Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 9/24/2002 6:10:09 AM   
jules

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/16/2002
From: Germany
Status: offline 		good point !

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 31
1 day turns - 9/24/2002 6:37:30 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, I don't think 1 day turns are a problem. The Japanese player will have the first 6 months of operations already planned before making turn 1. (I hope so otherwise he is going to go down the tubes in record time.) The Allies will have limited means during this period and will no doubt commit them where they feel most threatened. After the first 6 months (the southern resource area period) Japan will have to place most of the fleet back in port for a period to refit. They do not have that large an airforce where it becomes a problem. Operations will only be taking place in 2 location (India/Burma-and South Pacific) While any Central Pacific operation would have a major impact they would not require or effect many locations (2 opposing carrier TF's one of them accompanied by transport TF )
The allied Island hopping campaign will once again be focused and not spread out. Of the 1000+ turns a large number will not actually have any combat in more then 2 or 3 places on any given day. Throw in weather and many days will pass quickly.
The game will require time in between turns to decide what course to take. And the Japanese player will need to spend quite a bit before he ever touches the keyboard.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 32
- 9/24/2002 2:26:51 PM   
jive1

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		My pbem partner this morning announced that he is pulling out of all of his games due to a life change. This was after 2 months of play. My point is that 1,000 turns would take me 3 years to play - what are the chances of anyone actually finisihing a game?
I for one will need 7 day turns for any hope of completion.
Chris

_____________________________

So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 33
- 9/25/2002 12:36:56 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by jive1
[B]My pbem partner this morning announced that he is pulling out of all of his games due to a life change. This was after 2 months of play.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Two months of real time or two game months?

What gmae was it? UV?
Maybe someone else will takeover for him so your game can continue. (Assuming he didn't drop out due to hopless circumstances, in which case you won).

7-day turns can be an OPTION, as they are now in UV, but they shouldn't be the default. Besides, TCP/IP will go much faster than PBEM (and you can taunt your opponent over voice chat in real time ) :)

Yamamoto

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 34
- 9/25/2002 5:38:15 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		Against the AI, I prefer to use Continous but H2H I prefer 3 or 4 day turn length.

As for the full length campaign, I suspect few players will complete a campaigh H2H simply because it will take so long.

Even at a 7 day turn length it will still take 180 turns or thereabouts.

But I am still looking forward to it.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 35
- 9/25/2002 7:16:22 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Give me the option for one-day turns or give me death.

I am not alone. The revolution is growing. Get a life? We don't WANT a life. "There's too much confusion. I just can't get no relief."

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 36
Re: 7 Day Turns - 9/25/2002 9:56:32 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by jive1
[B]Having a button either globally or on a squadron level to allow it to rest when fatigue hits a player defined level or player defined weather condition would be a great help. When the condition no longer applied the aircraft could then resume their previous mission. (This would also be a great addition to UV :)

Chris [/B]

jive1,
I agree 110%!!!!!:D

I think with multi-day turns a player needs to have some ability to define the operational parameters he wants a squadron to fly by. In UV with daily turns a player can do this himself. But with multi-day turns this isn't possible and you're stuck with the program sending off attacks when the weather is bad or the squadrons fatigued. This is the biggest drawback to playing multi-day turns in UV for me and don't.

I would like to see a button for weather tolerance and for fatigue tolerance. If the global weather is worse than the setting the planes don't fly, if the fatigue is above a certain level the planes won't fly. This would make WitP's multi-day turns much more playable and less frustrating. Nothing worse than seeing planes go off on an attack during bad weather and get bad results and then have a clear day pop up and have the planes sitting recovering from the previous day's poor-weather attack. Except maybe watching a bunch of squadrons operating several days in a row when they're too pooped to pop and they just get slaughtered.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 37
burning bridges - 9/30/2002 4:00:58 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I dont have a problem with an "option" for 7-day turns, just as in UV, as i can see the merit of PBEM'ers who want to be able to play an accelerated game of WitP without having to take as long a period as the war that was actually fought. (shades of the 700 turn BtR)

However i would not like to see this as a default or the only option.

Why? GGPW was an awesome game, but eventually i found that the weekly turns there became way too cumbersome when it came to exploring the intricancies of managing offensive or defensive drives.

In other words, the weekly turns worked fine until one began to actually commit forces or implement strategies.

