Greg:
Action Stations was definitely one of my favorites and it sounds like the follow on would have been a great one as well. Action Stations is still a great game, it is a good example of how good a game can be even with crummy old graphics.
I really am intrigued by the discussion of technology development. It would be very interesting to have investment pts to guide your armed forces to the technologies you think would be of most benefit. The danger of course is we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the combatants of the time did not. You would really need to add something to make the investments more risky not
always a sure thing.
I think the technology could have subtle or maybe even not so subtle effects on the various units and weapons platforms. You could see improvements in gunnery control improve the AA or Surface attack strength of the forthcoming classes of ships. You could see the same thing in Radar although the effects could also improve night/poor weather attack factors. The factors would not necessarily be cumulative although resulting redundancy of systems could make
platforms more resilient. The potential is kind of fun to think about.
The ability to upgrade older classes with new technology would really complicate things, but of course this happened on both sides throughout the war. Also some of these upgrades were very significant as the old battleships at Surigao proved resoundingly. What if the Japanese had been
able to upgrade their old battleships with radar, Surigao might have been a bit more interesting.
The espionage element is also an interesting idea, I've always wished some of the great European Theater games had some elements of this because I've always felt espionage did in fact play a significant role in that theater. I think the Pacific was less impacted by espionage (but I'm not an
expert).
This post is of course under the heading of production a simple approach. I'm afraid we've strayed from that thread. I'm sure it is possible for the programmers to make the game flexible enough to at latter date add plug-ins which could allow us to explore things like variable technology, productions on a more intricate scale and even the espionage factor.
I did just remember that the intelligence services of the USN did have numerous coups in breaking codes of the IJN and this was very significant at times.
Until we can start trying this game out we will certainly continue to enjoy discussing the wide range of posssibilities.
Norseman
[ May 23, 2001: Message edited by: Norseman ]
Production: A Simple Approach
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
I'm reading a really interesting book right now: "The Pacific Campaign. The US-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945" by Dan van der Vat.
It's truly amazing and enlighting.
I strongly recomend it to any "Pacific Theater kind--of-guy".
Anyway, about spionage:
Japan inteligence was very poor, to say it in nice words.
- They relied on old-fashion spies (a japanese gardner in Hawaii, some dude with binoculars around Port Moresby)... and they were mostly uneffective after december, 7th, 1941.
-Japanese guys had no clue on code breaking.
-They relied on pre-war subscriptions o freely available books and magazines ("Indstrial production in USA, 1939", "Why our Navy is the finest" and things like that) (note: those titles are made up, but they serve the purpose of explaining my point: Japan had no clue on allied strategic inteligence gathering).
Then, the allied:
-they had the "Japanese Enigma" called "Magic" and the following version, "Ultra". Yes, we knew and were able to decipher most of the Japanese transmissions and all that.
But the thing is that having a decoded transmission usualy does not gives away the exact intentions of the enemy.
Also, the access to "Magic" and "Ultra" information was very restricted... after McArthur fiasco at the Philipines (he had a "Magic" unit, he received the reports of an inminent attack, he received the reports on a heavy attack to Pearl Harbour... and he choose to do nothing! And, also, he disclossed (sentitive) information obtained by Ultra and Magic to the media... nearly giving away the secret of the knowledge of Japanese codes.
-The Japanese routinely changed the codes (once a year?) but intelligence will break in them in a few months because they were so similar to te old ones.
-The were less than ten "Ultra" / "Magic" machines, distributed among Washington, Hawaii, McArthur, the allies (UK, Australia), US Navy, US Army... do not recall exactly.
-Anyway, Allied intelligence was brilliant, specialy comparing with Japanese. But, of course, they did not intercept all and everyone the communications, mail info meant unknown info for the allied, etc.
-Japan relied on prisioners torture, captured maps and the likes. The whole Japanese intelligence staff (Navy, Army, Tokyo and everyone) was under 200 men. The allied was in the thousands (several).
Hope this helps.
It's truly amazing and enlighting.
I strongly recomend it to any "Pacific Theater kind--of-guy".
Anyway, about spionage:
Japan inteligence was very poor, to say it in nice words.
- They relied on old-fashion spies (a japanese gardner in Hawaii, some dude with binoculars around Port Moresby)... and they were mostly uneffective after december, 7th, 1941.
-Japanese guys had no clue on code breaking.
