How can you guys stand PBEM?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Yes I am happy. I recall a time before UV/WITP. Look I know the games weakness and my girlfriend is cross-eyed and bucktoothed but I still like her.
I'm a glass is half full person not a glass is half empty person.
The game works!!!! You can fight a good, fun war.
I limit myself I don't need more code. I'm sorry other people do. I'm sorry the designers have to write code so people will fight the war in the Pacific and not a great China war or Soviet-Japanese war. I'm sorry people exploit turn 1 movements and I'm sorry people don't give a hoot about their loss and venture out of their air cover. I'm sorry people try to out produce the USA with Japan and conduct rocket research in 1942. But it's not the games fault. If people have fun doing these things then the game isworking for them as well.
I don't expect the AI to be as smart as Von Manstein so rather then blow it's mind by invading India before I have a secure supply line through Burma I act like I am afraind of being caught.
And PBEM rocks so much.

I will admit one thing...PBEM does rock[8D] and the game's a blast. Nothing wrong with making it more accurate by fixing a number of things. Saying your happy can have unfortunate results, however, as it might let the devs off the hook regarding what is an incomplete product at this time. It's good but more time and effort is required for this size of game. After all, it will be the only game of this type we have before many of us catch a dirt nap.[:(] Be all that you can be, baby.

[mogami]

Hi, WITP is a complete product. We are just lucky that 2by3 and Mike Wood not only are trying to fix bugs they are still adding stuff.
If you had never heard of Matrix/2by3 and had never been to this forum and found WITP in a store somewhere and took it home you would play it for several years before you started to wonder about bugs.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, WITP is a complete product. We are just lucky that 2by3 and Mike Wood not only are trying to fix bugs they are still adding stuff.
If you had never heard of Matrix/2by3 and had never been to this forum and found WITP in a store somewhere and took it home you would play it for several years before you started to wonder about bugs.

Incorrect, at least from my vantage point. There is a difference between a raw chicken and a baked, dressed and ready to eat chicken. Mmmmmm......chickennnnnnnn[:)]It is not a complete product because if it was, we would not be having all these massive problems regarding land combat surfacing now for example. Ample testing of various design decisions prior to release would have exposed these problems and they (2 by 3) and kind hearted devotees like the the Ironman Mike Wood would not necessarily "have to" add to the game.

We agree to disagree it seems.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
If you had never heard of Matrix/2by3 and had never been to this forum and found WITP in a store somewhere and took it home you would play it for several years before you started to wonder about bugs.

You forget with whom you are communicating. [:-][:)] I'm a freak and have been pointing things out since UV. And that was before I bought UV and was just reading Iain Christie's Beta AAR.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

If you had never heard of Matrix/2by3 and had never been to this forum and found WITP in a store somewhere and took it home you would play it for several years before you started to wonder about bugs.

No, I wouldn't. I'm not screaming about them as much as some others (trying not to scream at all anymore), but there are several bugs that were almost immediately apparent playing the game.

Without beating up on anyone, something Mr.Frag said in another post indicates that the testers quickly either found out or were told how the developers thought the game should be played and that was all that was tested. The emphasis was not on trying to break it. An example is the earlier problem with aircraft bombing from over 32,000 feet. The developers have the "max altitude" button in the air units screen set altitude to 20K, so no one (apparently) ever set the altitude higher. Because of that, the problem with accuracy "rolling over" because of the field being a signed number was not caught prior to release.

So, sorry, but I can't agree with you on this Mogami.

[Wolfie1]

To Mog saying this is a complete product.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this, I really like the game and am looking forward to PBEMing it very soon, but the amount of problems I've had getting it to work has been annoying, if it wasn't for these forums and the helpful people on here I would have uninstalled and binned it.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

How can you say that? WITP is not complete on its release because of the bugs. You might consider it lucky that 2by3 and Matrix are still working on it, but I would have much prefered they finished the job properly before releasing it.

If someone had thrown the CD out of the window of their car and you picked it up off the side of the road and took it home and installed the program, do you think it would still be on your computer if you didn't have internet connection? Without the patches it was completely unplayable, and with the current patches it still has many problems. You must have more patience than me.

I would like to have 8-10 PBEM games going too but I don't have the confidence at the moment that the time I invest will be well spent.

Sharkosaurus rex

[Halsey]

At least it's not as bad as "Superpower" by Dreamcatcher was![:D][:D][:D]

This game has a devoted following already, and a devoted group of Beta's. Let's help keep them on track. I know I'll be playing this game for years to come.

