The art of "averaging out"

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: ckammp


Your link goes to WitP, not AE. I specifically asked about AE.

Try to focus on the correct game, okay?
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

AE was built upon WitP. In fact originally WitP was going to be required - partly because AE was even more detailed than it's predecessor.

You're in a deep hole. Stop digging.

Perhaps you and mdiehl should actually read the product page for AE. It is described as a game 5 different time, nowhere is it called a Consim. On the same page, WitP is also called a game, not a Consim.

Your only quote about AE is that it is in, in fact a game?

The only ones with their heads in a hole, afraid to admit the truth, are you and mdiehl.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Lets go back to the basics.
A wargame is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations, or consims for short. When used professionally to study warfare, it is generally known as a military exercise or war game. Note that hobby wargamers have traditionally run the two words together, but the military has generally kept them separate; it is not a hard and fast rule, however. Although there may be disagreements as to whether a particular game qualifies as a wargame or not, a general consensus exists that all such games must explore and illuminate or simulate some feature or aspect of human behaviour directly bearing on the conduct of war, even if the game subject itself does not concern organized violent conflict or warfare.[1] The business wargames exists too, but in general they are only role playing games based on market situations.
Based on the award winning War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games and Matrix Games, the standalone expansion, Gary Grigsby’s War in the Pacific - Admiral’s Edition, adds significant improvements and changes to the original title to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition is the most realistic and engrossing WWII Pacific theatre game available. The immense scale is 40 miles per hex with losses covering individual vehicles, aircraft, guns and squads. Since half the planet Earth is covered by the titanic Pacific struggle, the game is massive in scope, covering thousands of ships tens of thousands of aircraft.

WitP:AE is more than just a game.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: Shark7



I play WiTP:AE to relax and have fun, there for it is a game, period. No matter what anyone else wants to call it, I'm not running a sim to see if carrier Akagi is sunk at Midway 99 out of 100 times, I'm playing simply to have fun. It's a game. [:)]

I think if everyone would remember why they are playing instead of trying to define what they are playing we'd all be happier. [:)]


Bully for you. Not everybody is you. Some people have higher expectations from a $100 historical wargame.

You'd be satisfied with AE 1.0 or even AE beta. Thank goodness the AE team didn't sit on their laurels.




Well I'm sorry for you then. And here is a suggestion, since it appears you are not enjoying the game then perhaps its best if you find one that you do enjoy. And I play the current ongoing beta of the game, just because I consider it a game doesn't mean I don't want it to be better. The difference is simple: It is a game, I do not expect it to play like a 100% realistic simulation. I don't want a replay of WWII in the Pacific, I can watch news reels and get that.

You see I do expect a lot from a game I spent nearly $100 for. I expect it to be fun and re-playable, not for it to be so much work and micro-management that I feel like I'm back at the office.

It seems some people here want to have to figure every gallon of fuel they use or figure out the logistics of supplying the beans, bullets and gas of a fully equipped unit in the field. Most of us don't. I know for me the generic supply and fuel points work just fine...it simulates it without being monotonous. And I get the feeling if you had to track every round of .45 calibre ammo, some of the grognards would still not be satisfied for one reason or another. Basically some people are just never satisfied.

Most people play this game to enjoy some down time, not to end up with a second accounting job. Speaking of which, arguing over this is not conducive to fun either, so I think this is my last comment on it. So my closing thought is either you enjoy the game or you don't. I'm one of those that does.

Have a nice day. [:)]
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: Shark7



I play WiTP:AE to relax and have fun, there for it is a game, period. No matter what anyone else wants to call it, I'm not running a sim to see if carrier Akagi is sunk at Midway 99 out of 100 times, I'm playing simply to have fun. It's a game. [:)]

I think if everyone would remember why they are playing instead of trying to define what they are playing we'd all be happier. [:)]


Bully for you. Not everybody is you. Some people have higher expectations from a $100 historical wargame.

You'd be satisfied with AE 1.0 or even AE beta. Thank goodness the AE team didn't sit on their laurels.




Well I'm sorry for you then. And here is a suggestion, since it appears you are not enjoying the game then perhaps its best if you find one that you do enjoy. And I play the current ongoing beta of the game, just because I consider it a game doesn't mean I don't want it to be better. The difference is simple: It is a game, I do not expect it to play like a 100% realistic simulation. I don't want a replay of WWII in the Pacific, I can watch news reels and get that.

You see I do expect a lot from a game I spent nearly $100 for. I expect it to be fun and re-playable, not for it to be so much work and micro-management that I feel like I'm back at the office.

