How can you guys stand PBEM?

[mogami]

Hi, I agree with a lot of what you say Ron. But I don't see much point to people who repeat more then once that they would have done something different.
I don't tell my girlfriends they would be better if they could change this or that.
I don't think land combat is bad. It is bad if your stuck into tactical play. It is fine if you stay with. "It takes this many men this long and this much supply to take this objective. They will lose this much." And then if you actually make sure you don't wear the troops out and so on. It gets really screwy when you pile every single guy in your entire army into a hex the enemy player has piled every single guy in his army into.
It gets really screwy when damage to your transports is not even a consideration when you are looking for a place to land troops. ("i don't care how many I lose just get me ashore"-this is a crazy attitude for an Island nation and no American General could ever return to the United States if the public found out he would accept high loss in place of planning. That is what screw up the game. Players who replace planning with brute force. If there is one thing missing it is that every base under a players control should have to have a constant garrision or it would go neutral. The size of a garrison would be decided by the amount of enemy force inside the same zone. So safer bases would require less garrison but they would still require a garrison. The idea here is simply to make this mass everything in one spot ability less manifest.

But I wander again. I don't expect the game to be what it never claimed to be. And I don't demand that it change. I change to make it work. I am p[laying the game. If I was not playing the game I'd be on your side. If I had the game and could not play becausde it did not work I would be mad. But for me at least it is working. It is working in 8 PBEM games. (and more to follow) To play the game and meet my objectives against a human player trying to prevent it I have to plan. I have to accept the games system and plan. If I do it works. I don't dwell on what might have been if they made movement different . I'd have to plan using that movement but in the end units pay the same cost and take the same amount of time to move. (Units that enter a hex fast come from good terrian and move into bad so they will pay to leave. Units that enter a hex slowly come from bad terrian and move into good so they will leave faster. And I still think movement cost should be for the hex the unit is located in because that is where they are. It makes no sense to me to pay a cost for ground you do not occupy.

Blah Blah. I like the game. Fix the bugs. Add what you can but I'm already happy and I will be even happier when everything works as designed.

[Ron Saueracker]

But I don't see much point to people who repeat more then once that they would have done something different.

This goes back to my main point from months back. Had WITP had an honest to goodness ALPHA stage, where it was playable but design could still be influenced in a significant way, we would have had a much more satisfying product. I can't count how many betas were told that new ideas could not and would not be entertained at "this stage", meaning it was too late. I wonder who, if anybody, was involved with the Alpha in WITP.

Anyway. This goes nowhere. Spilt milk.

[jwilkerson]

I image it all comes down to money - a project has a start date and end date and something is supposed to be delivered at the end for something resembling the estimated cost. Most software projects I've been involved in would be better with more user involvment and this one would've too ... but it would have taken more time and $70 is already a high price. While I would pay more for a true multi-player capability not sure I would pay more for less bugs ... because I don't it would've made much difference. But ... given the track record with UV ... [ I was VERY unhappy with UV in patch 2.2 because we were going backwards and making things worse ] but 2.3 UV is pretty darn stable and I still like it ... sooooo ... I expect that WITP will be similarly stabilized though would expect it to take about a year. So we've still got 6 months to go.

And while I will [and have] point[ed] out problems ... I also will speak in support of the effort ... given the difficulty of making something like this work ( I've been a software guy for 31 years ) ... WITP is a decent effort ... and I expect to keep playing this one for a long time ... [ and I have the leader bug and the disappearing units bug and a CTD from the "back button" in the ship availability screen ... and some other bugs ... but it doesn't keep me from playing ].

[Charles2222]

On the contrary, I comment on this board occasionally, but I haven't been playing it for 4 months. It's very unlikely I ever will play the game until the spawn rule is made optional and it seems to be that with that amateurish rule not being optional I just lost $80, which means my likelihood of buying another GG product is pretty close to nil as well. The only way I'll buy another will likely only be after it had been out for a few months, giving me enough time to study the board and see if it too has something as fanciful as the spawning treatment.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I image it all comes down to money - a project has a start date and end date and something is supposed to be delivered at the end for something resembling the estimated cost. Most software projects I've been involved in would be better with more user involvment and this one would've too ... but it would have taken more time and $70 is already a high price. While I would pay more for a true multi-player capability not sure I would pay more for less bugs ... because I don't it would've made much difference. But ... given the track record with UV ... [ I was VERY unhappy with UV in patch 2.2 because we were going backwards and making things worse ] but 2.3 UV is pretty darn stable and I still like it ... sooooo ... I expect that WITP will be similarly stabilized though would expect it to take about a year. So we've still got 6 months to go.

And while I will [and have] point[ed] out problems ... I also will speak in support of the effort ... given the difficulty of making something like this work ( I've been a software guy for 31 years ) ... WITP is a decent effort ... and I expect to keep playing this one for a long time ... [ and I have the leader bug and the disappearing units bug and a CTD from the "back button" in the ship availability screen ... and some other bugs ... but it doesn't keep me from playing ].

It's a valiant effort! No arguement. Just a shame that a game has to get to a point where it is too far designed to allow significant design alteration but has to be to allow outside playtest. Chicken and the egg. Is this how it HAS TO WORK developmentally?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

On the contrary, I comment on this board occasionally, but I haven't been playing it for 4 months. It's very unlikely I ever will until the spawn rule is made optional and it seems to be that with that amateurish rule not being optional I just lost $80, which means my likelihood of buying another GG product is pretty close to nil as well. The only way I'll buy another will likely only be after it had been out for a few months, giving me enough time to study the board and see if it too has something as fanciful as the spawning treatment.

We have a way around the spawning rule. Works ok PBEM and will work if playing as Allied vs AI.

