Is the AE game interface inadequate???

[TDeacon]

Hi all,

I was considering buying this game, but am having reservations. Reason is, I bought WPO (similar game system) several years ago, but never really played it. Recently, to decide if I could live with the AE game system, I've started playing one of the WPO campaigns, set on "continuous" turn cycle, with no animations or combat summaries, and delays set to map scroll = 2-s, message delay = 1/10-s; other delays set at 1-s. The idea was to allow the game to run until something interesting happened, and then stop it with <f9> to issue orders.

Unfortunately the continuous mode game experience has been very unsatisfactory (bad ergonomics). Because the game seems to run slowly on my hardware (1 day takes almost 2 minutes on my 3 GHz Dell P5), and because the game insists on jumping from one location to another every second or so during continuous play (so that I can't pass the time examining the map and thinking ahead) I feel almost completely divorced from the game experience. I might as well be playing with my eyes closed. At least in a traditional board game, one can examine and enjoy the game board in between moves.

Does AE exhibit this behavior as well, and/or are there any settings which could fix this in either game?

Skeptical potential buyer,
Mark Hinds

[TDeacon]

BTW, turning on animations and combat summaries is not the solution I am looking for, as the animations don't really appeal to me. The idea was to read combat summaries only when I detected something interesting was happening (or likely to happen), and I hit <f9>.

MH (edited to be more diplomatic).

[DuckofTindalos]

How could continuous turns be an accurate representation of the game? You're basically watching the board waiting for something to happen; how's that a game?

Weird concept.

[TDeacon]

Terminus,

The idea was to bypass the numerous minor events which didn't interest me, and jump back in once something significant happened. That's presumably one of the reasons for playing AE on a computer, instead of playing SPI's 1970's board game "War in the Pacific" (which had a 6' x 7' game map, and rules and counters to match).

For example, if a merchant ship was attacked by a sub, I probably wouldn't care, and would just let the AI handle it. On the other hand, if I had sent a fleet to invade Palau, I would probably want to pay attention to things as they occured, and respond.

BTW, I have nothing against people who want to experience every detail, so don't take this personally.

MH

[Crimguy]

Mark -please define "interesting" for us. Sounds like you want to play Witp like Hearts of Iron/EU. Just won't work IMHO. (that's why Terminus doesn't understand your playing style - I've gathered he's not a fan of the Paradox titles).

I can only speak for myself, but WitP is the kind of game where you really need to keep up with all the goings-on. From supply levels to troop and ship arrivals - they all need to be accounted for. Not to mention little things. My eyes open whenever I see a sudden concentration during an airstrike - KB might be the cause or they just moved a bunch of George's near my base. Little things can mean a lot.

Then there's the endless tinkering. Sending supplies, adjusting your submarine's screens. Sending your troops overseas. Bombarding the enemy. They all can happen spontaneously.

Not to mention you will miss sightings of the enemy if you just wait for them. It'll be like playing chess as black without ever trying to seize the initiative.

[TDeacon]

Crimguy,

I see your point. I probably would play the way you suggest most of the time. I just was hoping I could also "fast forward" from time to time, when needed. What I am seeing in WPO would be more acceptable if I could just keep the screen focus from constantly jumping from place to place when in continuous mode. Sounds like that is not do-able with the current game engine...

MH

[TDeacon]

BTW, I am really turn-based game person, since back in the 60's when I bought Avalon Hill's "Jutland". I own about 100 board games, and play turn-based naval/land/air miniatures. I don't usually like real-time game engines.

As I mention above, I guess I was just looking for a "fast-forward" capability, and "continuous" mode would appear to be intended to provide this. Just need to be able to keep the screen display in one place...

MH

[Crimguy]

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree with your point about the interface - the biggest UI mistake I think is having the animations and summaries appear right over the hex where the action is occuring.&nbsp; The other problem is that the combat summary screen doesn't have hyperlinks so that you can click on a location to see where the action was - it assumes you'll know where hex 162, 88 is.

If you can adjust to the AE game it is very fun indeed.