One step at a time gentleman.[;)]

[2ndACR]

Some things can stand to be adjusted, but the game is playable for the most part.

I have been thru a lot of re-starts against Ron due to bugs, new versions etc and still we play away at it. The leader bug seems to effect the Allied player the most, while the Japanese have to be wary of where the computer sticks its resouces/oil and the computer over riding player changes to production.

Is it a complete and done project? No
Is it basically very stable and playable? Yes

[mogami]

Hi, I agree there were many things we missed testing and I will never try to duck that.

But stop for a second and hear me out here.

Players discovered a problem with bombing at 32k it was reported and fixed.

Anyone that used this while playing has themselves to blame not the testers.

Bugs that steal your units and leaders have to be fixed.

Saying the landcombat is broke because you don't agree that a unit should pay for the hex it is actually moving through and want it to pay for the hex is is going to move into is a personal opinion and not a game flaw.
The land combat system works as far as I am concerned. I like it more when I kill more of the enemy then he kills of my troops but I adjust as I need to to insure I win.

Taskgroups would be nice but I use them without having something called a taskgroup.
I form more then 1 TF often with multiple missions and have the group operate together.
I've always done this. Understanding the aircombat routine I doubt I would want a larger number of my ships being exposed to air attack from a single strike.

No Ron I am sorry, I really don't see the need for many of your requests. The only ones I agree with are to fix things that are broken And if you feel adding more feature while they do that is proof the game was not complete to start with then your........wrong?

I wish I could locate all the threads where people before release begged 2by3 to release the game right that moment.

We were trying to break the game. But you have toi back up and consider. 1 tester reports a bug. A change comes down and the tester goes back and tests that fix. If he finds a new bug it gets reported. After a while in testing, testers are checking to see if bugs they reported are fixed and new versions fall like rain. It is not possible to think of and there is not time to conduct all inclusive tests of every aspect where all keystrokes are tried etc.
The testers do know what the designers want and check to see it that is working.
Now if we tell the public the designers intent and they choose to play otherwise I think it grossely unfair for them to come back and say it is broken. How to play WITP has been covered starting months prior to release. When players complain about the game often they are doing just what they have been told they should not do. WITP is not an empire building game it's not a game of tactical combat, it's not a game of production. Those are just parts that together are used but they are not meant for a lot of player involvement.
You assign units an objective, or a mission.
Players say the AI is bad but they have been told right from the start they have to play a specific way against it to get the most out of it. They don't have to play stupid or predictable. But they also can't play outside certain logic that existed at the time. They have to stay inside aircover. They can't by magic produce huge active fronts that did not exist.

Ok sorry. Really I'm not here to tell you how to play or what to think. I'm here to help people operate the game thats all.
I can tell a person what button to push to get a result. But I can't tell him why he should or should not push the button. But I won't listen to him after I tell him whats it's for if he complains it does not do something it was not designed to do.


As designed WITP works. The known bugs are going to be fixed. There is no doubt about that. But WITP will never be all thing to all people. To people who want a Operational Level Game of WW2 in the Pacific there is nothing beyond it and nothing on the horizon.

[kaleun]

Somehow it seems to me that even its harshest critics love this game, otherwise they would have dumped it already.
Yes the initial price tag is somewhat steep but, if it wasn't that the game delivers, they wouldn't be playing after, what has it been 4 months?
I have several games in my hard drive that are just taking up space, and that I play, perhaps three or four times a year.
WITP with all of its annoyances, I play daily, as much as I can, and as fast I can get the turns from my PBEM opponents in (currently 3) I don't have anymore PBEM games running because I still have 2 Bombing the Reich PBEM games going, and I do want to finish those.
Could the AI be better, well, perhaps, but short of using a Cray I don't think you could design a computer AI smart enough to handle a game of this depth and complexity.
Improvements to this game are probably only going to be incremental, think pushing one base, not homeruns.
I for one am happy with what I got, and ecstatic to see that fixes and improvements continue to be made.
Thanks to Matrix and all the testers/developers.
Can you guys do Silent Service next?

[Strv103C]

(In reply to Kid who was asking about a savegame file to prove that the AI is making mistakes)

I'm playing the 42A scenarion vs the AI. The AI continue to send its nates and sallys etc on pointless suicide missions to Imphal and Port Moresby. But it did reacted well to my invasions on Guadalcanal and Timor. Generally the AI isn't bad but do yoy really need a savegame file to see that the AI makes stupid thing once in a while.

