KEEP IT SIMPLE

A_Master · Post by **A_Master** » Fri May 12, 2000 9:33 pm

First, I have to admit I still play the original PW (with patch). I tend to dust if off around the end of December. It's a great game if you understand what's going on. Without the computer gaming world pacific war issue, the game would be near un-playable. Friends of mine still find it un-playable as many factors are undocumented or don't appear the be reasonable.
Fleet, Air and base commanders should be explained in detail. Putting a high air rated commander in charge of a carrier should mean something, the same goes for a ground general for troops. Command points, base theater control, supplies, subs etc... need to be explained and simplified. Also a task force of four carriers within range of spotted other enemy carriers must attack with all aircraft. In the original game, I've had only one of four carrier's airplanes go after the japs, this cannot be allowed to happen in the remake. Fleet actions could be broken down to sub phases when they occur. In a week, a lot could happen. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Easy self explanatory logical menus. Keep clicks down to the minimum. Make it FUN. Know your audience. DON'T, DON'T, DON'T make it real time. Too many strategy games die due to this. Play test. Play test, Play test. Don't just see if the game runs and doesn't crash, try different strategies, like the japs invading Hawaii etc... to see how the AI react. I've noticed in the original, if the Americans take rabul early, the japs spend the remainder of the game trying to retake. Developers, game designers need to know what the AI objectives are and alternatives. Looking forward for updates.

Cheers.....
Howard

------------------

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Sat May 13, 2000 8:59 am

Great post, A_Master.

I strongly agree that commanders should
have a powerful influence on the performance of the forces under
their command. If I have a commander that is highly skilled in
leading a certain type of combat force into battle, then I should get
a significant bonus in combat results if I match him up with the
kind of soldiers that he is adept at leading. Maybe even a bit of a
spotting chance bonus on enemy task forces for good air commanders.

What's the point of having all these great commanders if they don't
do you a lot of good to have around?

And I also agree about the interface. It needs to be kept as
simple and logical as possible. Now I didn't say that it should
cut down your options, but it should be so intuitive and easy to
grasp in it's layout that it's very easy to use and understand.
Keeping the number of clicks needed to accomplish something
to an absolute minimum is important to reaching that goal. And,
of course, the interface should be fully explained in the manual.

Real-time?? ARGGH! Don't even utter those words.

Needless to say,
real-time would be a BAD thing to make this game. I'm sure Gary
and the rest of the Marix team are far too smart to do something
that dumb, so don't worry about it too much.

I'm REALLY looking forward to this game. I had a lot of fun playing
PW, but the awkwardness of the interface and especially the
tediousness of running supplies all over the place made it very
tiring at times. I hope the interface and supply system are greatly
polished and streamlined in the sequel. A lot of times playing PW
I felt more like a supply officer than a combat commander.

So hopefully the logistics system will be less time-consuming
and the player can concentrate on fighting the war.

Peter Bollmann · Post by **Peter Bollmann** » Mon May 15, 2000 6:00 pm

The supply system of pacwar is perfect. I would like to have it again.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Mon May 15, 2000 11:23 pm

Well, there was a problem dealing with the Allied supply. Ships kept on being sent to Calcutta. And, with all tankers, they tended to be sent to a useless base after reinforcing it with fuel. The IJN liked to make Iwo Jima a main naval base, and all the tankers sent to drop off fuel just remianed there, and were useless. This resulted in the fuel supply to drop too fast, as, there were no tankers left to get fuel from the East Indies.

norsemanjs · Post by **norsemanjs** » Tue May 16, 2000 4:02 am

The Iwo oil fleet of course was a bug. And since the code is going to be all new, we can probably expect some new bugs. Who knows maybe the Saipan oil fleet.

I don't have too many gripes about the supply system of the old pacwar. It can certainly improve and I'm sure Mr. Grigsby like any designer has a list of things that he would do a bit different if he could do it over again. Especially with better resources in hardware and software.

One thing that could improve was shipping routes and submarine interdiction of shipping. I also didn't seem to realize much assitance from escorts, especially aircraft carriers. I always had the impression that aircraft carriers escorting convoys made a huge impact on the ability of convoys to take fewer losses and increase the mortality of the attacking subs. The US often would put carriers into a convoy to escort it if it was important enough, they lost the Wasp on such a mission. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on this, maybe I'm wrong.

