hi Joe
Hopefully matrix will add more reaction options so when you position a TF on reaction, either at sea or in port,you will be able to define the reaction range better.Hence if you dont react then you have fresh units for next week.If you do react and engage the enemy both sides will need to recover to refuel and rearm.CVs become very vunerable when AA ammo runs low.
If the TF is a supply convoy then it is probably a routine convoy anyway.They continue to cycle regardless of turn.
However in a strategic context your ships need down time in port regularly to repair the system damage you get from regular steaming.If you dont do this you are asking for trouble, even in UV
.BTW I think attention to aspects such as this in a game is a great feature of UV.
From a gamers point of view if you are penalised by this be consoled that your PBEM opponent is operating under the same conditions.If you play the computer it probably needs all the help it can get.
And lastly the game utilisation of ships always has a higher tempo than in real life anyway.
7 Day Turns
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
One further option could be to disband or maintain a TF when reaching port. At least if it has to spend 6 days in port it could get some rest - but it would be a pain to have to keep creating it.
Carriers could maybe have a rest aircraft when docked switch.
There could be alot of buttons!
Carriers could maybe have a rest aircraft when docked switch.
There could be alot of buttons!
So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I can see an option for 1 day turns, but I don't see it used much. Most people will find that it is just too redundantly boring to do micromanagement for 1000 turn games. It takes literally hours to plan a PacWar turn (7 day turn) and games 'rarely' run into 1944 due to tiring micromanagement. It would not harm anything to incorporate it, as it would be realitively easy to put in. However, the use of it will probably be minimal once you realize exactly what you are in store for.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I am not speaking for Matrix, nor do I REALLY know if it is easy, so don't jump on them if they do not.
Also, they are the ones who can best determine the gamespeed of the game. There can be countless reasons for them to not add the multiple turn speeds.
Input from the player is good, but that can lead to disaster when it is listened to too much and the game no longer resembles what they made it out to be, and turns into a jumble of options.
Also, they are the ones who can best determine the gamespeed of the game. There can be countless reasons for them to not add the multiple turn speeds.
Input from the player is good, but that can lead to disaster when it is listened to too much and the game no longer resembles what they made it out to be, and turns into a jumble of options.
Dont knock the original PacWar.Originally posted by jules
It´s easy to put in in !?
Then just do it !
Don´t give us a second PacWar with mega units/task forces struggling in mega battles without the influence of their real Commander in Chief : the player.
Until UV it was the BEST PBEM Pacific Theater game around. Peole still played it for years and years even though the interface came from the dark ages (when it was originaly written).
From your previous statement you dont like to command strategic in a strategic role so keep playing operational games.
What i want IS!! an updated PacWar,
another Grigsby masterpiece that will stand the test of time:D
I want a UV interface with the extra inputs that will allow the game to run well on a seven day cycle.
Bring on SUPER Pac War and call it WitP.!!!!!
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Dam*ed skippy. I'm one of those who has played it for years and will still play it for years, on its own merits, even after WITP becomes the 800-pound gorilla.Originally posted by shark
Dont knock the original PacWar.
Until UV it was the BEST PBEM Pacific Theater game around. Peole still played it for years and years even though the interface came from the dark ages (when it was originaly written).
From your previous statement you dont like to command strategic in a strategic role so keep playing operational games.
What i want IS!! an updated PacWar,
another Grigsby masterpiece that will stand the test of time:D
I want a UV interface with the extra inputs that will allow the game to run well on a seven day cycle.
Bring on SUPER Pac War and call it WitP.!!!!!
How come you're always right about stuff, Shark?
By the way (speaking of Grigsby masterpieces), do you know where I can get Carrier Force in something other than that awful Apple emulation version?
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
to shark
I´d like to command strategically (ressources, displacement of forces, production, use menpower to fight or to produce... like WIR or PacWar) with DIRECT impact on operations. That´s ( in my opinion) now possible in a computer game for such a huge scale (with automation options).
One example: I can easily disband all my APD as US in PacWar. In UV they are in my first line as supply vessels in heavily defended areas. But I should use them day(night) by day (night) ...
jules
One example: I can easily disband all my APD as US in PacWar. In UV they are in my first line as supply vessels in heavily defended areas. But I should use them day(night) by day (night) ...
jules
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
Dam*ed skippy. I'm one of those who has played it for years and will still play it for years, on its own merits, even after WITP becomes the 800-pound gorilla.
Hi Pasternakski
I dont think i could face that old interface and those##$^%**paths after playing UV. But if WitP becomes an unplayable monster i may have to.
