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] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 5/29/2003 3:09:46 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

I voted to play "Smack the Raver" but what Raver and I do when alone is our business.

As to the game -

My preference for a game is a balance of both historical realism (realistic historical capabilities of forces) and gameplay (the freedom to use those capabilites in various ways). Both are equally important to me. If I'd voted intelligently, I'd have picked historical.

I don't wan't to be able to use my forces to do things that were historically impossible but I do want to do everything that you possibly could've done with them.

Rather than toning down (or up) certain historical realities for balance, I'd prefer to have a well thought out set of victory conditions in which both sides compete against their historical achievements and the winner (if any) is the side which does the best in their circumstances.

But unfortunately, we're going to get WitP.
(Um..that was a joke and in no way is an indication of what I've seen in testing...well, except for....:p )

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 31

- 5/29/2003 3:10:33 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Jeez, guys, you all pretty much ignored Pasternatski's post. This is not an either/or debate. You can have both as Pasternatski says.

You can have a historical game - meaning having historical capabilities without being tied to historical tactics and strategies - and still allow each side a 50:50 chance of winning. In general, the U.S. wins only if they do better than historically. How you define "better" is a trick, but it probably involves time, casualties ratios, equipment ratios, and maybe objectives. There was a thread, which I can't find now, that went into this.
[/B][/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I was going to write after I had read Pasternakski's post. Japan shouldn't be able to win the 'war' (they never had a chance - US industrial might, 'Revenge for PH' motivation and unconditional surrender demand - how can you win against that?) - but Japan should be able to win the 'game' (by delaying the Allied advance long enough - although this won't be enough to win the 'war').
I can't find the thread either, but someone suggested that for each turn a base is held, permanent victory points should be accumulated. This would also motivate Allied players to conduct counteroffensives early on, not just waiting for second-generation planes, new ships and ground forces to launch a short-cut offensive in the Central Pacific in 1944. Maybe the victory points can be linked to base size and fortification level - no points for beach dots, 27 points per day for the biggest base possible (if the size limit will still be 9).
You could also set fixed victory points for each location (the more important a base strategically and the closer at Japan respectively CONUS/Australia/India, the more points the base would be worth) and then compare the historical score at the scenario ending date with the score achieved by the players and then simply tell them 'You did better than history' or 'You did worse than history'.

Just a few Euro-Cents...

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 32

Re: Just when you thought it was safe to post a poll . . . - 5/29/2003 6:54:42 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]"I despise oceans!" :D

No Chiteng, you can't. You see, I started this thread as a poll about user preferences - whether they see History or Gameplay as more important. I was hoping that each concerned poster would front up, vote, and then post the reason why they voted as they did.

Maybe some informed ORIGINAL discussion would ensue.

I did not start this thread to be a vessel to provide you with yet another thread to nag, bitch, whine, cry, whimper, throw a tantrum, stamp your foot, wave your arms in the air to try and get even more attention for your particular crusade(s) (whether I agree with them or not), followed by a hundred other posters either flaming you or disagreeing with you (or plain turned off the entire thread by such persistant nagging), followed by your ever stoic and predictable respone "I disagree" (which you then have to begin every subsequent post with as the argument continues).

I am certain that Matrix is WELL aware what you want - you've spammed it all many times before. However you don't add any weight to your arguments by repeated them over and over and over again. The irritation factor detracts from whatever attention the arguments deserve. :(

Please take this as a friendly reminder that now that you've had your vote, and your say, let some of the other children have a turn hmm? :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Whatever I do, it will be 'MY' decision.
Since I have not hear from Matrix, I cant say what they know, or dont know. I doubt you can either.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 33

- 5/29/2003 7:14:44 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 34

- 5/29/2003 7:42:50 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B].............................

Rather than toning down (or up) certain historical realities for balance, I'd prefer to have a well thought out set of victory conditions in which both sides compete against their historical achievements and the winner (if any) is the side which does the best in their circumstances.