[adsoul]

I see your points. Basically, there's alot of things in WitP that I would change. Because they're broken? Nah, because I'm a specific type of player and I'd like a game *perfectly* modelled on my style of gaming. In short, this means that almost every player should have to project, design and program his own game. On the other hand, I think this is a game... yes, the biggest game I've ever seen, but only a game. He can sim the real war, nothing more and nothing lesser, so we cannot pretend that it's like the real life. I remember a post where somebody pointed out (correctly IMHO) that it's impossible to recreate the same feeling that Yamamoto, Nimitz and the others experienced, just because we have aloto of knowledge of facts, weapon, doctrine, knowledge that our real counterparts just did not have. So, I will keep to play, enjoy and getting excited with my PBEM (yep, after having experienced PBEM I cannot go back to AI) and sometimes I will complain about leaders (not the bug, but their use), this is part of my excitment. At last, I have payed 69.99$ for it and I've been playing *every day* since July, it's 1$ a day right now and it's going down [:D]
Last point: I'm not (and I'll never be) a General or an Admiral. I'm just a player and I think that a really good player (that I'm not) is good also because he can fit in with game rules. So I think that best WitP players are those who can get into mechanics and find out tactics and strategies who work in this environment. OK, just my cent, hoping I haven't offended anybody.

[kaleun]

In fact Adso, I believe that to be a real good player, and to enjoy the game, you really have to get (figuratively) into Nimitz's shoes, or Yamamoto's kimono.
In my two allied games, I know the PI, Malaya and DEI are going to get creamed, Iknow it from history, however, I try to defend them, until it is becoming obvious that they cannot be defended. Now this will happen first in the Philipinnes, so I start withdrawing things from the Philipinnes to the DEI. Yes the DEI will eventually fall, but Nimitz did not know that, so I play to try to preserve the ABDA command. I might not reinforce Malaya, but then again, there was not much to reinforce it with.
Playing "in the commander's shoes" the game becomes even more absorbing. Actually too absorbing.
[8|]How can I defend Wake? (Warspite game in the AAR). Can I get reinforments in? Can I evacuate those guys? Think, I must think!

[adsoul]

I see your points, but Nimitz, for one, was not the only one "thinking". As you know, there was U.S. planners that thought PI indefendible, others (like McArthur and others) planned to hold Philiphhines until the US Fleet could have reach them. I mean, there are many ways to put himself in shoes of Nimitz. I have a PBEM where I'm trying to defend bases like Rangoon and Timor, altough I know it's an almost helpless effort. But I want to explore this path anyway. What I mean is that I'm doing that "inside" the rules, not complaining about this or that wrong or missing rule or feature. And, anyway, I just cannot forget that CV Japanese pilots are better than mine or Zeroes are far better than P-40... that Nimitz just could not know at the beginning

[mogami]

Hi, I think there is a correct way to play. The game does not require us to play correctly.
I think it is very probable that if the Allied player just sent a lot of transports full of troops to PH and then loaded then and the herd at PH and then sailed for Tokyo, I think there is a good chance he might actually take the place.
The game allows this. The AI will likely allow this. In PBEM as Japan I wish my opponents would try it.
I'm using the wrong term or phrasing it in correctly when I say "The Correct" way.

I force myself to establish air control over an area before I enter it.
I force myself to provide defense to areas I know the enemy will not be coming (but in PBEM they might)
I abhorr losing material. AP AK submarine or Nate I hate it. I take measures to prevent it. I take measures to reduce it.
I rarely will risk a 200 point ship or a 40 point ship just to blow up a few aircraft. If I bombard an enemy base it is only when the operation requires it.

I would never think "It is ok, it will be replaced" I can just imagine telling a crew "I'm going to send you PT's in against an enemy surface force containing BB and CA because if you score just one hit it is worth losing all of you, you will be replaced"

Instead early in war I withdraw my PT boats and try to set up where they will encounter enemy transports or lightly defended TF. I even fly CAP over them while they move if I am able and I move fighters so I can do it.

I do risk ships and their crews. I consider some of the land units cut off. I never abandon a unit. My subs from PI are not out hunting Japanese because they are moving a few supply to feed cut off units. They are transporting a few men at a time to safety. But my airgroups don't leave the SRA. The Japanese must drive me out. I consider the first 18 months of the game the most fun....when I am the Allied player. It is not fun to be Japan for me ever. (I have fun playing the game but being Japan wears me out)

I cinsider it my duty to met my objectives. My objective as Japan is to secure the material my economy requires and then defend it to the bitter end.
My objective as Allied player is to fight. Not to run away. The troops in the SRA fight to win, they fight to survive. I bend every effort to getting them to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese are defeated by the degree I prevent or delay them meeting their objectives.
But I don't throw them away.

