Originally posted by Chiteng: I disagree with both the above.
A computer enables you to handle easily
alot of chrome that you cannot with a board game for example.
The issue I meant to address, and was not clear about, is not computer capabilities but rather the very finite amount of time Matrix has to work on these projects. I am aware, with enought time you can do anything. All I meant to say is that I would rather see them work on better combat resolution, have better ship and aircraft modeling, and many other things that I feel are more important than making too intricate a supply system. That is only my opinion and not intended as the only valid one.
I observe that there are apparently two
factions trying to promote a polarized
view. I doubt that we will see a unified
consensus.
Huh? I dont see any factions nor anyone trying to promote anything. I do however see
people with varying opinions on what they think is fun which is as it should be. The unified consensus it that we all want this game to be perfect.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
No, I think there are two factions, but we're not at each other's throats. While Chiteng has a point that computers are capable of crunching more numbers these days, I agree that there is a danger that designing a good production model could cannibalize time that could be used to make the operational side of the game that much better.
I think your real concern probably lies in the fear that a detailed production model could bog the game down into minutia that you don't want to be bothered with. I don’t know how many of you are board gamers, but I played a game called Campaign for North Africa back in the day. The supply rules were so detailed that you pretty much needed two people per side: one to fight the battles and one to act as supply officer. The game re-enacted the entire desert campaign, so it was large scale, yet you tracked individual vehicles in each battalion. You had to truck fuel from ports to the front line, and you had to account for fuel evaporation along the way! You also had to truck water to the front line. The “Italian Pasta Rule” stated that the Italians needed extra water because they needed it to cook pasta! This was basically a computer game before computers were available for such stuff and was a paperwork nightmare. Though I love a good monster game, this one finally went too far. So, Ringbolt, I understand your fears about being forced to deal with a detailed production model when all you want to do is fight.
The answer is to have detailed production be optional. That would give both "factions" what they want. You also have to figure that you’d only have to dally with the production numbers every month or so, which appears to be once every thirty or sixty turns.
I also have to chide you in a good-natured way and tell you war is much more than blowing stuff up and killing the enemy. It is logistics from beginning to end. Didn’t some short guy renowned for killing his enemy say that an army marched on its stomach? But a war game should be fun. It is a simulation and should simulate that part of war that you are interested in. Mr. Moore, Chiteng, and I will hope there is a more detailed production model offered as an option (though I’ll pass on an inordinately complicated supply model). I hope you are allowed to focus solely on fighting the battles.
Gosh, guys, I think we’ve pretty much run this topic into the ground. It was such a good thread with excellent input, but I’m not sure we can take it anywhere else. Haven’t we said everything?
I agree that allocating specific resources to this kind of ship or plane is too complex.
But how about a slider bar approach that takes the inputs like the Jap/US resources/Oil and converts them to OP points. Then a player could allocate the OP points to shipbuilding, research, heavy industry, intel, and other production aspects.
A percentage limit would be inpose on each type so a person could not just put everything into shipbuilding. The lack of heavy industry or oil refining would mean no gas or parts (read repair capacity).
Since ships seem to be the talk of the thread, add seperate sliders under shipbuilding to allocate to CV's, subs, whatever.
If the combat routines and other things being equal, a player won't build just CV's or BB's because they'd get blasted by subs (no escourts), lack of troop transport, no merchants to get resources, minesweepers vrs minelayers, CL's for fleet AA, CA's as cheaper BB's (three CA's can go a lot farther than one BB sometimes!) etc.
I think player's will find that fleets were created because different ships are built to fill different needs. You need them all.
But such a simple approach might provide some what if for player's to tweak a few more carriers or APA's (NEVER enough APA's!!!!) or get research to push up the F6F or Midway CV.
Of course, you would get to (have to) allocate some of those OP points to your HQ's in order to get anybody to do anything.
That would also allow a player to emphasize what 'theater HQ' would do the push that month and for how long they could sustain it.
A monthly allocation but day turns would really make a player plan!
My two cents worth .
Okay, maybe there is some life left to this thread.
gdpsnake? Gross domestic product snake? Hmmm.
My comment on working with production monthly wasn't so much a desire to only have the option to fiddle with production once a month as it was a comment on the practicality of doing it more often. In my perfect game, shifting production would impose delays. A player would probably go into production once a month just to fine tune - unless there really was a wholesale change.