[wdolson]

Back to your original questions.&nbsp; The core of the interface is the same, but we made many improvements for AE.&nbsp; We sped up a lot of things in turn processing and we have done a lot of work to make the screens more useful to the player.&nbsp; For the patch we're working on right now we are adding some further user interface aids for the player.&nbsp; No matter what we do, it will all still be based on the same system, so it depends on whether your gripes are about the details or the whole thing.

Bill

[TDeacon]

Bill,

Details, but they may be details which you can't easily change:

1) Allow player to control what portion of the map they are looking at, even when game running in continuous mode.
2) Speed up the game. I will attempt to bypass this issue by buying a new PC once Windows 7 comes out next month.
3) Improving UI to allow player better access to information, by implementing movable, resizable windows, additional cross-links, etc.

MH

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

Mark -please define "interesting" for us. Sounds like you want to play Witp like Hearts of Iron/EU. Just won't work IMHO. (that's why Terminus doesn't understand your playing style - I've gathered he's not a fan of the Paradox titles).

I can only speak for myself, but WitP is the kind of game where you really need to keep up with all the goings-on. From supply levels to troop and ship arrivals - they all need to be accounted for. Not to mention little things. My eyes open whenever I see a sudden concentration during an airstrike - KB might be the cause or they just moved a bunch of George's near my base. Little things can mean a lot.

Then there's the endless tinkering. Sending supplies, adjusting your submarine's screens. Sending your troops overseas. Bombarding the enemy. They all can happen spontaneously.

Not to mention you will miss sightings of the enemy if you just wait for them. It'll be like playing chess as black without ever trying to seize the initiative.

Crimguy makes a good point. I have played both HOI 1 and 2 ( and the many variants ) and this is just a different , and I think better, game. I actually do like HOI2 ( have not looked at HOI3 yet ), but AE is such a deep, immersive game that I think you will like it if you approach it correctly. But it is demanding, and time comsuming. Go ahead, you know you want it [;)]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: TDeacon

Bill,

Details, but they may be details which you can't easily change:

1) Allow player to control what portion of the map they are looking at, even when game running in continuous mode.
2) Speed up the game. I will attempt to bypass this issue by buying a new PC once Windows 7 comes out next month.
3) Improving UI to allow player better access to information, by implementing movable, resizable windows, additional cross-links, etc.

MH

#2 has been done to a large degree in AE, though with larger OOB and map, some of the gains are eaten up processing more stuff.

For #1, the map changes focus during turn processing to whatever location is in action at the moment. To change that would probably be confusing to many players.

#3 is a nice idea, but not feasible with this game engine. To make any changes like this would be a massive project and the gains just aren't worth the risk.

Sorry,
Bill

[DuckofTindalos]

Maybe this just isn't for you.

[TDeacon]

Bill,
&nbsp;
I hear you.&nbsp; Perhaps you could implement #1 as a "preference", for people playing solitaire against the AI.&nbsp; Wouldn't be much use for people playing against other humans, however.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
MH

[Reg]

Because the game seems to run slowly on my hardware (1 day takes almost 2 minutes on my 3 GHz Dell P5),

WITP turns used to take 20 minutes on my old PIII 450 and that's with sound disabled (makes a heck of a difference). This game is doing a lot of number crunching under the hood!! I don't think 2 minutes is too bad and even with your settings some of the turn execution time will be the various delays....

[sfbaytf]

"minor" is a very subjective term IMO. That minor and apparent unimportant event could in a turn or 2 become:

a small 1 or 2 ship raiding force that will ravage your transports which happen to be carrying something of vital importance like an HQ or Naval Base Force.

a 1 ship resupply transport that will give new life to a garrison that is under siege

a transport that is in the middle of nowhere and leaves you wondering what the hell is it doing there. it could be nothing, a wayward ship that was unintentionally left on auto pilot or part of the reason why your opponent is operating subs where he shouldn't be and torpedoing your merchants.

I could go on and on. I'm sure my PBEM opponent has overlooked some of the "minor and seemingly insignificant clues" only to learn a turn or 2 later one or 2 of his unescorted tankers is on fire and the valuable fuel burns quite nicely....

