FYI: Alternate December 7th Start

[The Gnome]

Loved SFC! Never played multi-player. I quit playing each expansion for the same reason - awful AI. Really, really awful AI. The solution was built into the game: Just play multi, but I dislike it and won’t do it.

Oddly enough I play MMP games (Everquest, WWII Online) but really dislike it intensely for one-on-one strategy games. I wish I could supply you with the rhyme or reason of it but I just have a visceral dislike of it. I think one major reason is I'm super-duper competitive and it ceases to be relaxing for me when another person gets involved. Don't know.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Batch: I for one never have and in all probability never will play by email. Believe it or not there are still a large number of gamers that just want to play the computer.


I know the crazed PBEM cultists will come out and try to convert me but for a plethora of reasons it's not likely to happen. In fact I've never made a post regarding AI where at least one person has tried to show me the err in my ways.

A) Yes I know you have crazy fun with it and I'm missing out.
B) Yes I know the AI will never match a human.
C) Yes I know there are a lot of good chaps out there that PBEM

I'm just not interested. The PC is my way of getting *away* from people so anything that can be added to the single player version is great by me.

Edit note: The latter part of this message is directed at no one in particular. The message itself reads harsher than I wanted it to - sorry about that, got out of a hateful meeting at work and should know better than to post after those! . Just hate having to explain that I don't PBEM every time I bring up anything to do with AI.

I would have to say that what you refer to as "crazed PBEM cultists" are just people who
want to play an intricate simulation in a challanging environment. Those who play "on-
line" tend to be cultish, because unless you have a powerful machine and lightning fast
connection, your participation tends to slow down their play. But for turn-based games
with a lot of "meat", PBEM is the only answer unless you just like "beating up on the op-
position" as a tension release. I rather enjoy coming home and finding a "totally differ-
ent challange" waiting in the imbox. Grab a snack and a cold one, and sit down to deal
with a workload that doesn't involve "deadlines" and being "PC", and allows me to blow
something up. And you have the opportunity to toss thoughts and ideas and such to
your opponant as you are playing in the emails as well. An AI provides no such social
outlet for bragging/commisurating/bemoaning your fate/etc. But it is always there and
waiting for you. Just depends on what you are looking for...

[The Gnome]

I would have to say that what you refer to as "crazed PBEM cultists" are just people who want to play an intricate simulation in a challanging environment.

Not at all. What I refer to as "crazed PBEM cultists" are not those who only want to play an intricate simulation in a challenging environment. Those are PBEM players and all the power to them, I'm glad they're having a great time.

The cultists are those who will completely ignore the actual questions/comments regarding AI or single player functions by posting something insightful like "but a human is always more challenging than AI" or "PBEM is the only answer unless you just like "beating up on the opposition", implying the solitaire player is akin to a slack jawed rube.

Edit note: fixed a typo

[Nikademus]

Understand your position Gnome. I'm not much of a PBEM'er either. Mostly due to time constraints but also because when i sit down to play UV/WitP, i like to be a able to immerse myself into the game for a couple hours or more.

With PBEM play.....its often too "jilted" an experience for me. My average play-period has pretty much been the standard "1 turn per day" which litterally translates to "1 day in the war per day" The pace is thus too slow and the enjoyment lessens or at the very least, reduces the enjoyment of knowing i'm playing against an intelligent opponent which creates that air of uncertainy. For WitP......1 turn per day is as daunting a task as would be trying to PBEM "Bombing the Reich"

My PBEM compromise will be to play 2-day or 3-day turns with a willing opponent. That way even on a restricted schedule one can get reasonably into the war without having to actually relive the war one day at a time.

[Pascal_slith]

Hello,

Okay. To throw another rock into the pond:

Probably the biggest mistake the Japanese made in the attack on Pearl Harbor was NOT to attack the very visible fuel tank farm, which at the time contained 4.5 million barrels of bunker fuel. This was equivalent to 29 Cimarron class AO's worth of replenishment fuel. This would have been a much more serious loss for the Pacific Fleet than the battleships. Had the fuel been mostly lost, the fleet would have had to re-base to the West Coast.

So, does the opening move allow for a more focused Port attack by the Japanese on the Pearl Harbor fuel tank farm?

Regards

[mogami]

hi, Nope

[Pascal_slith]

well, that's a let down....[:(]

[Nikademus]

to expand on that, you can set your airgroups for City attack and damage PH's infrastructure. I'd really recommend attacking the airfields first though. Missing that opportunity to destroy so much of Pearl's airpower on the ground is not worth even reducing Pearl's fuel reserves.

Alternatively you can stage a third raid though the returns may not be as much to your liking compared to the additional plane losses you will suffer.

[mdiehl]

Incorrect on all counts.

1. Destroying much of the farm would have been a rather difficult task.
2. Repairing the farm would have been a rather easy task.
3. Refilling the farm would have been the biggest limitation, taking as much as a couple of months.
4. In the meantime, US ships could be serviced by tanker. Why rebase to California? Makes not the slightest sense when you consider the number of vessels served by AO and by ports in New Caledonia (which was in 1941 the middle of nowhere, only 1000 miles from East Boondocks in any direction). The alternative options for basing the Pacific fleet in the HI, besides PH, include many serviceable ports (IMO the first pick for a good "backup" port would be Hilo).

About all you could do in the short term is cut down on the number of BBs that could base at PH and be kept in a ready-fueled state.

Bombing the ships directly was the best choice for preventing PacFleet vessels from opposing the early-war Japanese expansion of the defensive permiter.