Okay, so I guess there are three camps:
1. the camp that either doesn't want to screw around with production or wants historical production;
2. the camp that wants to be able to alter production significantly but on a simplified basis, i.e., a total number of production points that can be shifted among various production items; and
3. the most thoughtful, far-sighted, and omniscient of the camps that has the best interests of the gaming community and the whole world in mind (me) that would like to have the option of being able to alter production significantly (as with the second camp), but having it be more detailed with production inputs, delays, etc.
I'm either a second or third camp guy. If an alterable production system were done well, it would take into account the various factors the third camp is requesting, and production decisions would have the same effect. Thus, the biggest difference between the two would be only whether the factors are controlled by the computer behind the scenes, or by the player himself. According to my vision anyway.
Byron,
I agree wholeheartedly about being a 2nd or 3rd camp guy... Having said that I'm also limited for gameplaying time so I really have to lean towards the 2nd camp realistically.
Snakes suggestion of slider bars is still valid and the most likely to be used if at all in production changes-IMHO it can be done... (I offer up an example- Jim Gindins Front Office Football-2 you choose the amount of time learning plays in training camp AND use the same slider bar method to then decide what kind of plays to run for your team. It works very well) Apply this to a monthly conference (again shades of KOEI's PTOII)and we get our wish for some production control.
I am enjoying this thread and kinda hope to hear something from the Matrix staff, good or bad its been fun!
Jim
Grid Production & Resource System:
Have we considered a simple matrix-type system? The matrix can become as complex as anyone needs it to. On the left hand column are different production factors such as available steel, aluminum, tin, labor, shipyards, civilian population etc. On the top are the different things which can be produced such as weapons, military formations, harbors, etc. As these cross over you have the production requirements given for a particular item.
The materials manifest would be subject to stockpiling and depletion depending on the fortunes of the player. If the Japanese player were cut off from some material then eventually that would deplete and their items requiring that substance for production would go dark. This axis could be as complex as anyone needed it. A game like this is largely a matter of interacting databases. Players could even have the option of abstracting more or less of this axis, possibly limiting it to steel, oil, and coal for instance.
The top axis would go out to the right as time progressed. As the war progressed different items were brought into production and play.
A simple slider system could be used to adjust production for individual items or for classes of items such as "heavy bombers" or "light ships." The idea here is that a player could see what the economic basis of their strategy might require. The time factor could be adjusted by batching production by month or even quarter. At the beginnng of each new production cycle you could look at your available factors and see what was possible. This could be a more complex version of the system used in the "Imperialism" games by SSI. I liked this system although it was too toy-like and not really a simulation-level aspect of the game. The production aspect would be highly necessary for anything approaching an adult simulation.
I think I'm a third camp guy for two reasons. First, I'm also limited on game time. Realistically, I don't see ever playing a game through to its conclusion before something else catches my fancy. But despite the lack of time, I'd still like to have more detailed control over production and have to worry about resource inputs. Since I won't look at this too often, it just wouldn't be that much of a time distraction.
The second reason is that I'd be afraid that the slider trick won't show WHY something is happening the way it is. Gary puts a lot more detail into his coding than manifests itself on the screen. I'd be afraid that he would design in a penalty/delay/something that wouldn't be obvious. "Darn it! The stupid game won't build more than five battleships whether I have the slider in the middle or maxed out to the right! Why not? Stupid program must be broke!" I'd rather have control over input so I can see why output is the way it is. Give me control of the level higher than production so that I can see the effects of my input at the production level.
I also think the sliders have a problem because every production decision affects everything else. A slider is good for determining the odds between two particular choices: running plays v. passing plays; more time v. less time; aggressive defense v. conservative defense; etc. But what does a slider do when you've got more than one choice? Ships v. aircraft v. troops? CVs v. BBs v. CAs v. CLs v. DDs? Single engined fighters v. torpedo bombers v. dive bombers? I think you would agree that you want more control than to weight production toward either heavy ships or light ships or between heavy bombers and single-engined aircraft. When you start using sliders to dictate production of particular aircraft models, I would think you end up with a bazillion different sliders, and you would have no real idea how moving one slider effects other slider decisions you've made. Easier to me if you just show me a chart as to what is being made, and if I up the production of one thing I can see the production numbers for everything else change.
Blah, blah, blah. I'd be happy if the second camp wins. Just so long as I can make what I want.