-They relied on pre-war subscriptions o freely available books and magazines ("Indstrial production in USA, 1939", "Why our Navy is the finest" and things like that) (note: those titles are made up, but they serve the purpose of explaining my point: Japan had no clue on allied strategic inteligence gathering).
Then, the allied:
-they had the "Japanese Enigma" called "Magic" and the following version, "Ultra". Yes, we knew and were able to decipher most of the Japanese transmissions and all that.
But the thing is that having a decoded transmission usualy does not gives away the exact intentions of the enemy.
Also, the access to "Magic" and "Ultra" information was very restricted... after McArthur fiasco at the Philipines (he had a "Magic" unit, he received the reports of an inminent attack, he received the reports on a heavy attack to Pearl Harbour... and he choose to do nothing! And, also, he disclossed (sentitive) information obtained by Ultra and Magic to the media... nearly giving away the secret of the knowledge of Japanese codes.
-The Japanese routinely changed the codes (once a year?) but intelligence will break in them in a few months because they were so similar to te old ones.
-The were less than ten "Ultra" / "Magic" machines, distributed among Washington, Hawaii, McArthur, the allies (UK, Australia), US Navy, US Army... do not recall exactly.
-Anyway, Allied intelligence was brilliant, specialy comparing with Japanese. But, of course, they did not intercept all and everyone the communications, mail info meant unknown info for the allied, etc.
-Japan relied on prisioners torture, captured maps and the likes. The whole Japanese intelligence staff (Navy, Army, Tokyo and everyone) was under 200 men. The allied was in the thousands (several).
Hope this helps.
Sinner from the Prairy<br />"Thalassa! Thalassa!"
I was part of an earlier thread on this subject and the general thought was while it was an awesome idea- but not practical due to complexity issues such as those raised below. For grins and the appropriate credit due to Grok, Victor & to Joe Osborne for getting us talking amongst ourselves, here goes some of the rough ideas we had.
LCU's- Army & Marine (0-20 effectiveness rating) 5=green troops 10=average troops 15=veteran troops 20=elite troops/also applied to engineer/specialty units (SU)-conversion of LCU to specialty unit after reaching 5pts restarts effectiveness rating. (this was so HQ's, cooks and clerks could still be used in combat-would be rated poorly as in real life)
Port/Construction- Levels 1-15 #'s are variations for chance of getting complete supplies/repair or refit
1-3=beginning levels- no additions without military SU's and bases. Repairs painfully slow or not possible, supplies difficult to obtain.
4-8= average ports and usual supplies.
9-12=good ports and regular and special supplies, modifications & additions possible with civilian workers.
13-15=excellent ports & supplies, refits and new constructions (ways n ships being built by civilians)
Cities- Much discussion here- major problems found... region to be covered...Avg. #'s of residents...Unknown how to rate or what to rate other than scaled or Vs...
working / unemployed
skilled / unskilled
transportation / migration (big ??? here...)
morale/productivity
loss to Armed Services (monthly draft boards or conscription)
Civilian Vs Military Rule of Cities...(especially if you are'nt playing USA)
Some kind of War Production Board- as in real life allocated *vital* supplies to industry and military needs. Usually highly political and favored BIG buisness over Mom-n-Pop shops. No final answers but a lot of suggestions thrown around. Unknown how to create or handle other Allied or Axis production needs/supplies
I just remembered, Rev. Rick you were there too last year on the thread... Anything else you remember? For that matter everybody kick it around some maybe we CAN get something started here (evil grin) my never-say-die side showing through... maybe creating a windows version or online version of WWII strategy game with historical and/or fictional names could be fun. Anybody remember the PTO II by KOEI back in late 90's. I still think modifying thier system (so to speak) is the way to go to get the strategic side we crave.
Oh well blast it or better it-just dont let it die!
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]
LCU's- Army & Marine (0-20 effectiveness rating) 5=green troops 10=average troops 15=veteran troops 20=elite troops/also applied to engineer/specialty units (SU)-conversion of LCU to specialty unit after reaching 5pts restarts effectiveness rating. (this was so HQ's, cooks and clerks could still be used in combat-would be rated poorly as in real life)
Port/Construction- Levels 1-15 #'s are variations for chance of getting complete supplies/repair or refit
1-3=beginning levels- no additions without military SU's and bases. Repairs painfully slow or not possible, supplies difficult to obtain.
4-8= average ports and usual supplies.
9-12=good ports and regular and special supplies, modifications & additions possible with civilian workers.
