Changes to game

[Twotribes]

Please don't make changes just cause someone wants you too. I have seen games ruined for me at least by players demanding changes and the programmer caving to their demands. Reasoned change is ok but I like what I see so far and being very conservative hate change for no other reason then it "feels" good.

[Barthheart]

+100

[Franciscus]

Yep, agreed

[mroyer]

Also agreed.

Some change is good and some is bad. Some change is essential and some is inconsequential.
The trick is careful, deliberate evaluation to separate good/essential from bad/inconsequential.

-Mark R.

[gwgardner]

+1

[sol_invictus]

It seems that Alvaro is taking the appropriate course by considering suggestions but thinking about any ramifications and testing them first. He certainly isn't making changes on a whim just because someone made a post.

[elmo3]

No wargame design survives contact with the enemy, uhm I mean the customers....[;)]

[AlvaroSousa]

I take down suggestions. I discuss them with my top beta testers. I try to expand all the ramifications of the implementation of them.

It is nice to see a post from all of you on this subject though calling for DON'T change. My premise is that if I see two sides arguing an issue and I don't find an issue with it then the item is pretty balanced.

When there is only 1 side then I know something is wrong.
When my math is wrong there is something wrong.
When I noticed I don't use a function something is wrong. Like we will have a BB change for advancements because it was pointed out no one is using the Large Warships advancement and I agreed because I never used it either. But with the splitting of the WW1 and WW2 type historical battleships I can make that a functional tech.

Some other things like the supply system, winter effects, and partisans the beta testers and myself think are correct. It is a matter of learning how to play the game better.

I look at the AARs and try to determine skill levels of players and strategies. Even in Beta I did. One thing I noticed that there are many ways to approach the game and counter your opponent.

Some things I noticed....

If you are constantly short on oil.... you might be building too many oil dependent units and not leveraging them correctly.
If you are constantly short on manpower... you are making too many low odds attacks.
If you are short on logistics... you are building too many fancy high logistic units.
If you are having partisan problems... you don't have enough units in key locations.

It's really interesting see players play in varying styles from my own. I learned some things and had to balance others.

The real results will be seen over time as hundreds of games are played and feedback given.

[sfbaytf]

Its been suggested the one thing missing is a "soul". I would suggest looking at how Decisive Campaigns Barbarrossa handles it. The use of cards that influence the game is very, very well done. I think just outright borrowing (pirating) the system is something that would be a very good addition not only to Warplan, but the upcoming Pacific version.

Games like War in the Pacific and most other Pacific games just never feel right. Don't get me wrong I love Witp, but games, especially PBEM are just outright formulaic. Any competent Japanese player forms the navy into Kiito Buto -a giant death start and rampages in the early going.

The use of the same system like Decisive Campaigns Barbarrossa could do much to bring a soul into WP.

Many reviewers have commented that in General Eastern Front games, just don't feel right, but Decisive Campaigns does. There were reasons why the Eastern Front was the way it was as was the Pacific Theater and Decisive Campaigns cards system could simulate that as well as give realistic historical alternatives without becoming ridiculous. In any case you have the option to just play without them if you so choose.

[AlbertN]

For the manpower part I feel the game game'd me.
Whereas I had no priority in upgrade / replacement, the game simply upgraded everything first no matter what, replacing 0 when manpower was like at 99% - so had many turns of wasted manpower. I've not asked for a manpower change.

But the strategic bombing that is unstoppable and 39-41 Allied air dominance must be sorted. The production loss for Germany compromises the game by how I see it, between aerial losses to be replaced that are insane, and the strategic bombing (Reiterating Uk bomber gone from the start, and its range lowered, they'll gain range through techs, in due time).

Oil is too low for Axis, sorry. It's not about building fancy units. It's simply too low. Or the cost of units too high.
How much Axis gains a turn? A variable but let's say 70-80 at some point (barring bombing).
Subtract 30ish of unkeep once you're in total war. (units out of rail, passive units sticking there). So, net, 40 oil.
That's like averagely 20 unit usages if not less.
Move panzer, pay 1, attack with panzer, pay 2, add bomber to attack, pay 2-3, fighter escorting, 1 more! Oh! I've made 1 proper attack, and dang, 20-25% of my per turn oil is gone.
It's math, and it is not confutable.