.........................[/B][/QUOTE]

That's the tough part. However if the game is designed with that in mind it may be easily tweaked to plug the loopholes which inevitably arise through months of playing by hundreds (thousands?) of players. It would be a terrible feeling knowing that, after 10 months of PBEM, that your opponent only has to capture one more insignificant island to win the game. Of course, as I suspect, WitP will seldom come down to that, because UV has never (in the game I have played) been that close a decision. And WitP is more likely to get out of hand before the full game is completed than UV.:)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 35

- 5/29/2003 9:10:05 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Sonny
[QUOTE]That's the tough part. However if the game is designed with that in mind it may be easily tweaked to plug the loopholes which inevitably arise through months of playing by hundreds (thousands?) of players. It would be a terrible feeling knowing that, after 10 months of PBEM, that your opponent only has to capture one more insignificant island to win the game. Of course, as I suspect, WitP will seldom come down to that, because UV has never (in the game I have played) been that close a decision. And WitP is more likely to get out of hand before the full game is completed than UV.[/QUOTE]

Agreed there would be a lot of work in designing a way of establishing "who won and when" that was enjoyable (for both players), historically realistic and avoided the loopholes.

But thats what the bastards are paid for. :)

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 36

- 5/29/2003 9:39:51 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B].................
But thats what the bastards are paid for. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, but that part is often overlooked in games where there is not a balance historically. Although I must admit, I am pleased with the system UV uses for the most part. If there were a table of VPs which could be modded by the user it might help - but there might be other circumstances (like auto victory) which would not be easily modified.

But most likely the war will be decided long before a VP count is necessary. It is nice however to use VPs to gauge your progress.:)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 37

- 5/29/2003 9:51:00 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B][B]Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.[/B] [/B][/QUOTE]

Well whatever else I may be, I can make a point and be civil,
and NOT use personal attacks.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 38

- 5/29/2003 10:17:26 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I can't find the thread either, but someone suggested that for each turn a base is held, permanent victory points should be accumulated. This would also motivate Allied players to conduct counteroffensives early on, not just waiting for second-generation planes, new ships and ground forces to launch a short-cut offensive in the Central Pacific in 1944.[/QUOTE]

I think several of us have posted that idea. It's a variant on the PACWAR version where bases gave victory points but these were not permanently accumulated. The way I imagine this standard to work, the VP are neutral. That is, if each player captures the identical bases on the same dates as they historically did, the sum of each player's VPs results in a "tie."

I'm with Pasternaski on this one. It is possible to have a game that is highly realistic but that as a GAME has balanced VP conditions.

_____________________________

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 Luskan)

Post #: 39

- 5/29/2003 10:30:30 PM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I'd read that earlier post as well mdiehl, and I agree whole-heartedly. I like your suggestion of the tie from exact historical performance. Seems like a workable way to give the IJN player a fighting chance

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 40

- 5/29/2003 10:48:01 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Well whatever else I may be, I can make a point and be civil,
and NOT use personal attacks. [/B][/QUOTE]

He could have been referring to me!
Although if that was the case Raver would have called me something worse than an idiot! ;)

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 41

- 5/29/2003 10:53:01 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

WiTP will/should be the mega Pacfic War game that should be an all-time classic for many, many years to come.

There are both historical and what-if possibilities:

A) This game should address all the historical realities of the war. To achieve this, there should be historical scenarios allowing victory for both sides through:

1) points;

2) doing better than in reality;

3) holding/taking bases longer than historically;

4) inflicting greater losses than historically;

5) time limits to achieve objectives

B) But also allow for all the what-ifs of history (such as scenarios that are similar in UV) :

The Japanese could:

1) achieve earlier/greater production bonuses;

2) withdraw most of their forces from China to pursue a southern approach;

3) share research with Germany (in fact a Japanese sub was carrying the blueprints/parts for a ME-262 late in the war);

4) have caught ALL of the US aircraft carriers at Pearl thus leaving the Japanese unmolested for quite some time;

5) etc, etc. . .

Both very historical scenarios and endless what-ifs are possible.

