byron13
Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
|
I have to throw in my two cents worth since I'd love to see a worthy replacement for PacWar.
I've played PacWar a number of times, and I find that, as the American anyway, your strategies tend to be dictated by geography, Japanese AI, and available resources. The game got old as a result. You can't change geography, but you can design the game to be replayable. I hope Matrix is doing that.
Variability is important to replayability. I would like to see some designs that were fairly final and ready for production - like the Montana. Certainly designing hulls from the bottom up like someone suggested is out of the question. But provide just a little bit of "what if" that isn't too far out of line and would have/could have come into existence but for one person's decision that was made based on one accurate/inaccurate conversation. Maybe you could select one or two hulls for each side and one or two airframes for each side that were real (final blueprints or prototype built) but not built. You could also throw in a little randomness in effectiveness so that, just as in reality, there may be an unnoticed flaw in the design. For example, if you decide to build the X-100 superfighter, there could be a maneuverability bell curve. Darn, just retooled all of my plants for this thing, and it isn't any better that a P-40! This isn't too complicated and easy to design in.
You should also be able to speed up development of designs to a small extent. But provide a hefty penalty in resources or production for doing so.
The biggest argument seems to be over the extent to which a person should be able to alter production. I side with Chiteng on this. Build 100,000 C-47's if you want. But the game has to be designed so that there are penalties for going to extremes. I don't know what is realistic, but if the Japanese want to convert cruisers to carriers, they should be allowed to - if they are willing to suffer the hopefully huge game-imposed delays for design and refit, the cost in materials, and tying up ship production/repair. And he also has to provide the planes and pilots to outfit the ship. Provide sufficient reality-based penalties for being extreme, and let me take it from there.
Another possible solution for extreme production may be the AI's responses to production. I know AI is terribly time intensive, and no one is ever satisfied. But, for example, if the Allies produce only carriers and no destoyers, the Japanese AI produces more submarines. Allies concentrate on bombers? Fine, the AI builds more fighters. Or the AI could follow one of several possible "master plans" of production where it emphasizes a certain kind of production and fighting strategy. Wouldn't it be a shocker if the Japanese focused on submarines? Or long range bombers? Keeps you on your toes and also requires you to at least prepare for that eventuality by building sufficient numbers of everything to counter a potential threat.
And that is not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is re-fighting the war perfect hindsight knowledge we now have. I don't like playing a game where I know the aircraft carrier will be king, and that Japan will produce only X number after the war starts but that I will Essex class carriers coming out of my arse. It's too predictable. I think a simulation should at least provide the option for me to play under the same uncertainties as my real life counterparts. Provide enough uncertainty that I'm not willing to put all of my eggs into one basket.
Anyway, I'm in favor of being able to alter production within the classes of materiel provided. Being able to put Merlins in P-40's is a little too micro-detailed, but if there's a class of ship available, I should be able to produce as much as I want/can. Just make sure that I'm realistically penalized in time and resources for doing it. Even design in random delays for unforeseen problems when retooling a production line or converting a hull. Kaiser pulled off a great trick with the jeep carriers, but what if there was an inherent flaw in the design that addes six months to production? I'd like that kind of uncertainty to enter into my calculations and provide a "bird in the hand, two in the bush" dilemma.
Bottom line: risk v. reward. Provide enough risk that extreme production may be punished and provides incentive for us as gamers, as we do in real life, to avoid placing all of our eggs in one basket.
As for variable set up, I'm for that too. The Japanese should absolutely be able to do so since they have the initiative and should be able to tailor their force mix and disposition to match any strategy. As the Allies, I'd like to be able to do that too just to provide some "what if" potential. Personally, I would stick to the historical set-up so that I am dealt the same cards as in real life. You won't find me bragging online about how I placed everything in the Philippines and beat the Japanese in two months. But it may be someone else's cup of tea.
Actually, in thinking about it, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to satisfy both sides. Simply provide a choice for either historical or optional production and set-up. Optional production would certainly be easy to do.
Does anyone at Matrix listen to us anyway?
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
- 
- 
- 
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