Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/11/2008 3:32:36 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline 		another comment re. the PP system....

under the current system (which i realise is used in many wargames, and is reasonably succesful...) the players 'focus' is somewhat pre-determined by the game. For example, as the allied player, in early/mid '42 a lot of units (air and ground) come pre-assigned to SWPAC. But, what if the player wants to do something totally un-historical and NOT focus on SWPAC at this stage?  What if he wants to focus on SthPAC? Or launch an offensive in CentPAC? Or even NthPAC? Either he must jumble his units (and suffer the consequences) or spend all his PPs re-assigning units veeeeerrry slowly from one command to another. Why not have almost all units come pre-assigned to 'home' commands (eg. WestCoast, Aust, etc) but have far more PPs on hand to choose where he (whoops, sorry, OR she!!) chooses to assign them? I guess to reduce abuse of this sytem certain home commands, or certain units (eg. Canada, and some of the other Commonwealth forces) could have higher PP costs to account for the political issues involved.

Just a thought, but i like to be allowed to have creativity in the 'grand strategy', and do find the current system a bit restrictive.

Cheers


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 601
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/11/2008 11:07:36 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		You have hit the nub of the debate we are having internally guys I am in the 'other' camp I would prefer to have units not restricted and allocated to historic commands when they arrive and have more limited PP's after the first 6 months - so I am not going to have the debate here until we have resolved it on our side !!! 

Apart from anything else the AI is still poor at PP management

As the cost of changing a units HQ if it is unrestricted is far less than a full buy out from a resticted command I am in favour of historical deployments for both sides and if the player wants to change em thats what PP's are for. To set a level of PP's that will allow the buy out and change of every West Coast US units would mean the allies are swimming in P's - remember units are c 50% larger in device terms that menas 50% more expensive in PP terms


(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 602
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/11/2008 12:08:29 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		'Swimming in points' is OK if those points are required to use your units because they would all be stuck on the West Coast otherwise. It's not like the Allied player would be getting a bonus, which is how you make it sound. The only usefulness of PP's is to move units.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 603
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/11/2008 8:31:30 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		250 PPs to change Percival?????

OUCH!  This will make holding Singapore past February difficult even against the AI.  While this hurts {I only play the allies}, I have to say it is brilliant.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 604
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/11/2008 9:25:56 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

250 PPs to change Percival?????

OUCH! This will make holding Singapore past February difficult even against the AI. While this hurts {I only play the allies}, I have to say it is brilliant.


"And if you guys complain any more it'll be 350!!"


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 605
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/11/2008 10:15:17 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

250 PPs to change Percival?????

OUCH!  This will make holding Singapore past February difficult even against the AI.  While this hurts {I only play the allies}, I have to say it is brilliant.


Sounds like a problem Lincoln would have recognised.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 606
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/12/2008 1:03:46 AM   
Lameduck

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/6/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks Andy Mac, your answer clears up a lot me.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 607
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/12/2008 9:26:04 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		When playing allies I always mod the campaign to give the allies -200  or - 300 PP's, so the allies are very limited in the begining of the war, beyond this and the British Recall of ships,  pp's don't have much effect and never limit the Japanese player. By 1943 the allies have so much of everything including PP's, what's the point?  What's the goal here to limit what the allied player can do in 1942, slow the game down, or limit the player to history? Does the number of PP's change for the allies over time 1942, 1943, etc?

I would realy hate to see AD limit the player to just history or limit the AI even more.







(in reply to Lameduck)
Post #: 608
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/12/2008 12:22:39 PM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline 		Thanks for your reply Andy. And thanks for the other comments. Personally i always mod the campaign to give the Allies MORE PPs at the start because i hate being 'bound' by history. Obviously this means i need a whole stack of house rules to avoid abusing the system, but seeing as i only play the AI it doesnt really make any difference anyway!!!!

Anyway, my vote is for unrestricted units, but with the editor as it is it really doesn't make any difference in the end - we will all just do as we prefer!

Any more screen shots coming??

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 609
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/12/2008 4:11:44 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Thats the issue there are as many different views of PP's as their are players we will have one version to change to another will take all of 2 minutes and the editor.

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 610
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 6:18:17 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline
quote:

'Swimming in points' is OK if those points are required to use your units because they would all be stuck on the West Coast otherwise. It's not like the Allied player would be getting a bonus, which is how you make it sound. The only usefulness of PP's is to move units.