Cant help with Carrier force
Dam*ed skippy. I'm one of those who has played it for years and will still play it for years, on its own merits, even after WITP becomes the 800-pound gorilla.
Hi Pasternakski
I dont think i could face that old interface and those##$^%**paths after playing UV. But if WitP becomes an unplayable monster i may have to.
Cant help with Carrier force
Re: to shark
hi JulesOriginally posted by jules
I´d like to command strategically (ressources, displacement of forces, production, use menpower to fight or to produce... like WIR or PacWar) with DIRECT impact on operations. That´s ( in my opinion) now possible in a computer game for such a huge scale (with automation options).
One example: I can easily disband all my APD as US in PacWar. In UV they are in my first line as supply vessels in heavily defended areas. But I should use them day(night) by day (night) ...
jules
The problem of lots of automated options are that they are like AI routines. hard to write and get correct and reliable . Adding lots of these is difficult as they have to be imbedded in the game to work well. On top of this the computer AI has to be able to use them.
Computer AI is the hardest thing to get right, especialy compared to Devious and calculating humans. This is after all why eventually most players end up playing PBEM and running the whole theater
UV is undoutably the core of WitP. I just hope the guys at matrix put in the routines that will make the game tailored to work well on 7 day cycles.
If they do this , it should not be hard to let people play on a one day cycle.
The reverse wont work.
1 day turns
Greetings, I don't think 1 day turns are a problem. The Japanese player will have the first 6 months of operations already planned before making turn 1. (I hope so otherwise he is going to go down the tubes in record time.) The Allies will have limited means during this period and will no doubt commit them where they feel most threatened. After the first 6 months (the southern resource area period) Japan will have to place most of the fleet back in port for a period to refit. They do not have that large an airforce where it becomes a problem. Operations will only be taking place in 2 location (India/Burma-and South Pacific) While any Central Pacific operation would have a major impact they would not require or effect many locations (2 opposing carrier TF's one of them accompanied by transport TF )
The allied Island hopping campaign will once again be focused and not spread out. Of the 1000+ turns a large number will not actually have any combat in more then 2 or 3 places on any given day. Throw in weather and many days will pass quickly.
The game will require time in between turns to decide what course to take. And the Japanese player will need to spend quite a bit before he ever touches the keyboard.
The allied Island hopping campaign will once again be focused and not spread out. Of the 1000+ turns a large number will not actually have any combat in more then 2 or 3 places on any given day. Throw in weather and many days will pass quickly.
The game will require time in between turns to decide what course to take. And the Japanese player will need to spend quite a bit before he ever touches the keyboard.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
My pbem partner this morning announced that he is pulling out of all of his games due to a life change. This was after 2 months of play. My point is that 1,000 turns would take me 3 years to play - what are the chances of anyone actually finisihing a game?
I for one will need 7 day turns for any hope of completion.
Chris
I for one will need 7 day turns for any hope of completion.
Chris
So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
Two months of real time or two game months?Originally posted by jive1
My pbem partner this morning announced that he is pulling out of all of his games due to a life change. This was after 2 months of play.
What gmae was it? UV?
Maybe someone else will takeover for him so your game can continue. (Assuming he didn't drop out due to hopless circumstances, in which case you won).
7-day turns can be an OPTION, as they are now in UV, but they shouldn't be the default. Besides, TCP/IP will go much faster than PBEM (and you can taunt your opponent over voice chat in real time )
Yamamoto
Against the AI, I prefer to use Continous but H2H I prefer 3 or 4 day turn length.
As for the full length campaign, I suspect few players will complete a campaigh H2H simply because it will take so long.
Even at a 7 day turn length it will still take 180 turns or thereabouts.
But I am still looking forward to it.
As for the full length campaign, I suspect few players will complete a campaigh H2H simply because it will take so long.
Even at a 7 day turn length it will still take 180 turns or thereabouts.
But I am still looking forward to it.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Re: 7 Day Turns
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jive1
Having a button either globally or on a squadron level to allow it to rest when fatigue hits a player defined level or player defined weather condition would be a great help. When the condition no longer applied the aircraft could then resume their previous mission. (This would also be a great addition to UV
Chris
jive1,
I agree 110%!!!!!:D
I think with multi-day turns a player needs to have some ability to define the operational parameters he wants a squadron to fly by. In UV with daily turns a player can do this himself. But with multi-day turns this isn't possible and you're stuck with the program sending off attacks when the weather is bad or the squadrons fatigued. This is the biggest drawback to playing multi-day turns in UV for me and don't.