If players had to submit to electric shocks when they lost material (the voltage depending on the loss) They would play more "correctly" I don't want the game to define correctness. I want my opponents to decide that. However if you begin by trying to take of your units and meet your objectives you'll find the game works pretty well.
Forget what the game will allow you to do. There are manythings allowed that should still not be done. And if you go ahead and do them please don't use that as an example of the games weakness.
There should be a little counter that represents the player. It should always have to go to the place where he has exposed one of his units to the most danger. The player should have to share in it's fate. And if lost the game ends. Not because his side has lost but because now his side is under the command of a new leader. It's not realistic but faced with this prospect the player would take better care and be forced into better planning prior to exposing a unit to danger.




Edit I typed PI at start but I meant PH (Pearl Harbor) There are several Div there at start)

[adsoul]

OK, so you're telling you're giving some rules to yourself... and this is exactly what I do.... except that my rules are different than yours. Just like you, I hate losing stuffs, but (IMHO) there are situations where it's meaning to do. For example, in order to buy some time to defend an all-important base I'll send CAs and BBs to face overwhelming aircraft power. But only if I think that it could have happened in RL... and sometimes happened. Think at the Battle of Bismarck Sea or (altough different) Admiral Scott and Callaghan's choice to fight a superior enemy force to prevent them to bombard Henderson Field. This is the stronger point of this game, IMHO. You can try different things and you can choose to limit choiches... but you're not forced to play the real war as they did... that it would be boring and not something that I'd call a game!

[kaleun]

Also to make it more realistic, I give "shore leave" to my subs.
I have advanced sub bases, i.e. wake, midway, and some secret ones. There are ASs in these bases. When a sub comes back from a mission, I usually disband it to port in these advanced bases if SD 5<9. If SD >10 then it goes back to a big port (with women [;)]) for refitting and R&R. Only if SD <5 or in dire straits will the sub refuel, rearm and go back out. The game doesn't have crews mutinying but I want to have a realistic game.
Even in the early phases of the war, I might have 5 or 6 subs at these advanced bases, for up to a month, repairing and refitting minor damage.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think there is a correct way to play. The game does not require us to play correctly.
I think it is very probable that if the Allied player just sent a lot of transports full of troops to PH and then loaded then and the herd at PH and then sailed for Tokyo, I think there is a good chance he might actually take the place.
The game allows this. The AI will likely allow this. In PBEM as Japan I wish my opponents would try it.
I'm using the wrong term or phrasing it in correctly when I say "The Correct" way.

I force myself to establish air control over an area before I enter it.
I force myself to provide defense to areas I know the enemy will not be coming (but in PBEM they might)
I abhorr losing material. AP AK submarine or Nate I hate it. I take measures to prevent it. I take measures to reduce it.
I rarely will risk a 200 point ship or a 40 point ship just to blow up a few aircraft. If I bombard an enemy base it is only when the operation requires it.

I would never think "It is ok, it will be replaced" I can just imagine telling a crew "I'm going to send you PT's in against an enemy surface force containing BB and CA because if you score just one hit it is worth losing all of you, you will be replaced"

Instead early in war I withdraw my PT boats and try to set up where they will encounter enemy transports or lightly defended TF. I even fly CAP over them while they move if I am able and I move fighters so I can do it.

I do risk ships and their crews. I consider some of the land units cut off. I never abandon a unit. My subs from PI are not out hunting Japanese because they are moving a few supply to feed cut off units. They are transporting a few men at a time to safety. But my airgroups don't leave the SRA. The Japanese must drive me out. I consider the first 18 months of the game the most fun....when I am the Allied player. It is not fun to be Japan for me ever. (I have fun playing the game but being Japan wears me out)

I cinsider it my duty to met my objectives. My objective as Japan is to secure the material my economy requires and then defend it to the bitter end.
My objective as Allied player is to fight. Not to run away. The troops in the SRA fight to win, they fight to survive. I bend every effort to getting them to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese are defeated by the degree I prevent or delay them meeting their objectives.
But I don't throw them away.

If players had to submit to electric shocks when they lost material (the voltage depending on the loss) They would play more "correctly" I don't want the game to define correctness. I want my opponents to decide that. However if you begin by trying to take of your units and meet your objectives you'll find the game works pretty well.
Forget what the game will allow you to do. There are manythings allowed that should still not be done. And if you go ahead and do them please don't use that as an example of the games weakness.
There should be a little counter that represents the player. It should always have to go to the place where he has exposed one of his units to the most danger. The player should have to share in it's fate. And if lost the game ends. Not because his side has lost but because now his side is under the command of a new leader. It's not realistic but faced with this prospect the player would take better care and be forced into better planning prior to exposing a unit to danger.