13-15=excellent ports & supplies, refits and new constructions (ways n ships being built by civilians)
Cities- Much discussion here- major problems found... region to be covered...Avg. #'s of residents...Unknown how to rate or what to rate other than scaled or Vs...
working / unemployed
skilled / unskilled
transportation / migration (big ??? here...)
morale/productivity
loss to Armed Services (monthly draft boards or conscription)
Civilian Vs Military Rule of Cities...(especially if you are'nt playing USA)
Some kind of War Production Board- as in real life allocated *vital* supplies to industry and military needs. Usually highly political and favored BIG buisness over Mom-n-Pop shops. No final answers but a lot of suggestions thrown around. Unknown how to create or handle other Allied or Axis production needs/supplies
I just remembered, Rev. Rick you were there too last year on the thread... Anything else you remember? For that matter everybody kick it around some maybe we CAN get something started here (evil grin) my never-say-die side showing through... maybe creating a windows version or online version of WWII strategy game with historical and/or fictional names could be fun. Anybody remember the PTO II by KOEI back in late 90's. I still think modifying thier system (so to speak) is the way to go to get the strategic side we crave.
Oh well blast it or better it-just dont let it die!
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]
Just another thought before I call it a night...(maybe shoulda already) The windows sports sims out, (eg Eastside Hockey Manager Demo by Risto Remes from Finland is AWESOME and especially comes to mind...)literally DOZENS of categories make up each player, Dozens more handle teams, & league performance and all are simmed out to seasons, playoffs and awards. Why cant something like this be done on a strategy wargaming basis? (never mind the THOUSANDS of hours of coding this would entail after THOUSANDS more hours collecting, organizing it out, etc. hmmm...)
Then the questions of how long per turn would be answered, the quality n quantity could be measured and losses could be automatically figured and shown right on a windows screen that affects to other related window screens. (ie: bombing a towns industry affects its production and workers) This could also address the fog of war and intelligence questions by having variables written into the categories.
Like I said, maybe I shoulda gone to bed instead. I could be up all nite dreaming up this stuff...
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]
Then the questions of how long per turn would be answered, the quality n quantity could be measured and losses could be automatically figured and shown right on a windows screen that affects to other related window screens. (ie: bombing a towns industry affects its production and workers) This could also address the fog of war and intelligence questions by having variables written into the categories.
Like I said, maybe I shoulda gone to bed instead. I could be up all nite dreaming up this stuff...
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]
-
norsemanjs
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Enderlin, ND, USA
I like your idea on ports. I'm afraid the likelihood of it or something like it actually being included is slim. I think we will see a much simpler approach. I like the possibility of differing levels of complexity in different areas of the game.
If you enjoy the supply, economic side of the War in the Pacific you can set the detail level of this part of the game to high. The same can be said for training, or land combat. Or even air operations.
But detail on everything may not be everyone's idea of a good game.
Everyone has their own niche which they enjoy, and having the ability to delve deeper into some of these areas is very intriguing.
By the way I love the hockey manager game, one of the best pieces of free gaming software I've ever downloaded. I'm on my 3rd season. But I don't think I understand how you'd use that type of game play in a pacific war game.
Norseman
If you enjoy the supply, economic side of the War in the Pacific you can set the detail level of this part of the game to high. The same can be said for training, or land combat. Or even air operations.
But detail on everything may not be everyone's idea of a good game.
Everyone has their own niche which they enjoy, and having the ability to delve deeper into some of these areas is very intriguing.
By the way I love the hockey manager game, one of the best pieces of free gaming software I've ever downloaded. I'm on my 3rd season. But I don't think I understand how you'd use that type of game play in a pacific war game.
Norseman
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Let me try and summarize what’s transpired so far on topic. I proposed a simple approach to production. Objections came in two main flavors: those who wanted complex production with a gods-eye-view (and control) of it all, and those who felt my proposal would lead to a replay of the real Pacific war—a kind of historical determinism.
As far as simplicity vs. complexity is concerned, you’re either on one side or the other. I’m for simplicity, although I’m odd enough to think a complex game solely about production might be fun. (How about a game on the race to build the atom bomb using the game engine from Buzz Aldrin’s Race into Space?)
With regard to flexibility, I think the criticisms have merit. The old monster game by SPI, War in the Pacific, seems to hold promise, especially the idea RevRick resurrected (try and say that fast three times) of using points to cross production categories.
Have I got it about right? Comments, corrections, questions?