This is still a good point though! And pre-game scenario mods do not get well recieved when playing a human (or at least non-computer!) opponent.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 611
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 9:15:43 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

quote:

'Swimming in points' is OK if those points are required to use your units because they would all be stuck on the West Coast otherwise. It's not like the Allied player would be getting a bonus, which is how you make it sound. The only usefulness of PP's is to move units.



This is still a good point though! And pre-game scenario mods do not get well recieved when playing a human (or at least non-computer!) opponent.


The AI never complains...just drools.

On a more serious note, I'm not for pre-game scenario mods either. The computer can't complain about it, its not been programmed to, and with a human opponant it can give one side or the other too great of an advantage over the other. When I play a historical first turn scenario, I really expect to see a historical first few turns, not having a 5 division invasion force show up at PH because my opponant had so many PPs that he took the whole Home Defense Force and loaded it onto transports.

And the truth of the matter is that most of the restricted HQs never moved the units stationed in them during the war, Home Defense Force, West Coast Command, Kuantung Area, etc. That's the reason they are resticted in the game, those units were there permanently for a reason. And if they did historically release, then that should be set in the game itself.

What the PPs give you is some flexibility by letting you change units HQs and move them about. What we don't need is so many PPs that you can move all of the restricted units in 1 turn.


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 612
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 9:58:28 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		As I said this is an open debate but I siuspect if you asked each of the team members we would give you a different answer for example

To get the Full Historic Indian/Australian and Canadian ORBAT that deployed overseas will require about 15,000 - 22,000 PP's - I dont think we have a choice on this aspect becasue these forces are needed to garrison India and therfore need to be on map but retricted at start. e.g. 19th Indian Div garriosnong Madras while it trains.

Leaders will require more PP's

The ability to move units between Corps after they are unrestricted while at reduced PPs will still cost something.

So about 50% of the 1st 3 years PP's are sucked into the CW ORBAT - the debate is on the US side where units arrive from off map...

I will report back after we finish arm wrestling over it all ;)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 613
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 6:22:53 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		A good way - if it could be done - would be that a new unit which is intended for overseas deployment arrives under a restricted HQ (such as west coast or home islands). Along with the unit's arrival, the player gets a one-time addition of PP's equal to the amount needed to reassign the full unit (I say full unit because some units arrive as partials).

In this way there are no extras - if the player uses the PP's for some other unit, the the newly arrived unit is stuck until much later when daily PP's catch up.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 614
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 6:29:32 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Unfortuantely thats a major change so at this stage we are not going to go there.

Good idea though !!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 615
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 7:38:37 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

As I said this is an open debate but I siuspect if you asked each of the team members we would give you a different answer for example

So about 50% of the 1st 3 years PP's are sucked into the CW ORBAT - the debate is on the US side where units arrive from off map...

I will report back after we finish arm wrestling over it all ;)



Andy

In Witp is would say goal of PP's is:

1. Method to deal with British withdraw of ships.

2. Prevent the Allied play from stripping West Coast units.

3. Limit the Japanese player from striping units from China.


In AE it sounds like you need to spend PP's before you can move/use almost anything?
Example: It will cost PP's to move (ships, ground, & air units) from CenPac to SwPac, correct? Ships will be restricted just like land units?

So what is the goal of PP's in AE?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 616
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/13/2008 8:36:47 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		Hi

I thought there was already a method of doing this in the editor - a once only change of HQ after a set number of turns - in stock at least one Australian Div changes from restricted command(Australian Command) to unresricted(SWPAC) is this function disabled in AE if not use it and if a player wants that unit earlier than historically then he needs to find the pp's to do it.



_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 617
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/17/2008 5:32:32 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		Sorry if this has already been asked, but what will happen to our saved game files once we install AE?

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 618
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/17/2008 5:46:49 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Sorry if this has already been asked, but what will happen to our saved game files once we install AE?


Well they won't be playable in AE for one.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 619
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/17/2008 5:54:44 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		understood, but will they be wiped out? meaning can you still play vanilla witp even with AE installed?

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 620
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/17/2008 8:00:33 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

understood, but will they be wiped out? meaning can you still play vanilla witp even with AE installed?


No, AE will install as a different program and won't interfere with Witp saved games or mods. You will still be able to play WITP after AE, the question is will anyone still want to.


< Message edited by pad152 -- 3/17/2008 8:06:35 AM >

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 621
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/17/2008 1:48:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		The HQ conversion for free of units is still enabled but its AI only functionality.

