy with Frank/Georges and the IJA with the other one if he so desires. Fighters that is. All this does is allow the player to really streamline his production of a/c. No more producing 5 different IJA fighters, 5 different IJA fighters etc.

See, this is what is ruining the little that is right about this game. One of the severe problems the Japanese faced was the hierarchical disconnects and inter-service conflicts that resulted in their fractionating aircraft production and proceeding in a hopelessly inefficient way.

Can we have history in a historical simulation? No, of course not. Once again, we have to kiss the Japanese fanboys' arses at the expense of Allied arms. You people don't want to be placed in a tough historical situation where you have to work creatively with what you are provided. All you want is revisionism.

I tell you, I'm getting tired of the whole BS routine.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 2:34:44 AM)

I don't know the details yet but it sounds like a troubling development. The Japanese side will see a big boost in their fighting potential if they can scrap all those lesser aircraft groups for better ones. The Allied side is surely going to want the same kind of options. This takes the game yet further away from simulation and closer to revisionism and fantasy.



erstad -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 3:34:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

I don't know the details yet but it sounds like a troubling development. The Japanese side will see a big boost in their fighting potential if they can scrap all those lesser aircraft groups for better ones. The Allied side is surely going to want the same kind of options. This takes the game yet further away from simulation and closer to revisionism and fantasy.


But it's optional. Personally, I agree with you. Even playing as Japanese, I think having a wide variety of aircraft with varying abilities just adds spice - instead of a homogenous group of the "best" aircraft, to play well I need to maximize use of all air in the best role I can find for it - including Sonias, Idas, and Hickory's. However, there is clearly a sizable contigent of folks who would rather have this control (at the expense of realism), and it's not illogical for Matrix to provide that option. I don't plan to use it in my games, and you don't have to either. (And if we end up being the lonely few in that camp, maybe it's time for the two of us to play a game :-)



WiTP_Dude -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 3:45:32 AM)

Sure it's optional and you don't have to use it. However results using all these new toys can't really be called a simulation of the war. I mean they could give the US side jets in 1944 and make it optional. Does it make any more sense because it's optional?



Reiryc -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 4:10:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
dblock coming.

Now yes, v1.41 with the upgrade paths will allow the Japanese player to equip (if he can) the entire land based navy with Frank/Georges and the IJA with the other one if he so desires. Fighters that is. All this does is allow the player to really streamline his production of a/c. No more producing 5 different IJA fighters, 5 different IJA fighters etc.

See, this is what is ruining the little that is right about this game. One of the severe problems the Japanese faced was the hierarchical disconnects and inter-service conflicts that resulted in their fractionating aircraft production and proceeding in a hopelessly inefficient way.

Can we have history in a historical simulation? No, of course not. Once again, we have to kiss the Japanese fanboys' arses at the expense of Allied arms. You people don't want to be placed in a tough historical situation where you have to work creatively with what you are provided. All you want is revisionism.

I tell you, I'm getting tired of the whole BS routine.


Who said the player has to upgrade his equipment? [&:]

Playing a pbem and don't want the players to upgrade all the units, then state that up front.

Seems like a bunch of whining over nothing when your complaint can be easily solved by a house rule. As for the AI, I doubt it will be corrected to choose appropriate aircraft from the list, chances are good it will continue as it has always done and go with the default upgrade path.



Reiryc -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/3/2005 4:12:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Sure it's optional and you don't have to use it. However results using all these new toys can't really be called a simulation of the war. I mean they could give the US side jets in 1944 and make it optional. Does it make any more sense because it's optional?


There are plenty of abstractions in this game. Just because your comfortable with abstraction A doesn't mean abstraction B is wrong. If it's optional, then what difference does it make?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.25