BTW, for a really simple game of grand economic strategy, go to my post over in Art of Wargaming, Politcal Simulation, on Stalin’s Dilemma.
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]
As far as simplicity vs. complexity is concerned, you’re either on one side or the other. I’m for simplicity, although I’m odd enough to think a complex game solely about production might be fun. (How about a game on the race to build the atom bomb using the game engine from Buzz Aldrin’s Race into Space?)
With regard to flexibility, I think the criticisms have merit. The old monster game by SPI, War in the Pacific, seems to hold promise, especially the idea RevRick resurrected (try and say that fast three times) of using points to cross production categories.
Have I got it about right? Comments, corrections, questions?
BTW, for a really simple game of grand economic strategy, go to my post over in Art of Wargaming, Politcal Simulation, on Stalin’s Dilemma.
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]
The problem with a simple approach:
The United States could have, if they had chosen to, produced 18 Montana class battleships.
They chose not to do that. However
THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
Japan however could barley manage
to finish existing ships.
Let alone lay down any new keels.
I would not wish to see a United States
player, locked into a historical mode.
That would become old very quickly.
If I want to produce nothing but B-29's
and base them in Alaska and bomb
(or try to bomb) Japan, the game
should allow me that.
If I wish to field 10 armored divisions
and base them in India, that too is my choice.
This is where my previous mention of
'attrition' become more than an abstraction.
If I WISH to produce 100,000 C-47 and use them to AIRDROP supplies to Chindit type
formations advancing thru Indo-china,
I want that option!
It may NOT be optimal or wise but it WAS
possible. (the attrition on airframes
makes the imagination boggle)
Just like: If I choose to NOT produce
an atomic weapon and re-direct those
funds to say - famine relief,
That too is my choice.
War in the Pacific was an excellent
model for production.
The United States could have, if they had chosen to, produced 18 Montana class battleships.
They chose not to do that. However
THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
Japan however could barley manage
to finish existing ships.
Let alone lay down any new keels.
I would not wish to see a United States
player, locked into a historical mode.
That would become old very quickly.
If I want to produce nothing but B-29's
and base them in Alaska and bomb
(or try to bomb) Japan, the game
should allow me that.
If I wish to field 10 armored divisions
and base them in India, that too is my choice.
This is where my previous mention of
'attrition' become more than an abstraction.
If I WISH to produce 100,000 C-47 and use them to AIRDROP supplies to Chindit type
formations advancing thru Indo-china,
I want that option!
It may NOT be optimal or wise but it WAS
possible. (the attrition on airframes
makes the imagination boggle)
Just like: If I choose to NOT produce
an atomic weapon and re-direct those
funds to say - famine relief,
That too is my choice.
War in the Pacific was an excellent
model for production.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Norseman,
2nd season for me on EHM, -imagine each player and ratings to be a squad, platoon, etc. Each team to be the Division, Battalion etc. Then the lineups and type of gameplay -change it to squads are resting, scouting, intelligence, defensive perimeter, patrol, operations, assault... now overlay mapping onto another windows screen (or tabs) and land combat can be achieved against AI or online player (maybe akin to Cinpac Flattops) extremely rough sketch of the idea, definitely would lack the visual punch of SPWaW, but much more in variables and "what if" playability than click n shooters...Having said that I would much prefer an Air War simulation with the counters representing the windows (point n click to bring up flight/base info) than groundpounders but would enjoy either.
To answer G. Wilmoth, you obviously have more experience with game construction than me... To ask the naive question.... Simple as in adding onto WitP to create more variables or simple as in making specialty items during the war (ie: R.R.-Merlin engines in P-51's from the beginning?) Ive read the posts and see a lot of different ideas from this group. Interesting stuff so far.
2nd season for me on EHM, -imagine each player and ratings to be a squad, platoon, etc. Each team to be the Division, Battalion etc. Then the lineups and type of gameplay -change it to squads are resting, scouting, intelligence, defensive perimeter, patrol, operations, assault... now overlay mapping onto another windows screen (or tabs) and land combat can be achieved against AI or online player (maybe akin to Cinpac Flattops) extremely rough sketch of the idea, definitely would lack the visual punch of SPWaW, but much more in variables and "what if" playability than click n shooters...Having said that I would much prefer an Air War simulation with the counters representing the windows (point n click to bring up flight/base info) than groundpounders but would enjoy either.