As has been noted previously, please provide us with a superb scenario editor, and you will see no end to the number of historical and what-if scenarios :)

Can't wait. . . *wipes drool from chin*

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 42

- 5/30/2003 5:40:41 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

Although it needs a few minor tweaks here and there I think the Matrix team has done a great job in balancing history and playability in UV. Im sure they will do an even better job in WITP!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 43

- 5/30/2003 6:55:45 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Well, Nancy, there they go again. Fellas, now we have three concepts going at the same time where we used to have only two. Let's ruminate a little (and pardon my digression, if you can).

History is staisfactorily presented by a wargame when the conditions that faced the commanders are either what actually existed or that, within reason, could actually have existed. This, since the inception of simulation gaming, has been the lodestar of design. This has nothing to do with either play balance or playability.

Most historical situations that can be "wargamed" are unbalanced from a "can I win?" point of view. Germany could have blasted through the Western Allies' lines at the end of 1944 and captured Antwerp, cutting off almost half of Eisenhower's forces in a "new Dunkirk" pocket and forced peace on the Western front. Not likely, but possible. The annals of history are filled with such tantalizing possibilities. What if Alexander had caught the odd arrow in the noggin before crossing the Hellespont? If Jesus had been bitten on the foot by some deadly vermin or other, where the he11 (so to speak) would Christianity be now?

We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design).

So, in order to have fun, we need balance. I remember the old Avalon Hill game "France 1940." What worse subject for a wargame could there be? Ah, but it was the "historical possibilities" that the designers built in that made it a game, along with victory conditions that allowed you to measure your performance by comparison to what the historical command figures were able to accomplish. Yes, the Dyle Plan was rubbish. But, in this game, you could put yourself into an impossible strategic situation and measure your worth by what you could accomplish given the sh1t sandwich you were handed. Think of Leonidas at Thermopylae. If you caved in on the first day because of the odds you faced, how great were you? If, on the other hand, you could hold out and discover the traitor before he was able to lead the Persians through the mountain passes to cut you off, think of how long and sweetly your name might have been sung.

How do you balance a game? You impose intelligently crafted victory conditions against which the commanders can measure themselves. But, more importantly, you present those commanders with a situation steeped in its own history. That does not mean, of course, that every element has to be exactly as it was on the day the battle, campaign, or war commenced. What it means is that the designer (and it is the designer who must, ultimately, make this decision) has intelligently evaluated the history, come to conclusions about what was within the bounds of reason, and presented alternative scenarios and conditions that challenge the players within the historical frame of reference.

It is at this point that I have my greatest disagreement with those who want to incorporate wildly speculative elements into game design. I don't want a WITP that reaches back to 1899 and alters the fabric of history so that Pacific war in 1941 can be fought with oddball equipment under fantasy world political conditions. Yes, that would be a great game, and I would love to play it, but that is not what WITP is. WITP from its inception has been a game that seeks to recreate the strategic (and often operational) challenges facing Japanese and Allied high command as they coped with the world situation of the late 30s and early 40s. That's the game I want to buy. I do agree that a freewheeling editor might be a fun thing to include, but, if the game as a historical simulation suffers because this has to be available, I say, "Forget it."

Playability is nothing to the point here. Playability addresses game mechanics and the facility with which they allow the players to accomplish the various tasks they must accomplish in order to play the game. A game that fails to allow the players to understand how to play it is just that - a failure.

Whew. Certainly got my money's worth out of this post, didn't I?

_____________________________

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 Luskan)

Post #: 44

- 5/30/2003 7:06:08 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]Well, Nancy, there they go again. Fellas, now we have three concepts going at the same time where we used to have only two. Let's ruminate a little (and pardon my digression, if you can).

History is staisfactorily presented by a wargame when the conditions that faced the commanders are either what actually existed or that, within reason, could actually have existed. This, since the inception of simulation gaming, has been the lodestar of design. This has nothing to do with either play balance or playability.

