Question?

[kantor]

Grigsby's Game "War In The South Pacific" had variable "pulse lengths" of 1, 4 or 8 hours. The pulse length could be adjusted anytime during the game, so you could play in 1, 4 or 8 hour long turns.

For "War In The Pacific", I would like a similar solution, i. e. the option to adjust the turn length during the game, starting from turn lengths of one week (for PBEM or people who don't want a higher resolution) down to turn lengths of one hour (for masochists and hardcore micromanagers like me )

Of course, this would demand high flexibility from the game engine, but I think it is possible.

Ah... WitSP ... those were the times ... thank god for C64-Emulators today!

p.s.: this is my first post to a Matrix forum, so please don't be too harsh with me.

[Dave S]

I agree that WISP had an excellent time model which I would like to see as an option to the strategic Pacwar.Yes its scary to think of playing the whole war by the hour,but that didnt happen in Wisp,rather weeks would go by in moments,until contact was made,then you had better hit the "orders toggle"! QQPs version also had quick build scenarios where one could set up battles of your choosing,that feature,I thought,was the greatest,buy units ,go at it,for local objectives.
I find it difficult to get the full flavor of the conflict with only weekly turns.If the real results of the war played out on my computer,and I was playing the Japanese side,when the results from Midway came in Id accuse the AI of cheating!

[moore4807]

Re-reading the posts here, wouldnt a general consensus be that WitP should be a multi-tiered time period for play? I liked the 1-4-8 hr increments for game play and I would like to suggest that for player control the "real" strategic commands be done by theatre (ie; Joint Chiefs of Staff decide overall plans, then Naval Fleets/Army Regimental Commands decide "Who n How" and then Commanders decide battles...) This way each segment of the battles can be controlled by the human player with automation as needed by computer AI.
I also have an idea about battles and "fog of war" each battle that gets generated should have an area of play that allows the player to request "help" from other units in the area with that battle. The computer AI can then decide if it doesnt interfere too much with the "helping units" order of battle then additional aid can come from them in the players battle. (but control of those units would remain with the computer...) Just an idea.
By the way- for Thanksgiving -can you hard working folks at Matrix throw us a turkey bone and tell us some news about WitP?

[mdiehl]

I like the 1-week scale of GGPW and the fact that theater commands and TF commanders sometimes do not do their jobs as well as we would like, and that I can't intervene at the tactical level during an engagement.
I'd dislike a game that required my intervention for every 8 hours of "real time" modeled by the game and I'd dislike it if my opponent *could* intervene at that level (thereby requiring me to do the same). I suspect that level of detail and intervention would make the game unplayable as a PBEM effort. If the "coarsest" time scale available was less than 1 week I would not purchase the product. I'm not saying nobody would or that nobody should... just that such a game would not be for me.

[nittany]

Originally posted by ChrisF:

If there will be some tactical control in the game (I hope!), then a flexible time scale that could be triggered when when some key event is initiated at the strategic level (e.g. carrier battle, surface engagement, amphib assault, etc.) would be a great idea. It would give the game a manageable "pace" and level of control for either the grand campaign or battles / scenarios.

I agree! Some other points:
1. Couldn't there be some type of "initiative " marker, to allow a side that is kicking butt to keep doing it. As the Japanese did at first and the U.S. did later in the war?
2. Also, due to the distances involved, reinforcing battles should be allowed for in advance. i.e., if I attack Guadalcanal, I must allow for reinforcements to support my initial attacking force.
3. Time scale must of course be flexible. The Pacific theater demands it, due to distances involved. Great distances to cover to come to grips with the enemy. How long the Battle of Midway last from the first bomb dropped to the last?
4. Land battle and island hopping are different due to the buildup of resources necessary to take an enemy held island.
5. Resources, is this going be model in any form? Suppose you want more subs, marines, carriers,etc. This is especially important for the Japanese, unless you follow strictly historical lines.

[Charlie Galloway]

This is my first response to any forum, anywhere. I lived Guadalcanal Campaign in the early 80's and WITP in the early 90's. I'll even put in the time for a minute based game where I have to give shaving and tooth brushing instructions to every soldier, sailor, and marine in the Pacific. For me every minute in a GG game is heaven. But if we're going to keep 7 day turns, why not just play WITP again? The new game should be BIGGER and more detailed and more intricate. It should also be a steping stone to that global WWII game that I know lies somewhere in Grigsby's heart. My preference would be for 3 day turns with each turn containing 6 daytime pulses of 6 hrs each and 3 night pulses of 12 hrs. That should be enough interference for a theatre commander. If variable speed is offered, then daily orders could be generated by fleet commanders in harms way and single pulse control for task force co's AFTER contact. The battle itself would still be a spectator event, as befits a strategic format.

A different but equally pressing concern for me is hex shape. Has that been determined? I vote (or urge or plea) for the 25 mile, 8 sided hex. The deluge of games with 6 sided hexes must evidence a strong inbred software design preference, but I like a straight line both north and west. If we're stuck with a 50 mile hex, then turns of less than a day are virtually useless and we're back to WITP.