I found that knocking bases or at least softening them up proved impossible because the week-length turns allowed bases to become fully operational again before one moved in with their forces

More importantly it proved impossible to conduct attrition attacks against airbases or more importantly, conduct late-war type "plane raid" missions where a powerful carrier TF might hit many base areas used as staging points to shuttle in reinforcements to bases targeted for invasion. One really couldn't produce a 'hole' in the air defences as a result, the only option being to bring overwhelming air forces into the hex "at the time" of the invasion" vs preparing beforehand

It proved impossible to blitz key targeted areas unless one was willing to take 2 weeks to a month to conduct the operation etc etc.

I could go on but eventually the overall feeling i got from PW was that of "clunkiness" Various offensive stages of an operation had to be done all at the same time (Carrier TF hits base........'softening up/attack/counter-attack/repeat' all occuring at once....then the bombardment phase.....then the landing phase....then the land resolution phase....then (if any) a reaction by an enemy TF phase) Sure it was a fun show in the begining but eventually for me at least, it left an unsatisfactory taste in my mouth. I felt more like a spactator rather than a participant and doubts would enter my mind as to how things were being resolved as due to the necessary meshing of all the elements of the attacker and defender into one single turn....i couldn't see how it all came down

In other words, I couldn't see the tree in the forest.

I have also tried, just to see how it worked, 7-day turn options in UV. The one experience was enough to put me back on 1-day turn options.

So my humble suggestion is to simply leave the model well enough alone as presented in UV, since UV already portrayed the solution, one that satisfies everyone. Leave the 1-day option in, and leave the 7 day option in.

A 7-day only default setting would be a grave mistake IMO and one that, for me at least, would jeperdise my purchase of the finished product.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 38
- 9/30/2002 7:51:24 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Yeah. What Nikademus said.

I hope that all who favor 7-day turns get that option and find a way to be happy with it. I doubt that I ever could be, PBEM or against the AI.

And please don't blame the game if your playing partner commits coitus interruptus on you.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 39
- 9/30/2002 8:08:58 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		I personally feel that 1/2 or 1 week turns are the most realistic, but having 1 day turns won't bug me much. PBEM games will probably be forced to run at a set number of days per turn, so they will be set at 1 day, 1/2 week or 1 week (or other combo) turns at the beginning.

I never had any problem with 1 week turns in Pacific War, it just meant that you had to plan for a lot of contingencies, a lot of things to happen, within that one turn. I did not find it too difficult keeping track of everything, and would have found it impossible (just like they did back when they were developing the game in 1992) to have the game run on 1 day turns.

I love another wargame, called Combat Mission. It has a turn based system, where you give your troops/vehicles orders, then the game ran for 'real time' for 1 minute where all that you did was watch. Many people freaked over this (they did actually freak) and said that not controlling their troops every second would be maddening. However, this required a lot of planning and thinking to go into each one of your turns, as you knew full well that it is not up to you to dictate every little movement of your tank, but have to rely on the quality of your crews and troops in order to win the day as well as your ability to command. It was an adrenaline rush every time you hit the end of turn key in a PBEM game, to see wether or not your orders will lead to disaster or to victory. It resulted in a very good, and very fun game, which still gives me that feeling of fear every turn I send out.

Don't write off the 7 day turns, as they are manageable and lead a lot to requiring you to be a very good stragetic commander, to anticipate things that may happen in the next 7 days without the ability to immediately stop the action and change the direction of your TF's to meet a new threat. I bet Nimitz would have LOVED that option during Leyte Gulf to direct Halsey back to the real fight.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 40
- 9/30/2002 9:04:00 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		One difference between PacWar and WITP that factors into the equation, Jeremy, is that PacWar was designed around one-week turns as the baseline, whereas WITP, being based on the UV engine, breaks down into one-day elements in resolution of all game-relevant details.

For example. Suppose you are the Japanese invading Port Moresby in PacWar. You have assembled all your troops, ships, planes, and materiel at their points of origin. When you shove off, seven days' activity will roll by during the execution phase - this is not separable into smaller segments. In WITP, as I understand it from the designers' comments and from having played UV, each day that passes, notwithstanding whether you have chosen one-day increments, seven-day increments, or something in between, the events of each day will have their individual effect on the ultimate outcome of the battle.

Small wonder, then, that many potential players want to have control over the daily decisions that are crucial to the conduct of the operation.

The designs, and the designs' intentions, are very different, it seems to me. The practical result? Being satisfied with seven-day turns in WITP (or UV, for that matter) turns you into a bystander when you should be a crucial arbiter of the course of action. PacWar is one game, with its own design features. The UV series is just a different environment, from both design and gaming standpoints.