Most historical situations that can be "wargamed" are unbalanced from a "can I win?" point of view. Germany could have blasted through the Western Allies' lines at the end of 1944 and captured Antwerp, cutting off almost half of Eisenhower's forces in a "new Dunkirk" pocket and forced peace on the Western front. Not likely, but possible. The annals of history are filled with such tantalizing possibilities. What if Alexander had caught the odd arrow in the noggin before crossing the Hellespont? If Jesus had been bitten on the foot by some deadly vermin or other, where the he11 (so to speak) would Christianity be now?

We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design).

So, in order to have fun, we need balance. I remember the old Avalon Hill game "France 1940." What worse subject for a wargame could there be? Ah, but it was the "historical possibilities" that the designers built in that made it a game, along with victory conditions that allowed you to measure your performance by comparison to what the historical command figures were able to accomplish. Yes, the Dyle Plan was rubbish. But, in this game, you could put yourself into an impossible strategic situation and measure your worth by what you could accomplish given the sh1t sandwich you were handed. Think of Leonidas at Thermopylae. If you caved in on the first day because of the odds you faced, how great were you? If, on the other hand, you could hold out and discover the traitor before he was able to lead the Persians through the mountain passes to cut you off, think of how long and sweetly your name might have been sung.

How do you balance a game? You impose intelligently crafted victory conditions against which the commanders can measure themselves. But, more importantly, you present those commanders with a situation steeped in its own history. That does not mean, of course, that every element has to be exactly as it was on the day the battle, campaign, or war commenced. What it means is that the designer (and it is the designer who must, ultimately, make this decision) has intelligently evaluated the history, come to conclusions about what was within the bounds of reason, and presented alternative scenarios and conditions that challenge the players within the historical frame of reference.

It is at this point that I have my greatest disagreement with those who want to incorporate wildly speculative elements into game design. I don't want a WITP that reaches back to 1899 and alters the fabric of history so that Pacific war in 1941 can be fought with oddball equipment under fantasy world political conditions. Yes, that would be a great game, and I would love to play it, but that is not what WITP is. WITP from its inception has been a game that seeks to recreate the strategic (and often operational) challenges facing Japanese and Allied high command as they coped with the world situation of the late 30s and early 40s. That's the game I want to buy. I do agree that a freewheeling editor might be a fun thing to include, but, if the game as a historical simulation suffers because this has to be available, I say, "Forget it."

Playability is nothing to the point here. Playability addresses game mechanics and the facility with which they allow the players to accomplish the various tasks they must accomplish in order to play the game. A game that fails to allow the players to understand how to play it is just that - a failure.

Whew. Certainly got my money's worth out of this post, didn't I? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds to me like that is Pasternaski's definition of what a wargame is. Now, tell me why anyone is supposed to share it?
I certainly dont =)

Words like 'wildly speculative' are highly subjective. There is
no convincing evidence that 'his' version of alternative reality is correct.

What he is willing to buy, is moot. what matters is what SELLS.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 45

- 5/30/2003 7:16:03 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

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 Luskan)

Post #: 46

- 5/30/2003 7:49:25 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]"I" wish peepul wuld STOP attaking me =) [/B][/QUOTE]

That certainly isnt a quote of mine =)

and if you want people to not attack, possibly you should not attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 47

- 5/30/2003 8:02:42 AM

Aussie

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Sounds to me like that is Pasternaski's definition of what a wargame is. Now, tell me why anyone is supposed to share it?
I certainly dont =)

Words like 'wildly speculative' are highly subjective. There is
no convincing evidence that 'his' version of alternative reality is correct.

What he is willing to buy, is moot. what matters is what SELLS. [/B][/QUOTE]

How can any version of alternative reality be correct - its events didn't actually happen, so there isn't really any evidence for it. You don't need to have pointy ears to see the logic in that.

I agree with Pasternaski's arguments, especially about keeping the 'wildly speculative' theme out of the game. If you did start the game in 1899, then there probably wouldn't be a war starting in the Pacific in 1941 anyway.