To answer G. Wilmoth, you obviously have more experience with game construction than me... To ask the naive question.... Simple as in adding onto WitP to create more variables or simple as in making specialty items during the war (ie: R.R.-Merlin engines in P-51's from the beginning?) Ive read the posts and see a lot of different ideas from this group. Interesting stuff so far.
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Now that is truely an amazing since practically none of what you want to do is allowed under the current Pacific War production system!Originally posted by Chiteng:
The problem with a simple approach:
The United States could have, if they had chosen to, produced 18 Montana class battleships.
They chose not to do that. However
THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
Actually, they couldn't have. And shouting about it doesn't make it so. As Joel Davidson pointed out in his book, The Unsinkable Fleet, US armor plate production was limiting factor, and that couldn't be increased before 1948.
I would not wish to see a United States
player, locked into a historical mode.
That would become old very quickly.
Fair enough, although some of us have more imagination and don't get bored so easily.
If I want to produce nothing but B-29's
and base them in Alaska and bomb
(or try to bomb) Japan, the game
should allow me that.
Fine, although I'm not sure the B-29 would have the range to reach Japan from Alaska. Since you want the kind of dictatorial control of production that would have made Hitler or Stalin green with envy, why not opt for B-36s? They could have been built in time.
If I wish to field 10 armored divisions
and base them in India, that too is my choice.
This is where my previous mention of
'attrition' become more than an abstraction.
What thread was that posted in?
If I WISH to produce 100,000 C-47 and use them to AIRDROP supplies to Chindit type
formations advancing thru Indo-china,
I want that option!
It may NOT be optimal or wise but it WAS
possible. (the attrition on airframes
makes the imagination boggle)
Just like: If I choose to NOT produce
an atomic weapon and re-direct those
funds to say - famine relief,
That too is my choice.
Wish is certainly the operative word, because your concepts of production and logistics bear no relation to reality. What you want is not a historical game, but rather a fantasy game with a historical veneer.
War in the Pacific was an excellent
model for production.
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
I wish I had the game construction experience you credit me with, but I don't. Just a lot of game playing experience, but not enough time to play as I'd like. Simple to me merely means playable. Obviously the sentiment in the forum is to add greater flexibility to production. I don't believe in adding chrome for chrome's sake, and I'd just like to see the Matrix folks keep it manageable (and with some basis in historical reality).Originally posted by moore4807:
To answer G. Wilmoth, you obviously have more experience with game construction than me... To ask the naive question.... Simple as in adding onto WitP to create more variables or simple as in making specialty items during the war (ie: R.R.-Merlin engines in P-51's from the beginning?) Ive read the posts and see a lot of different ideas from this group. Interesting stuff so far.
First I didnt say Pac War. I said
War in the Pacific.
Second: yes almost everything I stated
in my post you can do in War in the Pacific.
It will be expensive and you likely will not
win the war quickly but you can do it.
As for your statement about ship armor,
I am not an expert so I cant refute you.
I can say if no one trys it certainly will
never happen. Also I would never accept one source as gospel. But 18 inch armor may indeed be hard to come by. I simply cant say.
The USA could have easily produced 100k
C-47's that isnt even an issue.
Probably would have a hard time flying them all but that is diffrent problem.
I posted some time ago and you responded
I was arguing for 10% monthly attrition on
all active airframes. I also argued
for Capital Ship refit.
I argued against using the factory produces
fictitious points and you use them to purchase airframes at an arbitrary cost.
ALL of Gary's games use that system except
ToH.
War in the Pacific allows you 4 Montana class
counters and I always build them. I happen to like Battleships. They arrive just after
Okinawa falls usually. Sadly I dont get to do much with them.
Yes indeed you are allowed in WitP top build
thousands of C-47s and you are allowed to
airdrop supplies to troops. So no need for
roads or railroads. However it ISNT very efficient. Likewise you can build
thousands of Gato class submarines.
If you choose to.
If you seriously dont believe me I can easily spreadsheet a sample production
from the game and post it here. All US players of that game know its true.
War in the Pacific.
Second: yes almost everything I stated
in my post you can do in War in the Pacific.
It will be expensive and you likely will not
win the war quickly but you can do it.
As for your statement about ship armor,
I am not an expert so I cant refute you.
I can say if no one trys it certainly will
never happen. Also I would never accept one source as gospel. But 18 inch armor may indeed be hard to come by. I simply cant say.
The USA could have easily produced 100k
C-47's that isnt even an issue.
Probably would have a hard time flying them all but that is diffrent problem.