I guess I am on a more tactical bent than most here. I am probably giving it away when I say that I never played bored games (pun intended) and that my first computer games were flight sim's, although since the original Air Warrior closed on GEnie in '96 I have not played many. Pacwar was more fun.
I always saw my role as the player in Pacwar as the area commander of every area, if that makes any sense. I am aware how important logistics is in real war, it just doesn't sound like a fun game to me. Having to plan for evaporation of fuel and getting the Italians extra water for their pasta sounds about as fun as an IRS audit. Getting a root canal is important, but its not fun. The ideal solution, as stated by several above, is to make it optional as to how much imput you want to have on the beans/bullits/band-aids side. I really hope we all do get what we want out of this game, it is just starting to sound like two completely different games to me.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Thing is, when the Italians surrender, because they are demoralized, how much did
them not being able to eat pasta help?
What effect does inline aircraft engine have vs rotary? Why were the germans more amused by the Grant tank then threatened?
(17.5 gallons to the mile has a bit to do w it)
Why does refurbished arty from WWI simply
not help in the desert and you are better
off simply scrapping the gun and taking the truck?
CNA is a game where you can get those details. in fact those details are in your face. You learn that the best eq is sometimes simply the most reliable eq rather
than the high-performance eq.
There are problems w CNA however. I took Tobruk with Italians simply by shelling
it to bits with every available gun I had.
Still the point is: EVERY element that makes
CNA a nightmare of nuts and bolts could easily be handled by a computer. The database is finite. It could be spreadsheeted easily.
No there is little glamor in these small
details, but there IS alot of LEARNING.
That is why WITP doesnt daunt me.
TOH doesnt daunt me, and anyone who has played the germans in TOH should feel VERY
daunted because of the grotesque handling
of strafing missions. (Hint: compare strafing in TOH to BOB, the diffrence is staggering)
Still attempting to make the German economy
cough up fighters is a very intimidating
exercise. (Hint: get rid of all two engine fighters)
So Gary, if you read this: I have bought every game you ever published and some
were dogs back in 84-85.
I vote you make the production system
as complex as possible. As long as it is realistic. I dont want just an enhanced
PacWar or Nato85. I recall that first
Carrier game you published for the apple
way back in the 80's Where operational
decisions were crucial(ie prepare a strike
or not, and what type)
That level of detail is just fine by me.
But!
I want the ability to push from India thru Burma and swing thru Indo-China and breakout onto the china coastal plain! US armor in China! Build emmense china airbase and bomb
Japan. That is just as valid a strategy
as Island hopping.
Some of us play to learn.
“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'
Gee, we've really made the big time! We've wrapped on to a second page. Can't wait to tell my mother . . .
Croaker, I agree with your matrix approach. I'd suggested something similar earlier in the thread. I had materiel running down the side since I figured there would be a lot of different things to be produced; better to have the matrix run long than wide. But it does seem intuitively natural. We are used to absorbing information from columns and rows. I also think it is a natural way to visually display the basic information that any algorithm would use. It's also easy to see cause and effect, e.g., if I change production of one thing, it is easy to see the effects ripple throughout the rest of that column (or row). Seems like a natural to me.
I don't see any reason for doing monthly batching, however. Considering the scale of the game, it looks like it is going to play slow. If I have an "AHA!" moment lying in bed one night, I'd like to be able to get up and order production changes then rather than wait three weeks until I get to the next monthly production cycle. The computer is certainly able to handle the complexity of building daily, and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have input whenever we want. The real danger, of course, is that we dither with production almost every turn to our detriment. But that's my problem, and if I wreck my own production system by interfering too much, so be it. I'd like the option to make a mess of it.
But does anyone here think that it's not possible to incorporate both of the two main camps in one game by simply having an optional production system? Both sides have very valid points, but they're not mutually exclusive. Since production doesn't effect the grand tactical gameplay and the production routine is completely separate from combat, it would seem so easy to just have the magic "Optional Production" button that allows control over production - if you want it. If you don't, then don't select the option, and your reinforcements are hard-coded.
Finally, Chiteng, I can't believe I've actually found someone else that played CNA. I figured they must have sold a total of 100 copies of the game. It would be an ideal computer game. My point was that I think that game went a little too far. As much as I like dealing with some of the non-combat issues, even I did not want to have to worry about fuel evaporation. The first camp is right that production is secondary to the operational part of the game, and a production system should not be so intricate that it becomes the focus of the game or takes more time than fighting the battles. But an OPTIONAL system could be designed that would provide the control freaks with enough to salve our desire to control production and, at the same time, provide us with more tough choices that could affect the war.