[Rosseau]

I just change what I want, and I'm happy. But that doesn't work for multiplayer, obviously. So yes, real challenges in getting the balance right. Look at all the tweaking for WitE, and I'm sure some are still not happy.

[TrogusP96]

Well maybe research time should be 365 days per advancement. The research success chance is 56%. what does this mean?
The upgraded units cost 20% more than their predessor. I like this as shows economies for sticking with older model. But I supposed the cost of techs underconstruction could diminish. Also, the number tanks in armor and panzer units continued to shrink as the war progressed except maybe SS and British Armoured Brigades. It seems the starting tech for certain unit types or techs that are mixee tech and doctrine like Breakthrough should be pre 1939 for certain units. The French Army was a mix of low quality reservists and better motorized and colonial troops? The pieces have a sameness that diminishes the national differences? although as the war progressed their was some convergence. The US perhaps should be the same across the board and maybe the UK. I guess their are the national effectiveness ratings, which I think is a great feature.

[TrogusP96]

Maybe its the mixture of national differences for land units but then each side has the capacity to build the same ships and planes which just wasn't so. The German Luftwaffe was not conceived as a strategic force yet they can start with 4 engine bombers right away with a one year delay on tech. The Allies can never catch up on effectiveness. Someone said stick with the vision in another thread - so what is it. So the allies are given a jump on the Strategic Advancement.

[TrogusP96]

Print games change but printing limits the ability to change. Man oh man board gamers have "house rules" all the time some become rules or options in subsequent editions, maps and counters change. On the surface computer games seem imminently more flexible.

[tyronec]

Its been suggested the one thing missing is a "soul". I would suggest looking at how Decisive Campaigns Barbarrossa handles it. The use of cards that influence the game is very, very well done. I think just outright borrowing (pirating) the system is something that would be a very good addition not only to Warplan, but the upcoming Pacific version.

I bought Decisive Campaigns after reading a good review but didn't like the game at all. The cards system seemed kind of random, maybe a way to simulate history but not great for a game that you play multiple times because over time you would just learn what the cards do and it is not random any more.
Also read the review that said Warplan lacked 'soul', but this is a great game.
Guess we all have our preferences.

[raxulus2]

You are right Alvaro.
We have to do with the balance, fuel, manpower, partisans etc...
And that's the challenge.
You have made choice on the design and for my own I think you do the good ones.
Of course some tweaks may be done and the patches are doing these.
One more time thanks for the game.
I am playing wargames for a very long time I am 63,(remember AH ans SPI, or SSI games) and Warplan is a very good one.
Keep going on and if a Pacific version is possible I'll buy a copy.
Thanks
[:)]
[:)][:)]
[:)][:)][:)]

[Almeron]

I belive this game if fine. Of course there are some bugs, and balance changes needed, but overall, the developers did a great job. It's not overcomplicated, clean, and relative fast. I've spend 15-20+ hours with this game, and I enjoed.
My only issue, with this game is the debatable U-boot, and research system, but owerall I could live with them as well.

[ago1000]

++Agree. Game is great. Thank you to all. Developers, testers and Alvaro for your hard work and dedication to the game and continued presence to help tweak it.. Much appreciated. Love playing it and will continue to do so for a long time. (or at least until my better half tells me to get off the computer. lol)

[AlvaroSousa]

Everyone is very welcome and I am super please you all like it.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Also read the review that said Warplan lacked 'soul', but this is a great game.

Yes me too and I do not understand this remark honestly. Is it because there is no MS.406, no Sd.Kfz.222 or Sherman Firefly?
I think it is your imagination that brings "soul" to a game.

Alvaro, I have bought the game only recently. I criticized the game map and I continue. But other than that, this is really a good and fun game.

Enjoying it! (My wife not really [:)]).