Again, what works for you is fine with me. Just don't expect to see me shirking my command responsibilities for seven days of wine, women, and song in between "command opportunities."

As far as what Nimitz would have loved at Leyte Gulf, he had no better information than Halsey. Just because you are playing one-day turns does not mean that you have better intelligence or that it is always possible to make major changes to plans that are already being executed. It does give you the opportunity to be flexible - as, historically, good commanders have always been (witness Alexander at Issus). And woe be to the commander who is unable to change the direction of his task forces to meet a new threat - unless that new threat is a diversion, a misapprehension, or not as much a threat as the one that was already being met, in which case, woe be to the commander who abandons carefully laid plans.

Such is the burden of command.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 41
- 9/30/2002 10:18:48 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		Actually GGPW was originally designed for one day turns, but it was changed because they thought that the time requirements to complete a large campaign would be astronomical. They originally planned for the game to be a series of mini-campaigns, which they thought was suitable for 1 day turns. They said that they only had to make minor changes to the game to make it work on a 7 day/turn basis, and the playtesters agreed that it was a much more manageable game, primarily based on the time it takes to play. I guess an option will not hurt, but you will be hard pressed to find too many opponents who want to do a 1941-45 campaign on 1 day turns.

I personally believe that the WitP 7 day cycle will be suitable for a strategic commander to have effective control over their forces. The micromanagement that you can do on 1 day turns is really 'unecessary' in waging an operation level war. The level of possible micromanagement is pretty large, but I know that it will be an effective 7 day cycle that is comparatively effective as one run day by day with heavy micromanagement. It is not like things won't happen during those days, as a sufficient Tactical AI will take over those necessary reaction moves.

Actually, Nimitz was pretty pissed that Halsey went chasing after the IJN Carrier TF after it withdrew from combat after being severely mauled. They had a pretty good idea that the IJN Carrier force was crippled beyond recovery, and knew that the real threat was a surface breakthrough. Even if the IJN surface fleet looked as if it retreated after its mauling, it was much more of a threat then the comparably small carrier TF which also retreated. Covering the landing was much more important then catching a few carriers that had no chance at threatening them in the future.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 42
- 9/30/2002 10:46:06 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]Actually, Nimitz was pretty pissed that Halsey went chasing after the IJN Carrier TF after it withdrew from combat after being severely mauled. They had a pretty good idea that the IJN Carrier force was crippled beyond recovery, and knew that the real threat was a surface breakthrough. Even if the IJN surface fleet looked as if it retreated after its mauling, it was much more of a threat then the comparably small carrier TF which also retreated. Covering the landing was much more important then catching a few carriers that had no chance at threatening them in the future. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hee hee. Which means that Nimitz had himself a good old time playing WITP, don't it, what with his subordinate commanders screwing up and all?

By the way, Jeremy, have I mentioned lately how much I appreciate the hard work you and your team have put, and are putting into, PW? You are keeping one of my all time favorite games alive, and I am very thankful (unconscionable suckup spot #117 fer ole Pasternakski. Now, back to the Jackson Five story, starring the Osmond brothers).

Nimitz wanted those carriers sunk just as much as Halsey did. His information about Japanese carrier air strength was nowhere near as complete as our hindsight scholarship reveals to us. "Pretty good ideas" were seldom pretty or good in the Pacific theater. Besides, as indicated in Nimitz's campaign notes (which are preserved at the Naval Academy), he fretted over ordering Halsey to sit passively while waiting for an enemy of unknown strength with aircraft of superior range to stalk him - and the invasion fleet.

In any event, I want to sit in Nimitz's seat and bask in the glory, or suffer the ignominy, of the consequences of my strategic decision making. And I want to be in the hot seat every day.

I have yet to see a "sufficient tactical AI." Furthermore, it will not be a "tactical" AI working for me - it will be an operational AI working in my stead, and very likely against my wishes.

Gimme daily turns, pal. All day long.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 43
- 9/30/2002 1:16:55 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]



Gimme daily turns, pal. All day long. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bloodyoath!

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 44
- 9/30/2002 2:00:12 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]I personally feel that 1/2 or 1 week turns are the most realistic, but having 1 day turns won't bug me much. PBEM games will probably be forced to run at a set number of days per turn, so they will be set at 1 day, 1/2 week or 1 week (or other combo) turns at the beginning.

