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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 2/23/2001 12:33:00 AM

mdiehl

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

How about this: Each HQ or LCU/ACU has its readiness affected by factors governing the relationships in the chain of command and possibly also affected by international politics. IMO *not* a covering rule that prevents or limits the players' abilities to deploy any units anywhere (because a simulation that allows departure from history must allow departure from history, and because I trust the players to be the best judge of strategic and operatonal decisions), but rather one that makes such deployments tricky. Also, IMO, not something like an irritation rating assigned to each leader, since that would probably be too subjective. Instead, reduce the rate of HQ preparation point gain, or reduce acu/lcu readiness gain, or possibly both if (provisional list, add candidates as you like): 1. The higher HQ is ABDA. 2. A HQ or base commander of nationality X commands subordinate ACU/LCU of nationality Y. (I'd exempt SWPAC and ANZAC from this penalty). 3. A TF commander of X commands a multinat. TF. (I'd exempt US/Aus/NZ TFs if the TF included only US, Aus, or NZ ships). 4. The higher HQ is any Allied HQ in China. 5. Any IJN HQ with subordinate IJA ACU, LCU, or base commanders (cumulative for each unit). 6. Any IJA HQ with subordinate IJN ACU, LCU or base commanders (cumulative..). 7. Any IJA HQ has the same objective as an IJN HQ. 8. Any IJA airbase has the same target as an IJN airbase. For the RN/USN reverse-lend-lease possibility, so that such is not utterly prevented, the US could bid a number of turns of a/c production (or a number of months of delayed-entry of couple of USAF acus) as compensation for, say, the loan of a CV or two. The game engine makes a random determination as to whether the bid is successful, based on the VP-kill value of the desired ship, and the production-cost value of the bid a/c or the tactical strength of the loaned USAF acu. The bid succeeds or not. If it fails the player can attempt to renegotiate in the following week.

_____________________________

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 Major Tom)

Post #: 31

- 2/23/2001 2:27:00 AM

Elvis1965

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline

I wouldn't want (or need) subjective abilities like congenialty/abrasiveness. Leaders should have concrete ratings for commanding subordinates, air skill, sea skill, and ground combat. Also, I don't want to have three hundred leaders to keep track of... I want leaders to be an integral part of the game, BUT don't wanna run an employment personnel agency.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 32

- 2/23/2001 2:51:00 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello... The leader characteristics include: general competence, administration, naval actions, air operations, ground combat and inspiration and aggressiveness. In Uncommon Valor, we currently have about 2400 leaders. We will have a much greater number in War in the Pacific.

quote:

Originally posted by Elvis1965: I wouldn't want (or need) subjective abilities like congenialty/abrasiveness. Leaders should have concrete ratings for commanding subordinates, air skill, sea skill, and ground combat. Also, I don't want to have three hundred leaders to keep track of... I want leaders to be an integral part of the game, BUT don't wanna run an employment personnel agency.

Every unit, ship or air group has a leader. So, the leaders run from 2nd Lt. all the way up to admiral or general. The player will not have to replace or juggle these leaders at all. They are already assigned to the units, groups and ships. He may, if he chooses, juggle them, however. He may also assign commanders to task forces that he creates. We also have over 1000 historical pilots assigned to the air groups in Uncommon Valor, but we are not done researching them, yet. The value of these leaders is historical accuracy. If the player never reassigns any of the leaders, the game will play just fine. If, however, the player wants to create a Black Sheep type of squadron, he can, by selecting the squadron leader and pilots. It will be fun and easy to play. Bye... Michael Wood Lead Programmer, Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Mike Wood (edited February 22, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 33

- 2/23/2001 4:30:00 AM

Elvis1965

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline

Okay, I am nothing short of amazed... This is gonna rock!

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 34

- 2/24/2001 2:49:00 AM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

Mike Wood wrote: The leader characteristics include: general competence, administration, naval actions, air operations, ground combat and inspiration and aggressiveness. In Uncommon Valor, we currently have about 2400 leaders. We will have a much greater number in War in the Pacific. ... The value of these leaders is historical accuracy You are aware that these are mutually contradictory statements, aren't you? You cannot accuractely determine any of these charactoristics about any single leader, let alone multiples of 2400 of them. What this does is increase detail while leaving accuracy unchanged. Since 2400 leaders times 7 charactoristics per leader leaves you with 16,800 varaibles to assign (several times this with WitP, I understand) the errors you will inevitably make guessing what the values of these variables will all cancel each other out, leaving you where you started. In AI games, presumably these leaders can be safely ignored. In PBEM games, however, the availability of such micromanagement will surely mean that some players will seek to be personnel officers in hopes of gaining any slight advantage. That means that other players will feel forced to do the same "in self defense." I would urge you to reconsider adding this meaningless level of detail. Only a few key officers need to be represented in a game where the players represent strategic level leaders. The idea that Nimitz's boss and MacArthur's boss concerned themselves with the assignment of 2nd lieutenants of the line is pretty far-fetched. The more I hear on this subject the more I am convinced this game will not be one I want to buy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 35

