LTC S
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/31/2000
From: Dumfries, VA US
Status: offline
|
First, as far as the AI. There should be a historical and an alternate AI for each participant (ie. Japan, US, etc). The historical AI would use the known plans and historical responses, ie. IJN seeks "decisive battle", ignores "total, long war" and "trade protection". The alternate AI would explore a different path or maybe multiple paths, some available for choice by the human player to test alternate resolutions.
Second, there should be a multi-player version, both opponents and cooperative, approach. There would be a US Army, USN, maybe a USAAF, NEI, Chinese Nationalist, Chinese Communist, Soviet, Australian and British player on the Allied side, each with their own (sometimes conflicting victory conditions) and, at the very least, an IJN and IJA player in opposition, again with specific victory conditions for both. This would certainly more nearly replicate the fight for resources (resource allocation, production planning) within each national effort and between allies.
Third, the scenario editor ahould have the ability to "block" out forces, resources, terrain, etc, that isn't required for a scenario. Examples would be Japanese-Soviet conflict or a straight "Plan Orange" scenario. On the flip side, all possible bases should be built into the game for activation as needed, and built to the maximum capabilities achieved or planned. Then the scenario can "build down" or "block out" while assigning control to a player. Of course, then you get into whether a political events threshold can be built which causes a player or the AI to take action, ie. Japanese decision to expand the war outside China, US decision to intervene in China, etc.
4. A platform editor should be included which allows the player to explore issues such as better US/Philippine prepardness (the planning for a PNG and USAR forces in the islands), no or modified Washington Treaty (the upper limit for capital ships was almost set at 45,000 tons) or London Treaty (impact of British "small" BB proposals) or continuation of the Treaty past 1937, alternate development timelines or resource allocation (US builds to Treaty limits before 1939-40), etc. Or the maximum database could be built and the player selects the forces based on a resource allocation model and on political constraints (US isolationists, US commitment to Europe, British involvement in WW2 prior to 1941, etc).
5. Keep the level strategic/operational. Going tactical would be beyond the resources of even the best commercially available computers. Player represents National Command Authority, JCS, IGHQ, etc. Develops objectives for resource allocation and production and lets computer execute. Direct armies/corps/air forces/wings/task forces/task groups and computer executes appropriate actions, formations and resource allocations based on allocated resources, command ability, etc. If the current systems can handle it, then go tactical. But I think managing below Corps level is going to be too much, though for games purposes, showing OOB (ORBAT) and equipment/personnel status is interesting, just as in WIR, West Front and Road to Moscow.
6. A detail, but the IJN especially needs more flexibility in using surface combatant floatplanes.
7. The period covered should be 1932-?, the actual start of the Pacific War. Once the game is built, it should not be difficult to adjust the database and the players could develop scenarios for the Sino-Chinese War of 1894-5, the Boxer Rebellion, Russo-Japanese War of 1905, WWI in the Pacific, etc.
8. Finally, I agree that Alan Zimm's "Action Stations" is probably the best available WWII (1920-1945) naval surface combat sim. I also prefer Grigsby's "Warship" over most everything else that has come after it, including GNB and Fighting Steel. I did like the TF1942 idea of commanding the combat surface force from the command bridge, as well as the chart room or CIC. It would be nice if someone (hint, hint) got Alan Zimm to allow a port to Win98 and then did some extra work, including the Ships Editor he promised us and extended the time period backward to 1895 or so?
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Suggestions - 
I still clearly remember the article that Computer Gaming World had
on the development of Fleet Commander, and the great efforts that Commander Zimm was going to
to ensure historical accuracy. He was very concerned about the fuel flow rates of carrier
aircraft engines when at full throttle during combat and how that would affect their range. This
guy was leaving NO stone unturned in his quest for the ultimate WWII tactical naval combat
wargame. I was very impressed with his efforts. 
Wouldn't it be GREAT if Matrix were to contact Mr. Zimm and work out an arrangement for him
to finish Fleet Commander (it's already at least half done, maybe even more) and have it published
by Matrix? *HINT* *HINT* 
- 
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