I posted some time ago and you responded
I was arguing for 10% monthly attrition on
all active airframes. I also argued
for Capital Ship refit.
I argued against using the factory produces
fictitious points and you use them to purchase airframes at an arbitrary cost.
ALL of Gary's games use that system except
ToH.
War in the Pacific allows you 4 Montana class
counters and I always build them. I happen to like Battleships. They arrive just after
Okinawa falls usually. Sadly I dont get to do much with them.
Yes indeed you are allowed in WitP top build
thousands of C-47s and you are allowed to
airdrop supplies to troops. So no need for
roads or railroads. However it ISNT very efficient. Likewise you can build
thousands of Gato class submarines.
If you choose to.
If you seriously dont believe me I can easily spreadsheet a sample production
from the game and post it here. All US players of that game know its true.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Chiteng,
I dont believe G. Wilmoth is trying to discredit you as much as you seem to be feeling here-I certainly dont dispute that you will be able to do more in WitP than PacWar (ie: build 4 Montana's, but as you also point out it rarely is in any time to make any difference.)however I'm reading variables to PacWar and the new windows based WitP as two completely seperate animals with a "kissing cousins" background.
My point is that Windows based gaming, coding variables are infinite to the window you are building. the rub comes when you set values and then have to convert them to another window. (programmers feel free to correct me-I'm novice) For those that played KOEI's PTOII (Pacific Theatre of Operations) the detail level and supply vs need was an integral part of your "WAR" there were so many things to do and only an infinite amount to do it with... (something I feel was VERY true of WWII) I think with the advancements made since PTOII it would make a great stand alone game for strategy types (not your run of the mill commercially successful game
)it would miss the glitz graphics and visual snazziness, but look how well the sports sims are doing...I have purchased nearly all of them and I'm certainly not alone (Note: I think sims/stats gamers are some of the most hard core on the internet- They can be downright intimidating in the chatrooms- err not taking anything away from wargaming by all means!)
oh well I'm rambling, so dont take it personal, you have a point and your entitled to it just as we all are, only try to understand where G. Wilmoth is coming from too! He makes sense to me...
Jim M
I dont believe G. Wilmoth is trying to discredit you as much as you seem to be feeling here-I certainly dont dispute that you will be able to do more in WitP than PacWar (ie: build 4 Montana's, but as you also point out it rarely is in any time to make any difference.)however I'm reading variables to PacWar and the new windows based WitP as two completely seperate animals with a "kissing cousins" background.
My point is that Windows based gaming, coding variables are infinite to the window you are building. the rub comes when you set values and then have to convert them to another window. (programmers feel free to correct me-I'm novice) For those that played KOEI's PTOII (Pacific Theatre of Operations) the detail level and supply vs need was an integral part of your "WAR" there were so many things to do and only an infinite amount to do it with... (something I feel was VERY true of WWII) I think with the advancements made since PTOII it would make a great stand alone game for strategy types (not your run of the mill commercially successful game
)it would miss the glitz graphics and visual snazziness, but look how well the sports sims are doing...I have purchased nearly all of them and I'm certainly not alone (Note: I think sims/stats gamers are some of the most hard core on the internet- They can be downright intimidating in the chatrooms- err not taking anything away from wargaming by all means!)oh well I'm rambling, so dont take it personal, you have a point and your entitled to it just as we all are, only try to understand where G. Wilmoth is coming from too! He makes sense to me...
Jim M
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
My two cents on the production issue is this:
1. It would be great to be able to design (a la Space Empires) each class of ship built.
2. It would be great to have the ability to build as many of each class as possible given certain limitations
3. It would take too much away from gameplay, (IMO) to do so. If this much detail is put into the production, I fear that combat, or movement routines, or something, will suffer. Something has to give.
Instead, why not just do a simplfied production with available or planned platforms? There's no need to be redesigning every class because I want to. I think the focus should be on the decision-making, not the production. For example- Does the American side want to retake Wake or go for Tarawa? Should we slog it out in New Guinea or Island hop (or both)? Thats where the beauty of this game will be. The production ideas are great, but I don't think this much detail is feasible if we want to keep the game fun to play and realistic in the other areas. Again, this is my opinion only, feel free to comment.
1. It would be great to be able to design (a la Space Empires) each class of ship built.
2. It would be great to have the ability to build as many of each class as possible given certain limitations
3. It would take too much away from gameplay, (IMO) to do so. If this much detail is put into the production, I fear that combat, or movement routines, or something, will suffer. Something has to give.