Also the Japanese subs with airplanes, should show be a lot better at spotting shipping. Was this really the case?

emetcalf · Post by **emetcalf** » Tue May 16, 2000 4:30 pm

Maybe, but the Japanese really never hunted merchant shipping. It was 'beneath them' or some other reason related to their honor. They hunted warships and scouted for high command. The problem with the float-plane subs is that they take so long to operate the planes and submerge again.

norsemanjs · Post by **norsemanjs** » Wed May 17, 2000 2:57 am

You are correct the Japanese were more interested in attacking warships. I think that we should be able to modify the doctrine for subs by setting target priorities similar to how air groups were given target priorities in the original Pacwar.

I did some investigating about the Japanese subs with planes and it seems they were often used as advanced recon for carrier/surface groups ala Midway. So you may be correct that in the antishipping role the planes may have been less effective by exposing the sub to enemy aircraft.

[This message has been edited by Norseman (edited 05-16-2000).]

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Wed May 17, 2000 9:17 pm

It is true historically that Japanese subs were used primarily as fleet scouts and anti-warship vessels. But, PacWar is to be created allowing for the player to choose what type of war they are going to wage. If they want they can order their IJN subs to attack Allied merchant vessels. However, I think that there should be some sort of penalty (ie. They behave worse) when they do something a-historical. You could sent your subs vs. Merchants, but, they could be hard coded to have better results per engagement if they went after warships, or were scouts. This isn't to say that someone might see the greater benefit in having subs attacking merchant ships (even though there is some sort of penalty).

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Thu May 18, 2000 9:32 am

I'm not against having supply limits be a factor in the game. It
just seems like I ended up spending an awful lot of time loading
supplies and moving then all over.

A more powerful/streamlined interface might help with this, too.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sat May 20, 2000 12:10 am

I think that there should be some options included in order to simplify gameplay even more than the original PacWar does. Have an option delegating ALL supply efforts (even for Isolated Bases). The interface should be completely redone, as I am sure (by the previews) is being done. Areas that are more specialized would be greatly beneficial. One option that would be great is to add a base list, one depicting all bases under their control, to be shortened by selecting options of specific commands. You could then select the individual base off the list, instead JUST hunting for it on the map. The map hunting option should still be there, but, in other games (empire building games, notably Master of Orion II) a list such as this enabling access to ANY base by just clicking on it from a list would really unclutter things up.

sbond · Post by **sbond** » Sat May 20, 2000 12:52 am

After playing this game (old version) for years I never really thought of it as hard to master. But, I had a friend try it recently and he gave up rather quickly due to the overwhelming demands of the game. Anyway if you introduce this game to a friend here are some hints of mine to give them a better chance of learning and sticking with it.

Have them play only one Command such as SEAC or South Pacific command (this guy was trying to command the whole Allied Force).
There are some cheat sheets for hot-key commands out on the internet. Stay with em for a bit and maybe play hotseat to get them use to it. I'm sure there are hundred other ways of introducing the game, but the more we have playing the more we can destroy latter in multiplay

.

This game has one of the highest learning curves I have seen in a game, but anyone who has a interest in massive strategic warfare simulation should enjoy it after a small investment of time. I am rambling here but wanted to pass this experience on to others who may be thinking of showing it to friends.

A_Master · Post by **A_Master** » Sat May 20, 2000 1:09 am

Yes, I agree. Keep it simple. One general base menu/list is all you need. Super impose this over the map. Menu/list must have the following data:

Base Name
Parent Base/Command
Supply Distance from Base/Command
In supply
Size of Base / % damaged
Size of Airport / % damaged
Size of Port / % damaged
Base Commander
Air Commander
Naval Commander
Number of Airplanes assigned to base (could be number or squadrons)
Number of Ships at base (could be split by warships and transports)
Size of garrison (could be number or units)
Amount of supplies at base
Amount of fuel at base

List Should be sortable.
By clicking say:

-Base/Command, all bases assigned will be sorted by their appropriate command base, and should be highlighted on the map in different colors. Western pacific could be red, Australia blue, India green, etc... (if supply lines are to long, then moving a base to a different command HQ will change base/command and color. Supply line would also be shortened).

-In supply, yes or no. If no, bases could be color coded red.

-Amount of fuel or supplies at base. Find out where you have stocks of fuel/supplies are when needed. Ascending or descending.

-Base size will give you a descending / ascending list of bases. These to could be color coded for various sizes. 0 - white, 1 - yellow, 2 - orange, etc..

- Same goes for all other information except commander information which could be sorted by name or experience level.

Clicking on base name on list, will automatically take you to the base on the map (list will still remain active for additonal selection until closed).

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Sat May 20, 2000 1:31 am

Great ideas for the interface, A_Master.