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: TDeacon

Hi all,

I was considering buying this game, but am having reservations. Reason is, I bought WPO (similar game system) several years ago, but never really played it. Recently, to decide if I could live with the AE game system, I've started playing one of the WPO campaigns, set on "continuous" turn cycle, with no animations or combat summaries, and delays set to map scroll = 2-s, message delay = 1/10-s; other delays set at 1-s. The idea was to allow the game to run until something interesting happened, and then stop it with <f9> to issue orders.

Unfortunately the continuous mode game experience has been very unsatisfactory (bad ergonomics). Because the game seems to run slowly on my hardware (1 day takes almost 2 minutes on my 3 GHz Dell P5), and because the game insists on jumping from one location to another every second or so during continuous play (so that I can't pass the time examining the map and thinking ahead) I feel almost completely divorced from the game experience. I might as well be playing with my eyes closed. At least in a traditional board game, one can examine and enjoy the game board in between moves.

Does AE exhibit this behavior as well, and/or are there any settings which could fix this in either game?

Skeptical potential buyer,
Mark Hinds

Change the map scroll delay to 0 - that should speed up the map relocation.

[Admiral DadMan]

MH,

As part of the test team, I run this game on 3 different platforms:

• 1.6GHz/XP/512MB
• 3.0GHz/XP/1.25MB
• 1.8GHz-X2/XP/2.0GB

All 3 process a turn significantly faster running AE over WitP. As Bill said, lot of this is due in large part to major streamlining that was done in the code. Also as Michael recommended, map scroll delay = 0 helps a lot.

Finally, I don't see how I could set orders and then play for more than a turn without stopping the game to check on how their execution was going. And almost every day there is something significant going on...

[wdolson]

Setting message delays to minimum helps speed things up too.

There are different modes of games.&nbsp; Some are turn based (which WPO and WitP are) and some are continuous.&nbsp; Many continuous mode games can be sped up and slowed down.&nbsp; The Continuous mode in the WitP family (WPO, UV, WitP, AE, etc.) is not designed to make the game a continuous mode game.&nbsp; It's useful for testing the AI and might have some limited usefulness against the AI late game when the AI is incapable of much in the way of surprises, but few players ever use Continuous on a regular basis.

Real time games are the big fashion in games right now.&nbsp; Computing power has advanced to a point where more and more is capable with that sort of game.

The reality of gamers is that some gamers like real time and some don't.&nbsp; If I play a game, I want to relax.&nbsp; Most real time games make me twitchy.&nbsp; I can crank through AE turns pretty fast.&nbsp; I can sometimes play a couple of weeks game time in one evening, but the game happens on my pace rather than I have to conform to its pace.&nbsp; I like that kind of game play.&nbsp; Some people don't.&nbsp; Some people like the adrenalin rush of real time game play and they will probably be bored with the WitP family.

Different strokes for different folks.&nbsp; IMO, AE ranks up there as one of the most ambitious and best turn based games ever produced.&nbsp; But it is turn based and can't be honestly compared to continuous mode/real time games.&nbsp; Apples and oranges.

Bill

[TDeacon]

Bill,

As I think I made clear earlier in the thread, I am familiar with the differences between turn-based and real-time games, and I realize that WPO and AE are turn-based.

Was just attempting to use "continous" mode to get through uninteresting portions of the game while learning the game system. For example, in the WPO experimental game I mentioned originally, I wasn't really interested in defending the PI, but rather was interested in experimenting with moving the Pacific Fleet up from San Diego, learning some of the game basics in the process. I realize this isn't the way to obtain optimal results, but didn't care against the AI player. Wasn't proposing to use this method of play in serious one-on-one games. Had there been a method for decoupling ("item #1" from my list) the screen focus from the individual events during the turn, thus allowing me to focus on examining the portions of the practice game I was concentrating on, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. In theory, this "decoupling" could have been a player option in "preferences", so it wouldn't have bothered players using the normal screen focus mode.

Anyway, it sounds like it would be difficult for you guys to implement any of my suggestions, so I'll just have to live with it as is. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

Mark H.