I would like to see a button for weather tolerance and for fatigue tolerance. If the global weather is worse than the setting the planes don't fly, if the fatigue is above a certain level the planes won't fly. This would make WitP's multi-day turns much more playable and less frustrating. Nothing worse than seeing planes go off on an attack during bad weather and get bad results and then have a clear day pop up and have the planes sitting recovering from the previous day's poor-weather attack. Except maybe watching a bunch of squadrons operating several days in a row when they're too pooped to pop and they just get slaughtered.
Eric Larsen
Having a button either globally or on a squadron level to allow it to rest when fatigue hits a player defined level or player defined weather condition would be a great help. When the condition no longer applied the aircraft could then resume their previous mission. (This would also be a great addition to UV
Chris
jive1,
I agree 110%!!!!!:D
I think with multi-day turns a player needs to have some ability to define the operational parameters he wants a squadron to fly by. In UV with daily turns a player can do this himself. But with multi-day turns this isn't possible and you're stuck with the program sending off attacks when the weather is bad or the squadrons fatigued. This is the biggest drawback to playing multi-day turns in UV for me and don't.
I would like to see a button for weather tolerance and for fatigue tolerance. If the global weather is worse than the setting the planes don't fly, if the fatigue is above a certain level the planes won't fly. This would make WitP's multi-day turns much more playable and less frustrating. Nothing worse than seeing planes go off on an attack during bad weather and get bad results and then have a clear day pop up and have the planes sitting recovering from the previous day's poor-weather attack. Except maybe watching a bunch of squadrons operating several days in a row when they're too pooped to pop and they just get slaughtered.
Eric Larsen
burning bridges
I dont have a problem with an "option" for 7-day turns, just as in UV, as i can see the merit of PBEM'ers who want to be able to play an accelerated game of WitP without having to take as long a period as the war that was actually fought. (shades of the 700 turn BtR)
However i would not like to see this as a default or the only option.
Why? GGPW was an awesome game, but eventually i found that the weekly turns there became way too cumbersome when it came to exploring the intricancies of managing offensive or defensive drives.
In other words, the weekly turns worked fine until one began to actually commit forces or implement strategies.
I found that knocking bases or at least softening them up proved impossible because the week-length turns allowed bases to become fully operational again before one moved in with their forces
More importantly it proved impossible to conduct attrition attacks against airbases or more importantly, conduct late-war type "plane raid" missions where a powerful carrier TF might hit many base areas used as staging points to shuttle in reinforcements to bases targeted for invasion. One really couldn't produce a 'hole' in the air defences as a result, the only option being to bring overwhelming air forces into the hex "at the time" of the invasion" vs preparing beforehand
It proved impossible to blitz key targeted areas unless one was willing to take 2 weeks to a month to conduct the operation etc etc.
I could go on but eventually the overall feeling i got from PW was that of "clunkiness" Various offensive stages of an operation had to be done all at the same time (Carrier TF hits base........'softening up/attack/counter-attack/repeat' all occuring at once....then the bombardment phase.....then the landing phase....then the land resolution phase....then (if any) a reaction by an enemy TF phase) Sure it was a fun show in the begining but eventually for me at least, it left an unsatisfactory taste in my mouth. I felt more like a spactator rather than a participant and doubts would enter my mind as to how things were being resolved as due to the necessary meshing of all the elements of the attacker and defender into one single turn....i couldn't see how it all came down
In other words, I couldn't see the tree in the forest.
I have also tried, just to see how it worked, 7-day turn options in UV. The one experience was enough to put me back on 1-day turn options.
So my humble suggestion is to simply leave the model well enough alone as presented in UV, since UV already portrayed the solution, one that satisfies everyone. Leave the 1-day option in, and leave the 7 day option in.
A 7-day only default setting would be a grave mistake IMO and one that, for me at least, would jeperdise my purchase of the finished product.
However i would not like to see this as a default or the only option.
Why? GGPW was an awesome game, but eventually i found that the weekly turns there became way too cumbersome when it came to exploring the intricancies of managing offensive or defensive drives.
In other words, the weekly turns worked fine until one began to actually commit forces or implement strategies.
I found that knocking bases or at least softening them up proved impossible because the week-length turns allowed bases to become fully operational again before one moved in with their forces
More importantly it proved impossible to conduct attrition attacks against airbases or more importantly, conduct late-war type "plane raid" missions where a powerful carrier TF might hit many base areas used as staging points to shuttle in reinforcements to bases targeted for invasion. One really couldn't produce a 'hole' in the air defences as a result, the only option being to bring overwhelming air forces into the hex "at the time" of the invasion" vs preparing beforehand
It proved impossible to blitz key targeted areas unless one was willing to take 2 weeks to a month to conduct the operation etc etc.