I never had any problem with 1 week turns in Pacific War, it just meant that you had to plan for a lot of contingencies, a lot of things to happen, within that one turn. I did not find it too difficult keeping track of everything, and would have found it impossible (just like they did back when they were developing the game in 1992) to have the game run on 1 day turns.

I love another wargame, called Combat Mission. It has a turn based system, where you give your troops/vehicles orders, then the game ran for 'real time' for 1 minute where all that you did was watch. Many people freaked over this (they did actually freak) and said that not controlling their troops every second would be maddening. However, this required a lot of planning and thinking to go into each one of your turns, as you knew full well that it is not up to you to dictate every little movement of your tank, but have to rely on the quality of your crews and troops in order to win the day as well as your ability to command. It was an adrenaline rush every time you hit the end of turn key in a PBEM game, to see wether or not your orders will lead to disaster or to victory. It resulted in a very good, and very fun game, which still gives me that feeling of fear every turn I send out.

Don't write off the 7 day turns, as they are manageable and lead a lot to requiring you to be a very good stragetic commander, to anticipate things that may happen in the next 7 days without the ability to immediately stop the action and change the direction of your TF's to meet a new threat. I bet Nimitz would have LOVED that option during Leyte Gulf to direct Halsey back to the real fight. [/B][/QUOTE]


I'm not writing them off....as i said, I can see the merit of the "option" of having 7-day turns for the purpose of PBEM with players who have limited time schedules (something i can definately relate too!)

But i disagree that 1/2 or weekly turns are optimal. Yes, PW was originally designed as a 1 day or even a 12-hour turn game if my memory is correct but was later changed to 1-week turns. However IIRC the decision to go with weekly turns was based more on software limitations than anything else.

That was 1991, this is 2002 and IMHO, to purposely go with weekly turns as a default would be a definate step backwards for a game like WitP. You simply cannot conduct the very specific types of operations required to reproduce the events that occured in the actual war without fudging things to a degree just as one can see in GGPW. The game would be forced, as with GGPW to mesh sustained and coordinated operations all into simotanious sequencial actions that are mostly "under the hood" to coin a phrase. Consider it this way as well....after being used to the detail and flexibility of UV, would players willfully accept going to clunky week long turns in WitP? Yes the scale is far bigger but its not like every single area will be "UV" in terms of having to manage and fight, most of the time the player(s) will be focusing on one area of the Pacific as their current "offensive" which will produce much of the same situations as in UV, the only difference being that one can have this happen in other areas besides the one theater represented in UV!

One-day turns would provide the detail and flexibility that modern wargamers and grognard wargamers have long sought for the Pacific and i think UV has proven this to be true.

Daunting? you bet? worth it? YOU BET!

Again, i see no compelling reason to alter the UV model from what it is right now.......1-day turns by default, with the option to "accelerate" up to weekly if one so desires.

Mess with it at one's own peril.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 45
- 10/1/2002 10:35:29 AM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]


Daunting? you bet? worth it? YOU BET!

Again, i see no compelling reason to alter the UV model from what it is right now.......1-day turns by default, with the option to "accelerate" up to weekly if one so desires.

Mess with it at one's own peril. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think weekly turns with possible reversion to 1 day either auto or by bid, with one day fixed (-for people without a life-) should make everyone happy.

The best option would be to allow 1 day turns to cut in prior to main fleet engagements. The question is how to trigger this in PBEM games. Biding for turn length is a possibility with the lower bid allowed but this may leed to "Ganesmanship" in the bidding process. If game parameters could be set to cause an automatic drop out from weekly turns untill re activated by PBEM players eg if a carrier TF reacts, or if an Having this option available during pbem games will go a long way to giving more versatility to campaign play.

Witp still needs some extra features for longer term play but a few of these along with in game turn variation would give the best of both worlds for PBEM.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 46
Grrrr - 10/1/2002 11:29:47 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline 		I could probably deal with 7 day turns if I absolutely have to - very early on in WITP I don't think it would be a problem. My plans would be set in motion and I doubt any of them would take less than a week to complete. However later on when things get hot, 1 day turns are a necessity, not an option.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by jive1
[B]My pbem partner this morning announced that he is pulling out of all of his games due to a life change. This was after 2 months of play. My point is that 1,000 turns would take me 3 years to play - what are the chances of anyone actually finisihing a game?
I for one will need 7 day turns for any hope of completion.
Chris [/B][/QUOTE]


2 Points about this.
a. At least your PBEM partner told you. Others leave you hanging without any notice.
b. Someone should start a post for "opponent" evaluation (warfare HQ's ladder is a good start, but not enough). You know, something like where you anonymously review your opponent for reliability, speed of turn-return etc.

