Are We in the Right Track with Big, Complex Games?

[Kung Sune]

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
While I will agree with you, I still say it's fun to watch a group of pilots as they progress in the game and run up scores and try to survive.

And a lot of folks thought it was fun to watch their opponent drive into a minefield..., but when AE reduced mine availability the complaints were minor.

The level of detail just seems to be schitzophrenic (sic) in many ways. Players who control production and national strategy just really shouldn't be dealing with individual pilots. Maybe draw the line at the TF and and command unit level. I mean Congress has to confirm Generals---but they don't get involved with Captains and Majors and such.

[Micke II]

ORIGINAL: Kung Sune

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.

I agree. Without WiTPTracker the great campaign for a normal japanese player is almost unplayable.
Perhaps a solution to improve the playability could be to link the WiTPTracker with the game itself making the information clickable from the map to WiTPTracker and reciprocally. Perhaps too complicate to make ?

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
While I will agree with you, I still say it's fun to watch a group of pilots as they progress in the game and run up scores and try to survive.

And a lot of folks thought it was fun to watch their opponent drive into a minefield..., but when AE reduced mine availability the complaints were minor.

The level of detail just seems to be schitzophrenic (sic) in many ways. Players who control production and national strategy just really shouldn't be dealing with individual pilots. Maybe draw the line at the TF and and command unit level. I mean Congress has to confirm Generals---but they don't get involved with Captains and Majors and such.

True. But you don't have to be able to move pilots around to enjoy watching them progress through the war. Personally, I haven't moved pilots around trying to optimize everything. I am not that much into micromanagement and in reality, just because someone is better suited to a certain job does not mean that the military will utilize him in that job. He will get used where he is needed, not best suited.

My only complaint on minefields is that the minelayers can be used once when they come online and once a year and a half later when you get enough mines to fill it up again. The british mines don't start production till 1943, but show up at the start of the war making them one-shot wonders that get used once and then relegated to the status of targets or achorage filler.

This game is not that difficult. Very complex, but it was easy for me to grasp. Easy to make mistakes, but still fairly easy to learn from them or discover what mistakes were made. The level of detail and sheer volume of data is staggering and perhaps a little daunting for most gamers, but those that spend a little time are rewarded with a game that will remain on their hard drives for a long time and provide countless hours of enjoyment.

As the gaming industry moves more toward visual blockbusters that test your hand-eye coordination over everything else, the more worried I become that the strategy games I like will become a thing of the past.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Micke II

ORIGINAL: Kung Sune

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.

I agree. Without WiTPTracker the great campaign for a normal japanese player is almost unplayable.
Perhaps a solution to improve the playability could be to link the WiTPTracker with the game itself making the information clickable from the map to WiTPTracker and reciprocally. Perhaps too complicate to make ?

Intellectual property rights?

[Grotius]

For me, the schizoid level-of-detail in AE is part of the fun, and I think it introduces more realism rather than less. Sure, we have to switch roles, but in any wargame worth its salt, that's a given. No one person made decisions about the entire Pacific theater; that decisionmaking was shared (or fought over!). Wargames almost always consolidate the "horizontal" dimension of decisionmaking so that many commanders of roughly equal rank become one omniscient player. But wargames routinely consolidate the "vertical" dimension too: if I play "Advanced Squad Leader", sometimes I make company-wide decisions, and sometimes I make decisions for an individual soldier. If I play "Fields of Fire" (a solitaire game designed by an active-duty Marine), I start by making a decision for the Battalion or Company HQ, and I work my way down the chain of command and eventually make decisions for a single infantryman. So it's nothing new that wargames put the player in multiple roles, both vertically and horizontally. In fact, it's unavoidable. The only question is to what extent does one drill down vertically?

For me, it's fun to plot grand strategy, but it's also rewarding to fuss with individual pilots, with altitudes, and with the efficient routing of cargo TFs. I like the detail. I want more of it.

[Canoerebel]

I'm deep into 1943 in my game and it's hard for my to step back and evaluate the game impartially.  I've been plagued by some bugs, bad luck, and bad play (IE, me) and that has affected my close-in view of the game.  When I (try) to step back and evaluate the over-all experience of AE, I can see that the game has been absorbing and a blast.  However, there is also a tedious aspect that I didn't find in WitP.  This is caused (or aggravated) by the increased amount of micromanagement and length of time needed to watch replays and to do turns.