We're on the right track here. The goal is to have a powerful interface
that will allow quick and easy access to any information, orders or
options the player might wish to look at. All while requiring as few
clicks/key strokes as possible to navigate through.

brisd · Post by **brisd** » Sat May 20, 2000 10:45 am

I agree that the new game should try to simplify some of the logistics chores, that is, make the cpu do the work not the commander. That's what those supply types are for eh? I personally enjoyed the level of detail combined with grand strategy that made PACWAR the classic it is. Few games hold up so well or have so few bugs or design flaws considering the return for your play time.

As far as submarine strategy I recall that originally the US submarine force was set to use the same strategy as the IJN, attack fleet units and scouting but evolved into the war-winning anti-commerce strategy over time. They also learned alot from the Germans in the Atlantic. I think the Japanese player should have that option as well and not suffer any penalty. I that naval units should gain experience the same way as air and LCU's did in PACWAR. Thrilled to have GG on the team and hoping to spend many sleepless hours playing the new version.

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Sat May 20, 2000 7:32 pm

I am really looking forward to this game.

And I echo the above sentiments: keep it simple! By that I mean let the computer handle many of the mundane chores and let the commander - command

Panzer General was terrific with this idea: left click on a unit or "task force" and a single screen appears giving you instant information. Mouse clicking a thousand times every ten minutes, and constantly digging through endless menus, is NOT my idea of fun

The game should be about strategy, supply and maneuver - but it shouldn't be about how many sacks of potatoes should go to a unit on Saipan.

Also - please - don't use drab unit counters with some obscure symbol on it. Use great graphics - we want SEE those ships - the battlewagons, the carriers - use authentic profiles for them - with sounds - use the graphics power of the computer - this game should be a feast for the eyes as well as for the brain

There is no law that says a wargame can't also be a great looking game...

Who knows - it may also draw people who have never played wargames before (much the way the original Panzer General did). Don't dumb down the game - just make it accessible - with depth of game-play and graphics

------------------
A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Sat May 20, 2000 8:55 pm

I don't think you have to worry, Von Rom. Have you seen the redone
pacific map? Now that is one good looking map.

If the side profile
2D pictures of the units could be done in color that would nice.
But even if they are done in black and white, certainly just about
everything else will be done in fine color.

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Sat May 20, 2000 11:28 pm

Dunedain:

I agree the map looks terrific. The one thing I liked about Pacific General was the great looking naval units

The destroyers, cruisers, battleships and carriers all LOOKED authentic. There is just something about moving those carriers and battleships into position to engage the enemy that is quite fun and moving. Even Civilization II had good unit graphics to represent each of the naval forces. People have come to expect that sort of thing these days - it is exciting to move those big ships around

------------------
A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Sun May 21, 2000 2:03 pm

True, but they only had a couple ships to worry about, so you expect
each ship to look great. When you're moving whole TF's around it's a
bit different. But I like the good looking ships they had, too.

A_Master · Post by **A_Master** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:40 am

First, another point I missed above on the "BASE" screen. When you actually click on the base from the either the sorted list of bases, or actually clicking from the map, the base screen will appear. On this screen should be up to 3 additional lists.
List are:

1) Air base list by squadron with: squadron number, number of aircraft, make of aircraft, experience, percent damaged, percent upgrade (if squadron could be partially upgraded), moral if added, supply status, orders.

2) Army Base by division (or company?) with: unit number, size, optimum size, experience, supply level, entrenchment, orders.

3) Naval base list by ship with: ship name, picture, class, size, armament (main, secondary), aa, torps, armor, speed, fuel, damage, aircraft capacity (including sea planes), sub (if appropriate), mtb (if appropriate), radar.

Second, about pictures of actual ships. Having played most of the HARPOON series, seeing the actual ships is great, the first time, maybe the second time, but after the third time you play you get bored of it and turn off the option. The same with sinking or missile strikes. After the first few missle hits, you get bored of the film, and you just turn off the option.

If adding actual pictures of ships and film footage of ww2 battles to the product will make or break the product, or add an additional 6 months to development, or result in an huge disk space requirement, I would suggest dropping the idea from the project and focus on game play.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Wed May 24, 2000 7:06 am

It isn't difficult to find pictures accurately representing ALL of the ships that took part in the War in the Pacific, nor would it be too difficult to replicate them.

You state that good graphics wear off after a while, but, you forget the reverse of that. Bad graphics can ruin a game. The original PacWar graphics were good for the time, but, they are SEVERELY outdated. Having just improved icons (which wouldn't take up too much time) would be a staggaring improvement over the original. Check out the War in the Pacific Webpage Matrix game has, and go to the screenshots. The ones they have there of ships and planes are pretty good, and aren't too difficult to create.