- 2/24/2001 2:47:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by grumbler: The more I hear on this subject the more I am convinced this game will not be one I want to buy.

I'll still buy it, but 2400 leaders is sheer overkill. The only thing I want to see is "hidden characteristics". Some extra officers would be great but not 2400 of them, and going down to air group commanders. With hidden skills, you can play a game with this feature off, and you get the historical leaders, but there is an option for some randomization of the skills that aren't displayed at first to the player. After some time using that leader the player starts to see some of the characteristics. The player has to use these leaders awhile before finding out if they are good or not. Maybe we should have leaders just for the following: Task Forces Task Groups (sub-units of a Task Force) LCUs Airfields Naval HQs (primary and air officer) Army HQs (primary and air officer) What else do we REALLY need? Since it looks like UV won't have "bases" like PacWar, we won't need a "base commander", at least that's my uneducated guess. Grumbler, if they put that many leaders in the game, just agree with your opponent not to change leaders for the lower levels, like air groups, individual ships, etc. [This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 24, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 36

- 2/24/2001 3:30:00 PM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello... The option to allow leader changes can be locked for PBEM games. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn: ...Grumbler, if they put that many leaders in the game, just agree with your opponent not to change leaders for the lower levels, like air groups, individual ships, etc. Thanks for your input... Michael Wood [This message has been edited by Mike Wood (edited February 24, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 37

- 2/25/2001 1:10:00 AM

chanman

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline

That many leaders, huh? Ok.... I tend to like the characteristics listed, though I still think some sort of prestige rating, especially for the Japanese, would add some detail. Not a stopper, the listed ratings look playable to me. I do have a couple of questions, though. 1 - Are we going to have any influence over promotions? 2 - Will the leaders have a history? I realize that this would add to what seems like an already immense amount of data, but if the leader's ratings are "obscured", knowing the track record of each leader would be the only way to make decisions for subsequent commands. After reviewing the list of ratings, I think that an interesting option would be to have the initial ratings randomized (or randomly modified). One of the things I note from my PW playing is that leaders like Fletcher are quickly relegated to the backwaters when such a decision wasn't such a no-brainer to Nimitz. Just a thought.

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 38

- 2/25/2001 4:31:00 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello... Most of the leaders are in the game because they were in the war. The lower grade officers will have a lot of "??" listed for characteristics. In time, these will be revealed. Most of the upper grade officers had reputations before the war started and can be counted on to have about the same beginning characteristics each time you play. An important thing to remember is that most of the characteristics are rather fluid and will change for the better or the worse with the fortunes of war. Aggressiveness and inspiration will take a hit if a commander is removed from a command too quickly. These too characteristics are also strongly influenced by what happens to the leaders command. Halsey may not be so aggressive after he has a couple carriers shot out from underneath him and if Gormsley actually wins a few battles, he might become less conservative. Most leaders in the game are ships captains, regimental commanders or air group commanders. There is generally not a lot of use in switching them around. They are just there to look at, if you like detail. Even if you find a really hot regimental commander, the rules do not allow you to place a Colonel in charge of SOPAC. The game is an operational level game, in which you play a theatre commander. However, if you look at the units, you will be able to account for every 37mm anti-tank gun or 81mm mortar on the front and see how many are broken down. You can tell every carrier captain how many percent of his fighters to fly CAP and how many dive bombers should fly anti-submarine patrol. You can even fly in supply with PBYs. The game even lets you sweat out the repair time for a 57mm gun on a DMS sweeping mines in the forward area, if you care. Not only do ships at sea accrue damage each day, but they also have critical operational breakdowns. In other words, for those who wish to play an enjoyable operational level game, this one works pretty well. And, for those who wish to optimize front line forces with the best leaders they can find or mini-max the effectiveness of a minor harbor by using a fast seaplane tender or sneak troops in by submarine or take a new destroyer on a shake down cruise to break in the new crew, the detail is in the game. I really like hat the game is becoming and feel that many of you, gentle readers, will as well. Got to go code... Michael Wood [This message has been edited by Mike Wood (edited February 24, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 39