I don't know that there could ever be a way to reach a consensus on which micromanagement is good and fun and which is tedious and should be tossed.  For instance, I enjoy port unloading restrictions and prepping units, but I detest worrying about TF commanders and pilots.  Yet it's apparent that many players enjoy the aspects that I don't.

As for games in general, I recall back in the '90s when our local mall got an Electronic Boutiques store.  The shelves were filled with "old-fashioned" turn-based, hex-based strategy games - among them the Talonsoft games (Civil War, TOAW, East Front, etc.)  After a few years, though, the strategy games completely disappeared.  In their place came roll-playing games, real-time games, X-Box, Play-Station, etc.  I've never touched any of those and doubt I ever will.  I grew up loving Avalon Hill board games and that's what I want to play on the computer - with the computer eliminating the tedious things like logistics and line-of-sight.

There will probably always be a niche for the AE kind of strategy game, but it will be a small one and therefore expensive.

[Ikazuchi0585]

i love the complexity, depth, and micro management of AE, dont want it to change either. This is comming from a new guy who 2 months ago had never heard of WITP. On of the things that instantly attracted me to the game was the immense scale. Although it is time- consuming, I never get frustrated that turns can reach into the hours. Thats what i love about it even if that means finishing a GC is unlikely. OTOH, my girlfriend hates the time i spend with my "new baby". At heart I'm a wargaming grognard, but I do love and find time to play my ps3 and console games.
But like JohnDilworth mentioned, there has to be games with this type of scope and detail developed.

i just wish there were more hours in the day so a couple of turns wouldnt take all day.

[bradfordkay]

"I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit..."

They did draw that line. IMO, pilot experience levels are quite important in this theatre of war - where the combination of air/sea/land was so very crucial. As mentioned above, you don't have to move your pilots around but you can do so if you wish. I also think that the game shows just how important the continued training of pilots was to their effectiveness in battle.

The commercial success of WITP/AE is explanation enough that there is a market for big, complex games. No one is forced to buy and play these games, but it is nice to know that there is at least one available for our enjoyment.

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Micke II

ORIGINAL: Kung Sune

For me the problem is presentation of information, not complexity itself. I bought the original WitP but could never enjoy it due to lack of information about what was going on. With AE (a more complex game), together with the wonderful tools WitPStaff and WitPTracker, I enjoy the game tremedously. I still have problems with the interface: excessive clicking and scrolling, combat reports hiding the map and needing scrolling to read etc, but this is minor. So I welcome more (relevant) complexity, but at the same time more user friendly interface and above all presentation of information needed to understand what is happening.

I agree. Without WiTPTracker the great campaign for a normal japanese player is almost unplayable.
Perhaps a solution to improve the playability could be to link the WiTPTracker with the game itself making the information clickable from the map to WiTPTracker and reciprocally. Perhaps too complicate to make ?

You don't need tracker or staff to play the Japanese, the info is all there and things like that make the game even more complex and take even more time. If you can not get through a turn in 10-15 after the replay then I think people are making it even more complex.

I guess I have never changed a ship commander in AE or Witp, I just change TF commanders on SF/CV tf's. The industry is easy to run once you get ships in place and have an idea what you want to bulid. The new indusrty interface makes this a breeze.

I found an easy of planning is to give an objective to plan for every new unit so it makes it easy when you start to move ground units and same with planes by assigning them a HQ.

I think playing the Allies is a lot more planning than pplaying the Japanese. After a few months game time Japan is really only moving resources and trying to plug the front lines where the allies strike.

[Takeshi]

I guess it makes me weird, but I love the micromanagement. I agree the UI leaves a lot to be desired. As others have pointed out there, are a lot of PC wargames out there that abstract or simplify much more of the detail but there is only one game like WitP-AE.

[Chris21wen]

I do find and always have found individual pilots a pain.   I never bothered with them in WitP and wouldn't in AE except that now I can send good ones too training.  As some one pionted out earlier why not included sgt, cpls for LCU or junior officer for ships.  Then you can micromanage ship and air unit upgrades but nothing in a LCU is micromanagable as far as upgrades go. 
 
I would like to see more consistancy over micromanagement but I could do wthout the individual pilots.
 
 
 

[Graymane]

To me it is all about the user interface and ease of use. With a good interface, you can hide all manner of complexity underneath.

[wpurdom]

     I enjoy the game. I loved TOAW too, that has similar attributes. The level of micromanagement possible in this game is one of the points that is supremely unrealistic. IRL, there is a large FOW about how your own side is doing. In WITP-AE, you know precisely and instantly the effect of battle on your own units, precisely their morale, supplies, casualties, combat effectiveness, number of planes, flying, skill levels of all leaders, etc. Well over 50% of the friction of war within your own side has been eliminated, and still there are complaints about the subordinates not following their orders with precision.