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 48

HISTORICAL ACCURACY FIRST... - 5/30/2003 8:06:23 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Because it strives to be a detailed game of THE War in the Pacific, the historical accuracy of the model HAS to come first.
If it doesn't accurately model the climate, terrain, equipment,
and logistics of the actual war,; it's a failure before it is ever
played. The goal is to provide the players with a chance to
"step into the shoes" of their historical counterparts and "test
their mettle", as it were. If their ships can sail forever without
re-feuling or re-fitting, it might be fun---but it's NOT a good simu-
lation of the War in the Pacific. GET ALL THE HISTORICAL DATA
SIMULATED AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE FIRST. Then worry
about "playability"---which to me has more to do with the ease
of using the interface than who "won". In a game attempting
this much detail, playability isn't going to be high as opposed to say checkers or even the old Avalon Hill "wargames". It's the
price you pay for detail. BUT EVERY "CLICK OF THE MOUSE" THAT
MATRIX CAN ELEMINATE, EVERY 'EXTRA SCREEN' THAT CAN BE
COMBINED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, AND EVERY 'GRAPHIC TRICK'
THAT MAKES "SEEING THE PICTURE" EASIER ENHANCES THE
GAME'S PLAYABILITY. As to "winning", that comes last and is
a job of play balancing. How well did the weaker side do as
opposed to history and his opponent? Did the stronger side
suffer excessive casualties.., or make the best use of it's advantages. Personally, I've always preferred the Jack Radey
definition---"if one of you feels you beat the crap out of the other,
you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." In this case, for the
Japanese player, it's more a matter of savoring your early
successes and the little "coups" of the later war---of reminding
your opponant of every "monkey wrench" you tossed into the
gears of the "Allied steam-roller".

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 49

- 5/30/2003 8:16:26 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I think you hit it on the head Mike... I agree completely.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 50

- 5/30/2003 8:18:21 AM

Aussie

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline

I�ll second that :)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 51

Re: HISTORICAL ACCURACY FIRST... - 5/30/2003 8:30:39 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]Because it strives to be a detailed game of THE War in the Pacific, the historical accuracy of the model HAS to come first.
If it doesn't accurately model the climate, terrain, equipment,
and logistics of the actual war,; it's a failure before it is ever
played. The goal is to provide the players with a chance to
"step into the shoes" of their historical counterparts and "test
their mettle", as it were. If their ships can sail forever without
re-feuling or re-fitting, it might be fun---but it's NOT a good simu-
lation of the War in the Pacific. GET ALL THE HISTORICAL DATA
SIMULATED AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE FIRST. Then worry
about "playability"---which to me has more to do with the ease
of using the interface than who "won". In a game attempting
this much detail, playability isn't going to be high as opposed to say checkers or even the old Avalon Hill "wargames". It's the
price you pay for detail. BUT EVERY "CLICK OF THE MOUSE" THAT
MATRIX CAN ELEMINATE, EVERY 'EXTRA SCREEN' THAT CAN BE
COMBINED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, AND EVERY 'GRAPHIC TRICK'
THAT MAKES "SEEING THE PICTURE" EASIER ENHANCES THE
GAME'S PLAYABILITY. As to "winning", that comes last and is
a job of play balancing. How well did the weaker side do as
opposed to history and his opponent? Did the stronger side
suffer excessive casualties.., or make the best use of it's advantages. Personally, I've always preferred the Jack Radey
definition---"if one of you feels you beat the crap out of the other,
you probably won. Otherwise it's a draw." In this case, for the
Japanese player, it's more a matter of savoring your early
successes and the little "coups" of the later war---of reminding
your opponant of every "monkey wrench" you tossed into the
gears of the "Allied steam-roller". [/B][/QUOTE]

'Correctly as possible' seems to be the biggest debate producer.
'Wildly Speculative' To Pasternaski that translates into
for example, wanting to build the Montana.
I would suggest that the addition of the Montana is NOT
wildly speculative.

If the game includes production(which supposedly it DOES)
Now you have a problem. Because I am pushing for build options.
There is no fun in simply building whatever the designer thinks the
historical builds were.

I can tell you right now, that Pasternaski does NOT wish to see that. He may SOUND resonable, but the last time this little topic came up he called me 'insane' for wanting that option.

If you give the players control of production, you just stepped
into 'wildly speculative'

Much as you may not want the debate, there will be one.