One of my current opponents always lets me know when it is the last turn for the night (so I'm not up all night waiting), and manages 2 or 3 per weekday and our best is 10(!) turns per day on sat or sun. I am not sure if he intends to go WITPing, but if he does he'll be on my hit-list (in a nice way :cool:)

Every turn has been a nail-biter, and the gaps imbetween are so big - eg. He is about to attempt an Australian invasion (I think - why else are there 5 CVs, 2 surface combat type tfs and a transport TF way south and a bit west of GG??) and has possibly caught me with my pants down.

I would loose all this suspense if it was a week long turn. I'd just get my turn, watch a week of combat replays, swear a lot because I wouldn't be able to react in time to his sneaky move etc. No fun.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 47
- 10/1/2002 11:50:35 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Spot on Luskan!

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 48
- 10/1/2002 1:23:11 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
[B]

I think weekly turns with possible reversion to 1 day either auto or by bid, with one day fixed (-for people without a life-) should make everyone happy.

The best option would be to allow 1 day turns to cut in prior to main fleet engagements. The question is how to trigger this in PBEM games. Biding for turn length is a possibility with the lower bid allowed but this may leed to "Ganesmanship" in the bidding process. If game parameters could be set to cause an automatic drop out from weekly turns untill re activated by PBEM players eg if a carrier TF reacts, or if an Having this option available during pbem games will go a long way to giving more versatility to campaign play.

Witp still needs some extra features for longer term play but a few of these along with in game turn variation would give the best of both worlds for PBEM. [/B][/QUOTE]

One thing that should be pointed out in all this too is that while PBEM will be a very popular feature, there will still be a sizable AI or Hotseat community as well for those of us who dont have the schedules to seriously consider a PBEM.

I have yet to play one in UV though i would like too. 1-day turns for non-PBEM are far less an issue. Me, i would have a hard time stomaching a WitP game with weekly turns (only) after being used to the detail and depth of UV and it's 24 hour turns. Again i think the system is fine the way it is.....as both 1 and 7 day turns are present.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 49
- 12/28/2002 5:33:00 AM   
jive1

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		Just searching through a few old threads. Quite a few good points I didn't see in this one. To me this is one of the most pressing problems with WITP.

1 day turns - reasons I need them :-

a) Ability to react to enemy threats without waiting for an unrealistic amount of time. I just moved my carriers out of Moresby heading to Aus as a Jap carrier/invasion force is spotted inbound. They carry on for 6 days before I can change course?

b) Has anyone played a carrier battle where the PC had control
for 7 days? They are so important I cannot concieve of leaving the AI in control for such a span of time. (It may be the same for both sides - but it could be **** annoying - not how I like to play games)

C) A million other things which could be eased by the ability to set A/C to stand down etc as mentioned previously in this post.

7 day turns - reasons I need them :-

A) I love pbem - I play max 1 turn a day - playing for 4 years not going to happen.

B) Production - shorter scenarios (a few months) will make this pointless and it is one of the main attractions.

The game is wonderful. One of the best all time wargames - but the scale seems to make it one of those impossible to play monsters parodied in the old Avalon Hill General magazine.

Ground combat on this scale needs a week or month long turns - carrier combat - a day max.

If you can pull it off Matrix I will be amazed. I'll be buying it though.

_____________________________

So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 50
- 12/28/2002 8:20:30 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		I'm curious: has Matrix spoken on this? Will the game have 1-day turns (as I hope it will!)? I don't object to 7-day turns, but I really want the detail and control that come with 1-day turns.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 51
- 12/28/2002 9:06:08 AM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline 		Agreed, Grotius. One day turns for almost 4 years may not be very do-able, but I am sure going to try. I would have thought the same about UV and one-day turns, so what's another year or two? I'm having a great time with several PBEM long games and I don't want to get to the end. The fun is in the journey, not the destination.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 52
- 12/28/2002 9:27:44 AM   
jive1

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		The game will have 1 and up to 7 day turns.

_____________________________

So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 53
- 12/30/2002 4:35:32 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		I would hope that the optin remains as it is in UV.

For a game against the AI, Continous is best. I hope this setting remains.

(in reply to jive1)
Post #: 54
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

3.316