[bradfordkay]

There are some of us who would like PBEM, but are constrained by our life and work schedules. I have not responded to any of the "want to play me?" postings because of the qualifiers also listed (can't play more than 4 turns a week, don't even bother). I even asked an old college gaming buddy to give it a try and he was unwilling to play an occasional PBEM unless we did multi-day turns (something that I do not enjoy). I agree that with an opponent who cannot commit to more than a couple of turns a week the game will drag on forever, and so while I would like to try one, I have not attempted to set up a PBEM (aside from that request of an old friend).

I submit that many (most) players are in my boat - would like to PBEM but cannot afford the time involved. Playing the AI allows you to pick the game up whenever you can and ignore it when you don't have the time for it.

[Nikademus]

Hi Brad....

give multi turn PBEM a try....its a nice compromise and allows players to experience the dynamic of a human opponent

[Pascal_slith]

You should read not only the Pearl Harbor Attack Congressional investigation reports but also Nimitz's CINCPAC reports for the first 12 months of the war. And both Worrel's and Ballantine's books on logistics in the Pacific. These all support the importance of the tank farm. Sure, you could rebuild. But the loss of the fuel would have forced most of the PacFleet to the West Coast for lack of a close source. I'm sure you'll accept the judgement of the operational commanders of the time? [;)]

[Rendova]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Hello,

Okay. To throw another rock into the pond:

Probably the biggest mistake the Japanese made in the attack on Pearl Harbor was NOT to attack the very visible fuel tank farm, which at the time contained 4.5 million barrels of bunker fuel. This was equivalent to 29 Cimarron class AO's worth of replenishment fuel. This would have been a much more serious loss for the Pacific Fleet than the battleships. Had the fuel been mostly lost, the fleet would have had to re-base to the West Coast.

So, does the opening move allow for a more focused Port attack by the Japanese on the Pearl Harbor fuel tank farm?

Regards

Didn't the US start to use caves for fuel dumps near PH because of this (actually I think they still do)

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Pascal (in response to mdiehl )
I'm sure you'll accept the judgement of the operational commanders of the time? [;)]

Pascal, you must be new here. [:'(]

[bradfordkay]

Sorry, Nic... What I like about one day turns is that it gives me a better feeling of being the theatre commander. I get information on a dialy basis about the comings and goings within the theatre and I can change my units orders based upon that information - not that I always change orders on a daily basis (but I can). With multiday turns things can happen on that first day that would demand new orders, but you cannot give them until some time has passed - and often then too late. I'll stick to single day turns (and pray that I can talk my chum into an occaisional game).

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Rendova


Didn't the US start to use caves for fuel dumps near PH because of this (actually I think they still do)

Believe it was mentioned a short while ago that the Navy was building a large underground storage facility but that it was not completed at the time of the PH attack

[mogami]

Hi, The game is now in Beta. It is time to stop asking for new features and concentrate on how the game performs to design. This is not a game for persons interested in playing the War in 4 hours or a week. You have to accept the fact that it will take at least 6 months for 2 humans and 3 months against the AI. (really I'd plan on a year for PBEM. I have several UV games that are over a year old but have been enjoyable)
At some point the designers had to close the door to new features or the project would never end. Prehaps 10 years from now a larger game (12 hour turns on 20 mile hexes [X(] )

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Sorry, Nic... What I like about one day turns is that it gives me a better feeling of being the theatre commander. I get information on a dialy basis about the comings and goings within the theatre and I can change my units orders based upon that information - not that I always change orders on a daily basis (but I can). With multiday turns things can happen on that first day that would demand new orders, but you cannot give them until some time has passed - and often then too late. I'll stick to single day turns (and pray that I can talk my chum into an occaisional game).

exactly right....which is why i'd never do anything other than 1 day turns for solo play. However, because of the limitations of the AI and a desire to match wits with a human, i had to be willing to compromise, otherwise i'd face the daunting task of actually having to take as much time to play the long campaign, as was required for the real thing. That was my incentive to start a multi day AAR......to see how good or bad it was

To my, and my reluctant opponent's suprise.......we both found the experience quite enjoyable and within 4 weeks of play we were 6 months into the war.

Though i'm a micromanagement freak....have to admit, i found the FOW element introduced by the multi turn created an interesting level of suspense and unsurity for that very reason you menioned.....i could not adjust my forces day by day with instant percision but instead had to guess more and even use "retirement allowed" and "commander's discretion" because i couldn't assume the role of man on the spot.

led to some interesting and quite historical circumstances

[mogami]

Hi, The thought of multi day turns sends chills up my spine. I keep seeing damaged ships burning for 3 days before heading to a port 2 hexes away. (damaged ships are supposed to break off and head for port but still....)
Multi day turns make several mission type very risky. (too risky to use)
Because you can target bases currently out of range you can set CV airgroups to port/airfield attack and then switch the next turn to Naval attack. In multi day turns I would never try this.
I'm not in a hurry to finish the war. I'm more interested in getting it right.

[Nikademus]

2 day multi turns gave more flexible control than 3day. The former is what i'd probably choose though i'm not adverse to 3day either.

I dont agree about the "getting it right" comment because its subject to much interpretation. If the game truely "got it right", we, the players would be restricted to the role of a King or a Yamamotto and whether 1 day , 2 day or 3 day, all we'd be able to do is control things from the strategic and operational level, while the computer, representing the Fletchers, Nagumos, Ghormelys and Ozawas, plans the tactical ops and makes the onseen decisions. That would be pretty boring though [;)]

However WitP offers such a level of detail control that you can wear multiple hats. This is great for gameplay but it may not be quite as "historical" since you can fine tune day by day with a level of percision not avail to the operational/strategic commanders.

Not saying thats a bad thing....but i have found that less control can create it's own level of enjoyment and even, historical situations.

regardless....the main point for people like myself...who cant do 4-6 turns per day, and who want to play the main campaign in a reasonable amount of time, will need to look at multi day as an alternative