Instead, why not just do a simplfied production with available or planned platforms? There's no need to be redesigning every class because I want to. I think the focus should be on the decision-making, not the production. For example- Does the American side want to retake Wake or go for Tarawa? Should we slog it out in New Guinea or Island hop (or both)? Thats where the beauty of this game will be. The production ideas are great, but I don't think this much detail is feasible if we want to keep the game fun to play and realistic in the other areas. Again, this is my opinion only, feel free to comment.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Sorry for misunderstanding, but I thought, that War in the Pacific - Struggle Against Japan is not released yet? Or am I wrong?Originally posted by Chiteng:
First I didnt say Pac War. I said War in the Pacific.
Second: yes almost everything I stated in my post you can do in War in the Pacific. It will be expensive and you likely will not win the war quickly but you can do it.
I argued against using the factory produces fictitious points and you use them to purchase airframes at an arbitrary cost.
ALL of Gary's games use that system except ToH.
War in the Pacific allows you 4 Montana class counters and I always build them. I happen to like Battleships. They arrive just after Okinawa falls usually.
Sadly I dont get to do much with them.
Yes indeed you are allowed in WitP top build thousands of C-47s and you are allowed to airdrop supplies to troops. So no need for roads or railroads.
However it ISNT very efficient.
Likewise you can build thousands of Gato class submarines. If you choose to.
If you seriously dont believe me I can easily spreadsheet a sample production from the game and post it here. All US players of that game know its true.
Or did you mean some other game? Thanks in advance.
Best Regards, Mark.
To me War in the Pacific is the Old SPI board game, until such a time as
these guys release the computer game with
the same name.
these guys release the computer game with
the same name.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Please post the spreadsheet or E-mail it to me (see my profile). I want to see how SPI's War in the Pacific handled this.Originally posted by Chiteng:
First I didnt say Pac War. I said
War in the Pacific.
Duly noted, and I stand corrected.
Second: yes almost everything I stated
in my post you can do in War in the Pacific.
It will be expensive and you likely will not
win the war quickly but you can do it.
As for your statement about ship armor,
I am not an expert so I cant refute you.
I can say if no one trys it certainly will
never happen. Also I would never accept one source as gospel. But 18 inch armor may indeed be hard to come by. I simply cant say.
The USA could have easily produced 100k
C-47's that isnt even an issue.
Probably would have a hard time flying them all but that is diffrent problem.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
I posted some time ago and you responded
I was arguing for 10% monthly attrition on
all active airframes. I also argued
for Capital Ship refit.
I argued against using the factory produces
fictitious points and you use them to purchase airframes at an arbitrary cost.
ALL of Gary's games use that system except
ToH.
That must have been in the earlier thread, which seems to have disappeared. Do they archive such things around here?
War in the Pacific allows you 4 Montana class
counters and I always build them. I happen to like Battleships. They arrive just after
Okinawa falls usually. Sadly I dont get to do much with them.
Yes indeed you are allowed in WitP top build
thousands of C-47s and you are allowed to
airdrop supplies to troops. So no need for
roads or railroads. However it ISNT very efficient. Likewise you can build
thousands of Gato class submarines.
If you choose to.
If you seriously dont believe me I can easily spreadsheet a sample production
from the game and post it here. All US players of that game know its true.
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13:
My two cents on the production issue is this:
1. It would be great to be able to design (a la Space Empires) each class of ship built.
I asked Malfador Machinations if they would be interested in doing a game on the naval arms race in the 1930s. They said they were too busy getting Space Empires IV up and running to consider it.
2. It would be great to have the ability to build as many of each class as possible given certain limitations
3. It would take too much away from gameplay, (IMO) to do so. If this much detail is put into the production, I fear that combat, or movement routines, or something, will suffer. Something has to give.
Instead, why not just do a simplfied production with available or planned platforms? There's no need to be redesigning every class because I want to. I think the focus should be on the decision-making, not the production. For example- Does the American side want to retake Wake or go for Tarawa? Should we slog it out in New Guinea or Island hop (or both)? Thats where the beauty of this game will be. The production ideas are great, but I don't think this much detail is feasible if we want to keep the game fun to play and realistic in the other areas. Again, this is my opinion only, feel free to comment.