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 52

Re: HISTORICAL ACCURACY FIRST... - 5/30/2003 9:07:46 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 53

- 5/30/2003 8:29:17 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

I would go for historical realism rather than historical accuracy. The feel of being there rather than the exactitude of having the numbers be extremely accurate. There is going to be a ton of compromises because of game scale - accuracy will suffer.

Game play is the thing. I can understand that the idea of a simulation (history) is appealing and there are obvoiusly many on the forum who want to see if they can win the war as the Japanese (but not with all the "restrictions" which the Japanese had) etc. But look at it this way, how many people here have played a complete PBEM game of UV? Complete = until Dec 31 1943. Don't see many hands raised. And the few hands that are raised, can you say it was with the historic settings? Didn't think so. So what makes you think that adding another year and a half to the game where the Japanese do not stand a chance (if historical accuracy is preserved) will get you any more game play? People have better things to do with their life (like start another WitP game) than try to savor their little coups in June of 1945.

Don't want to see a game where the odds of winning the war are 50-50 but reasonable chances to win the game being 50-50 is not too bad a thing. My fear is that there would need to be too many loopholes/problems in VP calculations the closer to historical accuracy you get.

Not advocating having the ability for the Japanese to develop the A-bomb or anything like that. If there needs to be an "Argonaut" in the game to make it a better game then that is o.k. - I can live with that as easily as I can live with Midway not happening in UV (i.e. non-historic scenarios).

:)

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 54

- 5/30/2003 8:44:17 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Well, Luskan, would you agree that realism and game balance are not mutually exclusive?

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 55

- 5/30/2003 9:39:13 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

Byron: Certainly they aren't mutually exclusive.
However there will always be those that disagree on what is accurate and what isn't. I wanted to have a numerical representation of how many people valued one over the other.

I would like a game with the scope to allow me to still have something to do as the IJN in the later parts of 1944 and early 1945. I don't want to have "finished" with any critical input into the game and just keep returning turns for the USN to obliterate me.

Equally I don't want to see the IJN invading Australia, leap frogging to take a few west coast american ports and then polishing off China with a few handy brigades and a banzai charge or two.

As long as there is something in the middle, with enough room for mistakes on both sides to come to a thrilling conclusion:
IE. My Scn17 with Admiral Arctic. There has only been 1 major CV battle and it was inconclusive. His damaged CVs went back to tokyo and never returned. However in spite of that, we're down to 11/43, there are less then 2000 points seperating us and I am striving to take any base I can - although I don't have enough transports, and barely enough troops (yes, as the allies I have just about run out of INF units).

The entire game has come down to the wire and it ahngs in the balance. My tiny, damaged fleet against his fortifications and troops. Has been pretty epic - enough so that we're swapping sides and replaying as soon as it is over. Has been a great thrill to watch my victories and defeats.

The reason UV only modelled 18 months of the war is that it was considered pointless for the IJN to continue into 1944. I want enough flexibility in the game for me to be a good player as the IJn (but not incredibly brilliant) and extend my fighting chances into 1945.

Winning on points is ok (victory points wise) but winning on points because you're last CV ambushed an invasino TF in 1945 on its way to Okinawa, or your BBs closed with the invasion tf at Leyte and blasted those allied divisions to oblivion . . . that is what we're talking about. I don't want to loose on points because I lost Iwo Jima and the B29s end the game etc.

If I had to be honest, i'd say that the present UV game balance is pretty close - maybe 40% IJN to 60% USN chances to win (no one is going to tell me that it is easier to win as the IJN right????). This is easily fixed by changing committment levels or doing the "ignore midway" scenarios. Just wanted to make sure the balance remains (and you'll note by the poll numbers - as I'm sure Matrix has) that gameplay vs history is pretty even, if you count votes for spanking Raver as votes for gameplay).

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 56

- 5/31/2003 12:38:29 AM

mbatch729

Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]
We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design).