Contrast this to rea life. IRL you will have subordinates misrepresenting how they're doing, gung-ho leaders telling you their crapped out unit is unimpaired, timid CO's saying the opposite and misrepresenting their supply status, etc. Think of Patton doing his own thing in Sicily and France - how many days does it take to even figure out what he's doing if you're Eisenhower or Montgomery? You may lose control mementarily of an individual fleet co. in WITP, but at least you immediately know what he did.
IRL the commander's role, particularly with mass armies and WWII levels of communication and lack of computers, is to make simple, difficult judgments about the big picture and find competant subordinates to make the detailed plans. IRL a CO in Nimitz's or Yamamoto's position who attempted to do what we routinely do in WITP-AE would be an utter disaster.
    For all the fun chrome we added in AE (that I enjoy), we lost the ability to operate more realistically by taking a threater command and leaving the rest to the computer. (Not a criticism - probably required by the AI transformation). Every level of precision in control and information about your own side detracts from the realism of the simiulation. It's like having God as your aide de camp or 1,000 telepathic clones to command the Pacific War.

[Nikademus]

I feel that AE demonstrates the value of abstractness in computer wargaming. There is such a thing as too much detail, and too much micro-management. I've always loved detail but AE has been an education experience for me so my viewpoint has evolved as a result. I still like detail, but now I am more in favor of a balance between detail and playability. I stress the word "detail" vs. say "historical accuracy" because the two are not mutually exclusive. One can still have historical accuracy without ultra levels of detail that require, as Mike Scholl commented....for players to manage and pick their sgts along with individual pilots for an entire war zone the size of the Pacific conflict including mainland Asia and the USSR.

[Mynok]

I thought Victory Games Pacific War got the detail level just right for the War in the Pacific.

[JohnDillworth]

For me, the schizoid level-of-detail in AE is part of the fun

There is no way you could find sending an entire division on an amphibious assault and then have to have the motorized transport switch to strategic move mode, create another task force and then ship them by that task force to a port that is probably to small to unload them. That level of detail is silly. There is no point in that level of fragmentation. Realistic or not that is just an annoyance

[stuman]

When I want to hide my panzer in a bush......

I like that game also [:D]

[Feinder]

My 2 pfinnigs...

While I do appreciate ~some~ of the detail of the WitP AE, I think it over-all becomes a detriment (too much of a good thing as such). Even if you do want to spend the time managing every PT and pilot (that's not really the problem), we see issues on the "scalability" of the product. The much harrangued ground combat model is a great example. Is it cool that you can see every fricken LMG and and mortar in your division? Sure. But unfortunately, a minor error in representation or even if every device is correct, that aggregate of all the minutia working trying to work together is a model that leaves much to be desired. Furthermore, these scalability problems are also fundamental in some of the issues that plague the AI.

Whatever happend to "KISS". Every grognard knows "attack-defense-move, flak and maybe CD capabilty, and steps and modfiers".
Frankly I think something a bit more generic like (roughly)
Btn = 1 step
Rgt = 2 steps
Bde = 3 steps
Div = 6 steps (whatever, you get the point).

I don't care about every jeep in my division (much less having to produce them).

For production purposes, I get steps as reinforcements (or produced). Maybe separate Inf from Arm.
But I always thought in WitP and AE the ground model was too much emphasis on the minutia and when trying to scale up to the division, and esp by 1944/1945 you're working with entire Corps and Armies. Those kinds of "stacks" just don't produce realistic results. But you certainly can't blame the player for creating them, because even if you take the historic 6(?) divisions landing on Iwo, the model still doesn't reflect even that well.

Whatever. It doesn't matter. AE isn't going to change that. It's a fine game, but I do wish that esp in the case of an operation level game (that WitP and AE ultimately are) , that we could get "back to basics".

-F-

[John Lansford]

I like AE as much as anyone, but I feel like the developers got confused as to what kind of game they were trying to create.
 
Did they want a strategic level game, where TF's slugged it out with each other and divisions assaulted defended islands, and logistics and the build up of same was vital?  Or did they want an operational kind of game, where individual ship captains, pilots, the positioning of search arcs and the availability of torpedoes may mean the difference between victory and defeat?  Because, if you've got a strategic game the level of detail in AE is ridiculous, but if you've got an operational game trying to cover the entire Pacific Theater with that kind of detail is just too much for most players.