SLC = 15K VP?

[witpqs]

Mike, I think that assumption is faulty. It will be true to varying degrees for different people, and not true at all for some.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Mike, I think that assumption is faulty. It will be true to varying degrees for different people, and not true at all for some.

So you're saying that people buying a game called THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC really want a simulation of the battle of Gettysburg? [&:][&:]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Mike, I think that assumption is faulty. It will be true to varying degrees for different people, and not true at all for some.

So you're saying that people buying a game called THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC really want a simulation of the battle of Gettysburg? [&:][&:]

Honest discussion/argument I am often willing to participate in. Here... you know full well what you wrote is bunk. I am also confident you know that I mean the degree of historical fidelity. Bye.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Mike, I think that assumption is faulty. It will be true to varying degrees for different people, and not true at all for some.

So you're saying that people buying a game called THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC really want a simulation of the battle of Gettysburg? [&:][&:]

I don't disagree with you but check the post where someone recently asked whether there were plans for a random map generator. [X(]
(I think the responses were remarkably kind..)

[Rainer]

So you're saying that people buying a game called THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC really want a simulation of the battle of Gettysburg?

I can't speak for witpqs but it seems to be clear to me that a lot of people (me included) want to try
- 1. how they can cope with the challenge (either side)
- 2. try different approaches (say support McArthur more than Nimitz or vice versa)

That is to say, the FRAMEWORK is the same but the FLOW of events differs. Sometimes radically.
WitpAE does provide that experience.
Splendidly and marvelously.
No Gettysburg at all.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Rainer

crsutton:



It does not ruin the game.

It easily can ruin the game by encouraging the Japanese player to throw caution to the wind and try crazy things to achieve it. Then if it doesn't work, he quits on January 2nd, 1943. That ruins the game. [8|]

If so, that's a fault of the player, not the game.

+1

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Mike, I think that assumption is faulty. It will be true to varying degrees for different people, and not true at all for some.

So you're saying that people buying a game called THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC really want a simulation of the battle of Gettysburg? [&:][&:]

I don't disagree with you but check the post where someone recently asked whether there were plans for a random map generator. [X(]
(I think the responses were remarkably kind..)

You know Reg, I honestly don't have a problem with ANY of that. All I'm saying is that the basic game/scenario of a game titled THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC ahould be as accurate a simuation of that historical event as the designers can manage to create. After that the scenario makers can go wild making up all the nonsense they can dream up.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It easily can ruin the game by encouraging the Japanese player to throw caution to the wind and try crazy things to achieve it. Then if it doesn't work, he quits on January 2nd, 1943. That ruins the game. [8|]

So the nation so incautious as to start a war with another that had seven times its economic muscle could actually win by being cautious? News to me!

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Axis players start indebted to the Allied player. The Allied player has a right to expect to collect on that debt. Auto victory conditions encourage Axis players to weasel out on their debt repayment. They are the bane of any grand strategic game.

How regrettable it is that you can't have a nice WW2 wargame without having to engage one of those nasty Axis weasels as an opponent! Hans, for all I know you're a lovely man with whom I would be delighted to down a pint or two. However, if you invite me to join you in a game in which you require me to prostrate myself to your two-year long bombardment I'm going to decline, thanks all the same. Owe you a debt? Seldom heard such nonsense in my life!

From an Axis player's perspective, the real problem I have with Hans and Mike's posts is that they reveal the viewpoint that every game representing the Pacific War has to follow a script that is, more or less, pre-ordained. The insistence that in every respect all aspects of the opposing forces must be reproduced to the minutest degree of accuracy is but a short step from a call to re-enact the war that actually took place, blow by blow. No doubt the Allied player may derive satisfaction from such vicarious participation in 'the way it was', but he is likely to find himself short of candidates to play the Axis role.

Several times I have seen comments along the lines of 'We don't need no stinkin' victory conditions: both sides knew who really won.' However, I imagine that in most games that reach the point at which the Allies become preponderant the scores in terms of destroyed LCU's, ships and planes make it look as though the Japanese have been crushed, and that supplies a context in which the Axis player does desire an objective measure of whether he won or lost – as Moose says, 'most want the screen to say "You Won."' For that reason it is particularly refreshing to see Mike, who I usually associate with the Allied cause, displaying a readiness to lay out a range of weighting factors that might be used to help determine victory, even though he then returns to disparaging such an exercise because he KNOWS when he won!