So, in order to have fun, we need balance.
[/B][/QUOTE]

EGAD! A Pasternakski post I agree with. I must have had too much of the beer being recommended in another thread. :p

But seriously, well-stated points I whole-heartedly endorse. Bravo Zulu.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 57

- 5/31/2003 1:03:04 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

I agree with most opinions: I want the core game and most "pre-built" scenarios to be very historical. I am both a history buff and a wargamer.

On the other hand, WiTP NEEDS to come packaged with a scenario editor; a friendly, superb, intuitive, scenario editor.

The collective wargaming community contains a great deal of knowledge and insights in most historical battles/weapons systems. The scenario editor will not only allow for gamer corrections, but it will also allow for the many possible "what-ifs" of history.

This is not just wild speculation. The very real, historical alternatives in history are many:

1) What if on the morning of the Battle of Waterloo, it did not rain and Napoleon attacked the British when he had planned?

2) What if Hitler had not been delayed in the Balkans in 1941 and attacked the USSR earlier?

3) What if ALL the American carriers had been at Pearl on December 7, 1941 and were destroyed?

4) What if the Japanese had sent another strike against Hawaii to destroy the shore installations and oil facilities?

5) What if Japan had attacked the Soviet Union when Hitler had pleaded with them to do so?

The above examples are not wild speculation. In fact many historians have debated these alternative ideas and more for years. Many wargamers have also thought of gaming scenarios that contained these historical alternatives.

The historical scenarios will be there to be played and enjoyed; while the scenario editor will allow wargamers the opportunity to craft alternative, but very historical, "what-ifs". Most games that have a long shelf life, also contain scenario/campaign editors.

Personally, any wargame that attempts to strait-jacket me into playing only one narrow version (the historical outcome) of history is not only limited in playability, but it also denys the wargamer the opportunity to see historical events in their many different flavours and outcomes.

In UV the two most played scenarios are #s 17 and 19, both historical "what-ifs"; yet are very real possibilities.

Such is the outcome of historical events when they often hinge on a decision that has multiple choices. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 58

- 5/31/2003 1:52:49 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]I agree with most opinions: I want the core game and most "pre-built" scenarios to be very historical. I am both a history buff and a wargamer.

On the other hand, WiTP NEEDS to come packaged with a scenario editor; a friendly, superb, intuitive, scenario editor.

The collective wargaming community contains a great deal of knowledge and insights in most historical battles/weapons systems. The scenario editor will not only allow for gamer corrections, but it will also allow for the many possible "what-ifs" of history.

This is not just wild speculation. The very real, historical alternatives in history are many:

1) What if on the morning of the Battle of Waterloo, it did not rain and Napoleon attacked the British when he had planned?

2) What if Hitler had not been delayed in the Balkans in 1941 and attacked the USSR earlier?

3) What if ALL the American carriers had been at Pearl on December 7, 1941 and were destroyed?

4) What if the Japanese had sent another strike against Hawaii to destroy the shore installations and oil facilities?

5) What if Japan had attacked the Soviet Union when Hitler had pleaded with them to do so?

The above examples are not wild speculation. In fact many historians have debated these alternative ideas and more for years. Many wargamers have also thought of gaming scenarios that contained these historical alternatives.

The historical scenarios will be there to be played and enjoyed; while the scenario editor will allow wargamers the opportunity to craft alternative, but very historical, "what-ifs". Most games that have a long shelf life, also contain scenario/campaign editors.

Personally, any wargame that attempts to strait-jacket me into playing only one narrow version (the historical outcome) of history is not only limited in playability, but it also denys the wargamer the opportunity to see historical events in their many different flavours and outcomes.

In UV the two most played scenarios are #s 17 and 19, both historical "what-ifs"; yet are very real possibilities.

Such is the outcome of historical events when they often hinge on a decision that has multiple choices. . . [/B][/QUOTE]

****! WitP is gonna cover a lot more than I imagined!!:D

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 59

- 5/31/2003 5:23:25 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]****! WitP is gonna cover a lot more than I imagined!!:D [/B][/QUOTE]

But no Napoleon or German scenarios - hehe :p

_____________________________

(in reply to Luskan)

Post #: 60