Edit I typed PI at start but I meant PH (Pearl Harbor) There are several Div there at start)

I agree with a lot of things you say, Mog. Believe me. And I play with house rules but SOME ASPECTS OF THE GAMES MECHANICS DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO HOUSE RULES. For example, as much a we may want to simulate operations maximums for ports, we can't...the game mechanics overide anything we try. Land combat is completely screwed and we can't really apply houserules to the inadequate supply/movement/retreat/lack of weather effects etc. I'm probably one of this games biggest fans and fanatics, but I don't coo over everything about it. If all they want are bug zappers and cheerleaders, how will design innovation or redesign come about? Criticism is a good thing when used correctly. This game has so many good points I can't begin to count, maybe I should list the pros and cons so I don't come across as a completely negative bitchmaster.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I agree there were many things we missed testing and I will never try to duck that.

But stop for a second and hear me out here.

Players discovered a problem with bombing at 32k it was reported and fixed.

Anyone that used this while playing has themselves to blame not the testers.

Bugs that steal your units and leaders have to be fixed.

Saying the landcombat is broke because you don't agree that a unit should pay for the hex it is actually moving through and want it to pay for the hex is is going to move into is a personal opinion and not a game flaw.
The land combat system works as far as I am concerned. I like it more when I kill more of the enemy then he kills of my troops but I adjust as I need to to insure I win.

Taskgroups would be nice but I use them without having something called a taskgroup.
I form more then 1 TF often with multiple missions and have the group operate together.
I've always done this. Understanding the aircombat routine I doubt I would want a larger number of my ships being exposed to air attack from a single strike.

No Ron I am sorry, I really don't see the need for many of your requests. The only ones I agree with are to fix things that are broken And if you feel adding more feature while they do that is proof the game was not complete to start with then your........wrong?

I wish I could locate all the threads where people before release begged 2by3 to release the game right that moment.

Saying the landcombat is broke because you don't agree that a unit should pay for the hex it is actually moving through and want it to pay for the hex is is going to move into is a personal opinion and not a game flaw.
The land combat system works as far as I am concerned. I like it more when I kill more of the enemy then he kills of my troops but I adjust as I need to to insure I win.

It may "work as designed" but it sure leads to totally whacky tobaccy outcomes and situations. Hence thegeneralopinion that it is "flawed" in design and execution.

Taskgroups would be nice but I use them without having something called a taskgroup.
I form more then 1 TF often with multiple missions and have the group operate together.
I've always done this. Understanding the aircombat routine I doubt I would want a larger number of my ships being exposed to air attack from a single strike.

You have a bunch of TFs which you order to follow a single TF. That's it. This is not adequate because even no the TFs don't operate in relation to each other as a GROUP. We see it all the time! Individual CV TFs react when your intent is to operate together, as was done historically, leaving TFs separated and a friggin mess. Historically, some mutual cooperation kept this from happening. EG. KB at Midway, two CarDivs under Nagumo and Yamguchi. Historically, did Yamaguchi bolt after TF 17 with Hiryu and Soryu, ignoring the senior COs orders? NO! But this will happen in WITP all the time because we have no way yet to prevent it.

Surface combat TF set to follow. What happens when it reacts? Does it return to the formation it was ordered to follow? No, it goes to it Home Port. Bombardment TFs? Same thing. Really inadequate any way one slices it. My idea for a TG is that it is basically a mobile home port and larger formation, allowing the TFs within it to return to it and maintain formation with it. CV TFs stay together. Want a Covering Force to actually be one? Set it to remain 1 hex NE of TG. That sort of thing. Don't tell me that this would not enhance the game and make it more manageable for the player. And as each TF is in a TG, this does not mean it's ONE HUGE TARGET. It is mainly a mechanism to organise and control seperate TFs assigned to it.

My idea for a more manageble way of handling ships by allowing players to place them in DIVISIONS is good too. What's wrong with improvements that make the onerous task of micromanaging less of a player burden? Can't fix auto convoys? Hell, give us this as compensation so the micromangement level stays within reason.

I wish I could locate all the threads where people before release begged 2by3 to release the game right that moment.

This was simply fan fun. "Are we there yet" is pretty common but should not have forced the devs hands, if this is what you are implying.