Alfred makes the excellent point that no Allied player could object to a Japanese opponent shooting for and securing a 3:1 auto victory in 1944, so perhaps the simple way forward would be to implement a switch that excludes a 4:1 victory on 1 January 1943. Although that might allay the concerns of those Allied players who fear their opponent may only be in it for the short haul, I suspect there would still be Japanese players who, as Alfred suggests, bail out once the opportunity for easy tactical victories has passed – but that's something no set of victory conditions is ever going to cure.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It easily can ruin the game by encouraging the Japanese player to throw caution to the wind and try crazy things to achieve it. Then if it doesn't work, he quits on January 2nd, 1943. That ruins the game. [8|]

So the nation so incautious as to start a war with another that had seven times its economic muscle could actually win by being cautious? News to me!

How a player chosess to play is up to him/her..., but if they chose to play "fast and loose" seeking an "auto victory" they should at least have the decency to continue to the "bitter end" if they don't achieve it. I feel the current situation just encourages wild play coupled with an "Oh well, I didn't win..., want to play again?" attitude. I'm sure the real Japanese would have liked a "do over" after Midway..., but I'm also sure they didn't get one.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It easily can ruin the game by encouraging the Japanese player to throw caution to the wind and try crazy things to achieve it. Then if it doesn't work, he quits on January 2nd, 1943. That ruins the game. [8|]

So the nation so incautious as to start a war with another that had seven times its economic muscle could actually win by being cautious? News to me!

How a player chosess to play is up to him/her..., but if they chose to play "fast and loose" seeking an "auto victory" they should at least have the decency to continue to the "bitter end" if they don't achieve it. I feel the current situation just encourages wild play coupled with an "Oh well, I didn't win..., want to play again?" attitude. I'm sure the real Japanese would have liked a "do over" after Midway..., but I'm also sure they didn't get one.

Sorry, can't agree with you.

In effect you're saying that the Axis player must intend to grind it out over the long haul. Alternatively, if he fails to attain autovictory he must grind it out over the long haul. Unless, that is, you decide he hasn't been guilty of playing fast and loose. The implication is that a Japanese player is to be excoriated if he makes anything other than what you judge to be a cautious attempt to attain autovictory, and must be punished by allowing the Allied player to administer a sound thrashing for the next 2-3 years.

Are you expecting your opponent to seek prior approval for his play style: "Am I playing conservatively enough for you?" I call that rigging the game.

pace Moose, one man's "wild play" is another man's "desperate lunge for an unlikely victory". Who is to be the judge?

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel


So the nation so incautious as to start a war with another that had seven times its economic muscle could actually win by being cautious? News to me!

How a player chosess to play is up to him/her..., but if they chose to play "fast and loose" seeking an "auto victory" they should at least have the decency to continue to the "bitter end" if they don't achieve it. I feel the current situation just encourages wild play coupled with an "Oh well, I didn't win..., want to play again?" attitude. I'm sure the real Japanese would have liked a "do over" after Midway..., but I'm also sure they didn't get one.

Sorry, can't agree with you.

In effect you're saying that the Axis player must intend to grind it out over the long haul. Alternatively, if he fails to attain autovictory he must grind it out over the long haul. Unless, that is, you decide he hasn't been guilty of playing fast and loose. The implication is that a Japanese player is to be excoriated if he makes anything other than what you judge to be a cautious attempt to attain autovictory, and must be punished by allowing the Allied player to administer a sound thrashing for the next 2-3 years.

Are you expecting your opponent to seek prior approval for his play style: "Am I playing conservatively enough for you?" I call that rigging the game.

pace Moose, one man's "wild play" is another man's "desperate lunge for an unlikely victory". Who is to be the judge?

Do you speak English? I said "Play any way you want..., just don't quit if it doesn't work out the way you want." That's ALL I said. And the only thing I would ever "excorate" a player for. Stop setting up "straw dogs" and say what you really mean. You want to "play it your way", then quit if you don't like the result. That's what all the smokescreen your blowing above boils down to....