[mogami]

Hi, Well I know you can't be worried babout a few CA. So it must be the CV and as has been beat to death already no matter how many "Spawned" CV the USN gets (and it can only get 6) In the end the USN will never have any more CV then it actually used and it might not get some it really did have. (for every CV below 6 it loses it loses a historical CV)
The problem is when CV arrive. If the USN waits too long it will not be getting ships during the period it actually got ships. No replacement CV can arrive prior to the first "real" Essex but they can arrive long after the ships that have been left out to make room for spawned ships would have arrived.

So it can't be because the USN gets too much. And it can't be because it will make the AI too strong so I wonder just what it is?

[Charles2222]

How do you solve it playing as Allied vs. JA AI?

[mogami]

Hi, There is nothing to solve. I'm not worried that Japanese MSW and PC respawn. There was no way to include every one of those in the OB.
As Allies I am never going to get too many ships from respawning. The Max number of CV the Allied player gets is 19. 19 is the number they actually had. (plus those that they lost) If you keep the original you will have 19. If you lose those they lost you will have 19 if you lose more then they lost you don't get any extra.

[Charles2222]

And.............what about those CA's and CL's of both the US and Aussies?

BTW Mogami, I wouldn't be too confident that Ron's "way around it" is the same as yours, such that I would like to hear his idea.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

How do you solve it playing as Allied vs. JA AI?

Japan's only respawned ships are MSWs, and this is no big problem. No house rule necessary to keep AI from using spawned ships. It won't work with AI as Allies because there is no way to enforce the house rule.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

And.............what about those CA's and CL's of both the US and Aussies?

BTW Mogami, I wouldn't be too confident that Ron's "way around it" is the same as yours, such that I would like to hear his idea.

All the ommitted ships (due to name duplication) will now be in the OOB, either with their original names, cancelled names and in some cases "fictitious" names. They will have an * next to their names for ease of identification. They will arrive at the historic entry dates, and any other issues like accelerated arrivals for other ships will be made historical. All you have to do as Allied player is keep respawned vessels "out of play" in San Francisco.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

And.............what about those CA's and CL's of both the US and Aussies?

BTW Mogami, I wouldn't be too confident that Ron's "way around it" is the same as yours, such that I would like to hear his idea.

All the ommitted ships (due to name duplication) will now be in the OOB, either with their original names, cancelled names and in some cases "fictitious" names. They will have an * next to their names for ease of identification. They will arrive at the historic entry dates, and any other issues like accelerated arrivals for other ships will be made historical. All you have to do as Allied player is keep respawned vessels "out of play" in San Francisco.

Well it's too bad that the JA player can't have some way of locking those ships at a base too (the Allied ships). Maybe that would be an easy optional spawning workaround, whereas when the option is clicked on, the respawned ships are forced to stay in dock irrespective of which side the AI takes.

[mogami]

Hi, Japan is not going to lose the war because of 6 CV and 6 CA

(If the game totally removed respawned ships but added the missing ones the USN is larger then by using spawned ships)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Japan is not going to lose the war because of 6 CV and 6 CA

(If the game totally removed respawned ships but added the missing ones the USN is larger then by using spawned ships)

This is the point. The Allies were getting screwed again with it, especially conservative and rational players, but were also able to increase their cruiser force beyond their manufacturing capability when the Allied player plays like a fool.

[Charles2222]

6 CV and 6 CA???? How many US and Aussie CA's are there? If more than 6 then it is that amount if all are sunk. How many US and Aussie CL's (I notice no accounting for them)? And though the manual doesn't state it, I'm not convinced the CLAA's aren't included too.

[2ndACR]

Charles_22,

Do not worry too much about the re-spawn rule. Alot of people hate it, but I do not worry about it and I play as the Japanese.

As long as I can outnumber the Americans in CV's at any one battle, I have a chance to beat him. Even when I am outnumbered I can still hurt him for a small price early war.

Huh, Panzer? Baby KB is a bugger.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Charles_22,

Do not worry too much about the re-spawn rule. Alot of people hate it, but I do not worry about it and I play as the Japanese.

As long as I can outnumber the Americans in CV's at any one battle, I have a chance to beat him. Even when I am outnumbered I can still hurt him for a small price early war.

Huh, Panzer? Baby KB is a bugger.

The side I'm playing doesn't matter. I'm trying to play it militarily, so the points mean nothing to me. I don't like it being too easy by having things pop right back up (Allies), or it being too difficult to outnumber, or even draw even for that matter(Japanese), later in the war because the blasted early sinkings keep coming back.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Japan is not going to lose the war because of 6 CV and 6 CA

(If the game totally removed respawned ships but added the missing ones the USN is larger then by using spawned ships)

This is the point. The Allies were getting screwed again with it, especially conservative and rational players, but were also able to increase their cruiser force beyond their manufacturing capability when the Allied player plays like a fool.

Hi, Well conservative rational players don't need help but fools do. If you sink the fisrt batch as Japan and there is no respawn rule you don't get the VP for sinking the second batch of respawned ships. But I think there is a limit to how many they get. For CV it is either 4 or 6 and for CA it is not unlimited but I don't know the number. I don't worry about this rule as Allied or as Japan.

Among the very first posts about UV/WITP project we were told 2by3 was doing the game because they wanted to play it. We got to play it as well by making it possible for them to do the project in the first place.

[2ndACR]

I am just saying it is not worth quiting the game over. You can try and work out a rule with your opponent if PBEM and do not have to really worry too much against the AI either way.

I would even allow my opponent to use the "banked CV's" if I was beating his butt badly everytime he put to sea with CV's. As long as I have as many CV's active as the allied player or more, then I do not worry too much.

If I lose my starting CV's as Japan, then I worry.