We agree. Although things can get too simple. I've asked Matrix to post a recent Ed Bever creation called Stalin's Dilemma. It's a little solitare game written in Visual Basic. The player runs three Soviet Five Year Plans between 1928 and 1942. He basically tries to get the industry and military ready to meet the Nazis while trying not to starve too many peasants along the way. It's pretty abstract, really not much more than a glorified spreadsheet. I think he was designing something to play in the classroom, and he wanted students to be able to play it in 10-15 minutes. He succeeded, but I think it would be more fun to decide what specific weapons to build--which airplanes, tanks, etc.
My two cents on the production issue is this:
1. It would be great to be able to design (a la Space Empires) each class of ship built.
I asked Malfador Machinations if they would be interested in doing a game on the naval arms race in the 1930s. They said they were too busy getting Space Empires IV up and running to consider it.
2. It would be great to have the ability to build as many of each class as possible given certain limitations
3. It would take too much away from gameplay, (IMO) to do so. If this much detail is put into the production, I fear that combat, or movement routines, or something, will suffer. Something has to give.
Instead, why not just do a simplfied production with available or planned platforms? There's no need to be redesigning every class because I want to. I think the focus should be on the decision-making, not the production. For example- Does the American side want to retake Wake or go for Tarawa? Should we slog it out in New Guinea or Island hop (or both)? Thats where the beauty of this game will be. The production ideas are great, but I don't think this much detail is feasible if we want to keep the game fun to play and realistic in the other areas. Again, this is my opinion only, feel free to comment.
We agree. Although things can get too simple. I've asked Matrix to post a recent Ed Bever creation called Stalin's Dilemma. It's a little solitare game written in Visual Basic. The player runs three Soviet Five Year Plans between 1928 and 1942. He basically tries to get the industry and military ready to meet the Nazis while trying not to starve too many peasants along the way. It's pretty abstract, really not much more than a glorified spreadsheet. I think he was designing something to play in the classroom, and he wanted students to be able to play it in 10-15 minutes. He succeeded, but I think it would be more fun to decide what specific weapons to build--which airplanes, tanks, etc.
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Does anybody know anything about Talonsoft’s game Political Tycoon? Apparently it was done by Monte Cristo, and there appears to be a demo at: http://www.political-tycoon.com/Us/home/intro.htm
I wonder how it handles production.
I wonder how it handles production.
-
lucascuccia
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Guys, one thing I am struggling with is the costs of changing production. Maybe it is because I am a bad gamer but I tend to rapidly convert factories to the most apporiate production needed. For instance in Pacwar, I will convert both P-39 and the Australian plant to P-40 Production. As it stands, there is no reason to produced the P-39. The P-40 has better maneuvering and higher cannon vs 1 durability factor over the P-39. Production is the same cost. No brainer here. After the 4 weeks or so to "Retool", I am cranking out the P-40s. Same thing in War in Russia. After turn 1, every factory is either FW-190a, JU-88, or PIII H model. I just makes good gaming sense. For various reasons, all of those factories kept producing the original gear (P-39)(ME-109) and the like. Costs need to be factored into retooling in a greater way.
I agree with the previous post. retooling a factory is nowhere near as easy as it is in PacWar and WIR. Most of the following comments are based on the US, but I am willing to bet similar complications existed in Japan. The firms in question were very competitive, and seemed willing to go through some pretty impressive gyrations to avoid building competitor's designs. Remember that the P51 was developed so that North American could build their own product instead of producing P40's under contract, which is what the British asked them to do. Tooling for an aircraft is pretty complex and is built specifically for that aircraft model (though there is some carry forward for different revisions of the same model). Retooling a factory for a completely different airframe, even if the political resistance could be overcome, would be a pretty long process (3-6 months for a single engine fighter, more for bombers). My experience is with modern comercial jetliners, but I am willing to bet that many of the issues would be the same. Note that after Boeing "merged with" (bought) McDonnell Douglas, the DC9/MD80 was renamed 717 and continues in production today instead of retooling the factory to assemble 7X7 or build parts for them. A complicating factor, not covered really well by pacwar, is the "mark" upgrade in production, such as the substitution of the P38J for the P38F, which would be a fairly painless upgrade. Incremental retooling of a line to handle new models (such as replacing f4f's with f6f's). A better model might be to have factories with resources that can be allocated among different production lines. The factories can grow, production lines can be added, and resources allocated to the lines most in demand when they become available. Not sure how to cover production snafu's or management "braincramps", probably out of the scope of this game.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Just a couple of thoughts.
"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"