It seems some people here want to have to figure every gallon of fuel they use or figure out the logistics of supplying the beans, bullets and gas of a fully equipped unit in the field. Most of us don't. I know for me the generic supply and fuel points work just fine...it simulates it without being monotonous. And I get the feeling if you had to track every round of .45 calibre ammo, some of the grognards would still not be satisfied for one reason or another. Basically some people are just never satisfied.

Most people play this game to enjoy some down time, not to end up with a second accounting job. Speaking of which, arguing over this is not conducive to fun either, so I think this is my last comment on it. So my closing thought is either you enjoy the game or you don't. I'm one of those that does.

Have a nice day. [:)]

Who says I'm not enjoying the game? It may have taken years but this game engine is finally worthy of the time I spend on it. I'm happy precisely because my higher expectations are being met. For example: I couldn't "simply have fun" when I put DDs on ASW duty only to have them blasted out of the water by uber subs. Thanks to the devs concern for realism this wargame continues to improve its take on WW2 Pacific naval combat. Kudos to them.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Wow. Talk about your basic semantic harisplitting evasiveness.

Yes. Almost as though we-more specifically you-were contributing 50% of the posts on this thread in a quest to argue a 'game' versus a 'comsim'. Hairsplitting AND hijacking, mdiehl. You've made your point-whatever it may be-now can we please let the poor OP flesh out the discussion he originally intended?

@ mdiehl-clearly you feel very passionately about this topic. I know I've heard you argue it before. Many times. Perhaps you can start a thread on the forum and 'bump' it whenever you wished to argue your position on the game vs. sim argument?
Image
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by oldman45 »

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 3 pages [8D]
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 3 pages [8D]

And yet the burning issue of bear markets and Kondratieff long term cycles remain unaddressed. Some people have no prespective on the things which really matter.[:)]

Alfred
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 3 pages [8D]

And yet the burning issue of bear markets and Kondratieff long term cycles remain unaddressed. Some people have no prespective on the things which really matter.[:)]

Alfred
Like spelling? [:'(]
Image
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Alfred »

I was merely being prescient.[:D]

Alfred
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by mdiehl »

Hairsplitting AND hijacking, mdiehl.

Incorrect on both counts. The claim was made that one cannot base a model on a limited number of historical data points. I refuted that claim. The claim was subsequently made by someone else that the game isn't intended to model historically plausible outcomes. Others, and I as well, refuted that claim as well. Perhaps you have a short attention span, or merely you lack reading comprehension skills, that you missed entire the posts to which I and others were responding.
You've made your point-whatever it may be-now can we please let the poor OP flesh out the discussion he originally intended?

You won't hear me mention it again unless someone again claims that it's a game, not a consim, or unless some wingnut says "if you wanted historical plausibility, read a book." If you don't like it when I refute bullshit, don't post bullshit.
Perhaps you can start a thread on the forum and 'bump' it whenever you wished to argue your position on the game vs. sim argument?

Nawp. I'm doing fine in this thread. Thanks just the same.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

Erm...wow. I note, discussion is not over yet... [X(][&:][:D]
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Hairsplitting AND hijacking, mdiehl.

Incorrect on both counts. The claim was made that one cannot base a model on a limited number of historical data points. I refuted that claim. The claim was subsequently made by someone else that the game isn't intended to model historically plausible outcomes. Others, and I as well, refuted that claim as well. Perhaps you have a short attention span, or merely you lack reading comprehension skills, that you missed entire the posts to which I and others were responding.
You've made your point-whatever it may be-now can we please let the poor OP flesh out the discussion he originally intended?

You won't hear me mention it again unless someone again claims that it's a game, not a consim, or unless some wingnut says "if you wanted historical plausibility, read a book." If you don't like it when I refute bullshit, don't post bullshit.
Perhaps you can start a thread on the forum and 'bump' it whenever you wished to argue your position on the game vs. sim argument?

Nawp. I'm doing fine in this thread. Thanks just the same.
Sorry, mdiehl. I tried. Not interested in your retread arguments any longer. Green button.
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10853
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Sorry, mdiehl. I tried. Not interested in your retread arguments any longer. Green button.
+1
Yeah, think it time.
Pax
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by mdiehl »

Sorry, mdiehl. I tried. Not interested in your retread arguments any longer.


You tried to be an insulting jerk. Congrats, you succeeded.

Green button.


Thank heaven for small miracles.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Sorry, mdiehl. I tried. Not interested in your retread arguments any longer. Green button.
+1
Yeah, think it time.


Green button is your friend. [:)]
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Sorry, mdiehl. I tried. Not interested in your retread arguments any longer. Green button.
+1
Yeah, think it time.


Green button is your friend. [:)]

Sure is. [:)]
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”