To mitigate the AI not using PP's overly well we just set the units to auto convert.

Andy

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 622
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/20/2008 9:32:28 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:


Ron Saueracker
Respawn is for kids. It's bedtime kiddies in AE!!
  I like it!

Maybe the allied player should have to spend their PP's if they want to respawn (replace that lost CA, CL etc.). This would make the cost of losing capital ships more than it is now!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 623
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/21/2008 1:30:06 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		The whole respawn thing is a classic example of an apparent effect being modelled rather than the cause. In RL, ship names could be changed, and were to replace the lost 1942 CV. No extra hulls were built and the ships would have been present with different names has the CVs not been sunk. The only possible effect would have been an earlier ramp down in CV production, although even this I doubt because they only really stopped ships when it was obvious they would not finish in time, not because they had 'enough'. Thus WitP should never have had respawn, and either a bit of smart logic which flips all the names if the subject ship's namesake hasn't been sunk, or dupicate ships (having Wasp and Wasp II is hardly fatal!) should have been used.

The number of hulls should have always been the absolute!

I hope there are no outbreaks of loose thinking in AE.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 624
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/21/2008 8:54:56 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The whole respawn thing is a classic example of an apparent effect being modelled rather than the cause. In RL, ship names could be changed, and were to replace the lost 1942 CV. No extra hulls were built and the ships would have been present with different names has the CVs not been sunk. The only possible effect would have been an earlier ramp down in CV production, although even this I doubt because they only really stopped ships when it was obvious they would not finish in time, not because they had 'enough'. Thus WitP should never have had respawn, and either a bit of smart logic which flips all the names if the subject ship's namesake hasn't been sunk, or dupicate ships (having Wasp and Wasp II is hardly fatal!) should have been used.

The number of hulls should have always been the absolute!

I hope there are no outbreaks of loose thinking in AE.


It not just the CV's it's also CA's and CL's, the allied play doesn't suffer from lost, only get's delayed, I always found it strange that the allied play gets hurt more by a badly damaged CV's than in losing them, it can take longer to get a badly damaged CV far from home to get back and have it repaired + upgraded VS waiting for it's replacement. Yet, everyone complains about Japan's production!

What I suggest, that it cost more, including PP's to activate a replacement/re-spawn. Would the number of allied CV hulls remained the same if it wasn't for loses or would the allies have changed production to build something else? If there is ever a WITP II, I hope it includes player controlled production for both Japan & Allies. It would then be up to the player on what to build and what to try to replace, only then will the player face the true cost in lost of capital ships.








(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 625
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/22/2008 4:26:15 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		But given the history of the war, Allies had an advantage second to none when it comes to productivity. The game models this very accuratly imo.
Japan is about the size of an average State in the Union, let's not get carried away here.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 626
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/23/2008 4:44:52 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I've seen Japan's industrial productivity described as only slightly above that of Italy; the difference being that they prepared for the war prior to starting the fight.

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 627
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/25/2008 10:59:34 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Will "disable" Allied PP tracking be a selectable option? In my view the PP system is pretty much an excuse for hogtying the Allied player into following historical operational choices. Since it is often raised as an observation that a strategic game is NOT supposed to force people to replicate historical choices ("otherwise why not just go read a book" is the usual claim), and since the Japanese player is not substantially forced to do so, why should the Allied player be forced to do so?

It seems to me that one of the historical facts of the PTO is that the real Japanese did not know in advance that they were, in effect in WitP terms, basically "hardcoded" to quickly win in Malaya, Borneo and Indonesia. In contrast, in WitP, that outcome is such a GUARANTEED event that the Japanese players often (1) expand far beyond their historical conquest lines regardless of Allied efforts to oppose same, and (2) complain that the Allies don't leave enough units behind to be easily destroyed (and, thereby, run up the Japanese VP count); hence all the whimpering about Allied players choosing strategies of force conservation, strategic retirement to secure positions and consolidation in the early part of the war.


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 628
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/26/2008 3:48:29 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		One can disable the PP system for either side, by going into the editor and setting the PPs up to a very large number. This can be done now in stock and can be done in AE as well.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 629
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 3/28/2008 3:27:05 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

But given the history of the war, Allies had an advantage second to none when it comes to productivity. The game models this very accuratly imo.
Japan is about the size of an average State in the Union, let's not get carried away here.


Which is why I find it silly when Japan can outproduce the Allies in planes for example!

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859