I could go on but eventually the overall feeling i got from PW was that of "clunkiness" Various offensive stages of an operation had to be done all at the same time (Carrier TF hits base........'softening up/attack/counter-attack/repeat' all occuring at once....then the bombardment phase.....then the landing phase....then the land resolution phase....then (if any) a reaction by an enemy TF phase) Sure it was a fun show in the begining but eventually for me at least, it left an unsatisfactory taste in my mouth. I felt more like a spactator rather than a participant and doubts would enter my mind as to how things were being resolved as due to the necessary meshing of all the elements of the attacker and defender into one single turn....i couldn't see how it all came down
In other words, I couldn't see the tree in the forest.
I have also tried, just to see how it worked, 7-day turn options in UV. The one experience was enough to put me back on 1-day turn options.
So my humble suggestion is to simply leave the model well enough alone as presented in UV, since UV already portrayed the solution, one that satisfies everyone. Leave the 1-day option in, and leave the 7 day option in.
A 7-day only default setting would be a grave mistake IMO and one that, for me at least, would jeperdise my purchase of the finished product.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Yeah. What Nikademus said.
I hope that all who favor 7-day turns get that option and find a way to be happy with it. I doubt that I ever could be, PBEM or against the AI.
And please don't blame the game if your playing partner commits coitus interruptus on you.
I hope that all who favor 7-day turns get that option and find a way to be happy with it. I doubt that I ever could be, PBEM or against the AI.
And please don't blame the game if your playing partner commits coitus interruptus on you.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I personally feel that 1/2 or 1 week turns are the most realistic, but having 1 day turns won't bug me much. PBEM games will probably be forced to run at a set number of days per turn, so they will be set at 1 day, 1/2 week or 1 week (or other combo) turns at the beginning.
I never had any problem with 1 week turns in Pacific War, it just meant that you had to plan for a lot of contingencies, a lot of things to happen, within that one turn. I did not find it too difficult keeping track of everything, and would have found it impossible (just like they did back when they were developing the game in 1992) to have the game run on 1 day turns.
I love another wargame, called Combat Mission. It has a turn based system, where you give your troops/vehicles orders, then the game ran for 'real time' for 1 minute where all that you did was watch. Many people freaked over this (they did actually freak) and said that not controlling their troops every second would be maddening. However, this required a lot of planning and thinking to go into each one of your turns, as you knew full well that it is not up to you to dictate every little movement of your tank, but have to rely on the quality of your crews and troops in order to win the day as well as your ability to command. It was an adrenaline rush every time you hit the end of turn key in a PBEM game, to see wether or not your orders will lead to disaster or to victory. It resulted in a very good, and very fun game, which still gives me that feeling of fear every turn I send out.
Don't write off the 7 day turns, as they are manageable and lead a lot to requiring you to be a very good stragetic commander, to anticipate things that may happen in the next 7 days without the ability to immediately stop the action and change the direction of your TF's to meet a new threat. I bet Nimitz would have LOVED that option during Leyte Gulf to direct Halsey back to the real fight.
I never had any problem with 1 week turns in Pacific War, it just meant that you had to plan for a lot of contingencies, a lot of things to happen, within that one turn. I did not find it too difficult keeping track of everything, and would have found it impossible (just like they did back when they were developing the game in 1992) to have the game run on 1 day turns.
I love another wargame, called Combat Mission. It has a turn based system, where you give your troops/vehicles orders, then the game ran for 'real time' for 1 minute where all that you did was watch. Many people freaked over this (they did actually freak) and said that not controlling their troops every second would be maddening. However, this required a lot of planning and thinking to go into each one of your turns, as you knew full well that it is not up to you to dictate every little movement of your tank, but have to rely on the quality of your crews and troops in order to win the day as well as your ability to command. It was an adrenaline rush every time you hit the end of turn key in a PBEM game, to see wether or not your orders will lead to disaster or to victory. It resulted in a very good, and very fun game, which still gives me that feeling of fear every turn I send out.
Don't write off the 7 day turns, as they are manageable and lead a lot to requiring you to be a very good stragetic commander, to anticipate things that may happen in the next 7 days without the ability to immediately stop the action and change the direction of your TF's to meet a new threat. I bet Nimitz would have LOVED that option during Leyte Gulf to direct Halsey back to the real fight.