- 2/25/2001 8:27:00 AM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

If one can "lock out" some things in PBEM, that is good. I guess my question still remains "why"? It is true that the leaders were there in history. So were the PFCs and BM1s. Why exclude them? Would it be "more historical" to include them? Again, the issue is not so much what the player can see as what the programmer must do to make all of these unknowns work. Nimitz (a theater commander) didn't decide when to relieve ship's captains or squadron commanders. He had subordinates who did that. Ditto for Halsey, on a smaller scale. Halsey may have had a say in who commanded Task Forces or who his COMAIRSOPAC was, but he didn't know, nor care, who lead the 2nd battalion of the 5th Marines. If the 2/5 screwed up, Halsey blamed/relieved COMMARFORSOPAC, not the battalion commander. Perhaps I am looking for a different game than Matrix is intending to produce. I want a game that has interesting decisions at a level appropriate for the player's "perspective." Having too much control is as conducive to a bad game as having too little control, IMO. Worse, it delays the game while thousands of bugs produced by the interaction of that massive detail are resolved.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 40

- 2/25/2001 4:57:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by grumbler: If one can "lock out" some things in PBEM, that is good.

Ok, the important thing you wanted will be there.

quote:

I want a game that has interesting decisions at a level appropriate for the player's "perspective."

Well, that eliminates a lot of games doesn't it.

Throw out SPWAW, PAC, WIR, WEST FRONT, most of the later CIV II clones, and a lot of operational games like TOAW. Most gamers want that level of detail regardless of their perspective, and Matrix, and especially 2BY3, know that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 41

- 2/26/2001 12:04:00 AM

chanman

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline

Looks good, guys. I do beg to differ with you on one point, grumbler. The upper ranks do keep their eyes on "lower ranks", just maybe not to the level WitP will allow players to. If you look back at history, you will note that promising subordinates were "fast tracked" and given plumb assignments. Now, I am not suggesting that the USN ever got to the level of Influence in the Royal Navy during the Napoleanic wars. However, note Spruance's appointment to command at Midway, the progression of Mitscher's career and such. They performed effectively and were given expanded duties as a result. I do agree that Nimitz probably didn't keep up to date on the performance of every jg under his command, but since the intervening commanders are also computer avatars, the job of noticing and (if WitP allows it) rewarding good performance. As the IBM commercial responds to the question "Who's job is that?", "That would be yours" (ok, not word for word, but you get the drift). Looking forward to putting the system through its paces.

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 42

- 2/26/2001 6:56:00 AM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

Chanman, you are correct in that commanders did look for expanded opportunities for subordinates whom they noticed had some potential. However, they also took care of their buddies even when it was clear that this would result in suboptimal performance for their forces (as in Fletcher getting far more chances than he deserved to foul things up, and Nimitz's extreme reluctance to sack Ghormley even after his messages made it clear he was in way over his head as COMSOPAC). I guess I am not one of the believers in the differences between typical commanders: I don't think there was a great deal to choose from between the typical commanders in any given job. There were some very influential leaders on both sides who SHOULD be represented in the game, as I have alwys argued, because they COULD make a difference in a critical situation. Nimitz as COMSOPAC and Spruance at Midway are two examples, as is Tanaka and the Tokyo Express. These leaders were rare, however. Portraying the typical leaders is a waste of time, IMO, because they simply would not make enough of a difference to be reflected in a game of this scale. Ed wrote: hrow out SPWAW, PAC, WIR,WEST FRONT, most of the later CIV II clones, and a lot of operational games like TOAW. Most gamers want that level of detail regardless of their perspective, and Matrix, and especially 2BY3, know that. I am not sure players WANT that level of detail, or whether they are willing to tolerate that level of detail. I tend to agree with you, however, that most players don't want what I want. If you want to give players what they want, then the game has to be real-time and be a web-based multiplayer game. If, on the other hand, you want to carve out (or perhaps preserve) a niche in the market that doesn't cater to most gamers, then you need not add in the chrome that slows the game down just because you can, or just because "most gamers' would want that chrome. Remember that every detail has its price in programming and debugging time, and ask yourself if it is worth it in terms of a game that is later, more expensive, and/or more "buggy" to add details and decisions that are of little practical consequence. In the case of leaders, I say "no." In the case of aircraft performance versus other aircraft based on altitude, I might say "yes."

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 43