Let me offer another possibility along with the slider bars.
I'm reminded of ADG's World in Flames and SPI's WWII game production systems where you collect resources and apply them to builds.
If the idea of sliders I mentioned earlier was used combined with a 'pool' of available units to build (Ships, plane types, etc.) then you might solve the question of 'hidden computer coding'. You 'spend' the OP points to build a BB or 5 BB's assuming they exist in the 'pool' (Preselect at game start a pool mix based on EXACT HISTORY for those who wish, OR based on variations based on realistic shipyard/industry capacity, OR completely whatever the heck you want to spend your points on based on how many/how well you do in the game collecting the resources/building industry). YOU spend the OP's and lay those keels. You spend the OP's to launch/refit as the final product (Could change a BB keel to CV for example). You spend the OP's to crew/train/make operational fully capable or send it in without any sea trials (be prepared for breakdowns! Reminded of Bismark vrs Hood and King George? class BB which was not ready- working on turrets/had dock workers on board if I remember right-Jap CV's going into battle w/o planes).
Research would put newer class units into the pool.
Changing of the slider bars would incur a delay to represent retooling but you would see that in the monthly output.
Expansion of Industry/collection of resources improves OP amount and how much can be built per turn.
I like the idea of monthly production 'turns' to make these decisions. With a 'unit pool' to build from a player will see the cost and time to build the unit for each stage of production. A player could 'pay' for a BB for three months and skip a month (still pay a very small fee to keep it in drydock), pay again etc. The ship gets ready as you put effort into it! Maybe accelerate a little bit with a much larger increase in spending.
For those who just can't help themselves, you could have the options of super carriers, jets, etc. in the pools.
This is my three cents worth!
Does anyone else play WIF and like their production? WWII? The old SPI spiral?
The primary problem I see with this level of production detail is getting the correct information, such as total tonnage of steel available say. Then there are other items to consider. How much of this steel is dedicated to building ships slotted for use in the Pacific? The questions go on and on. Also, how far down the supply road do you go.
Technically speaking it takes quite awhile for a nation to greatly increase its steel capacity. Japan had a finite amount of manufacturing capacity and it could not be switched around on a whim. Just look how hard it is for a airplane manufacturer to switch from making one type of plane to another. When Grumman stopped producing the F4F to make the F6F it took months and to ready the assembly line and train the workers.
So while I agree that production can be better controlled, I think a lot of thought has to go into where you want to take this approach. The old KISS, keep it simple stupid, approach might be best.
In addition, this game has to be marketable to those not entirely familiar with WWII. A game that has to much minutiae will be impossible for the average person to play thus unprofitable.
Well, i have to disagree...
if you want, you can manage the stomach problems of F.D.R. , but i think you miss apoint. We can handle SOME production changes without studying 5 semesters of economic...
If for example the japs liked to produce subs instead of huge battleships, let them do so... the nightfights will show, if they did well... or the USA produce 4 Montana´s, 10 Iowas and only 2 Essex CV, because the player like the idea, so what... normally he will loose, but this is the interesting thing, you can switch and decide, like you decide to fight in the solomons with 2 CV or 6 (as a japanese) and forget about midway... or do you only want to refight the history ?
Sorry if this sounds offending, that isn´t what i want...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
I agree with the level of production you propose. Actually, if you scroll back a few days worth of posts you can see a couple things I wrote on the topic.
I just think getting too far into the nitty gritty of production would be too complicated for the average person.
I may have not been clear enough in trying to communicate the idea about the matrix approach. I would definately not want to be dealing with matrix analysis every turn. What I wanted to do was to have the players able to adjust production and that their limitations for this would reflect their current logistic/infrastructural/technological situation. The matrices would be informational. You would know how much you could produce of what mixture of stuff and when it would be ready.
This could be done at several levels. I put my copy of Imperialism II back in the machine last night to remember how that played. Imp II is, like the Civ-xx series, sort of an economic/technological sim with a rudimentary military component.
Nonetheless Imp II (BTW Is that Joel Billings in the helm on the cover?) has several levels of economic, diplomatic, tech-research and other management features which can be abstracted by turning them over to computer control. Running with all of that staff under computer control makes it more of a game and less of a simulation and it is more fun to play. Running with all of it turned over to player control allows you to tighten every nut and bolt and is more immersive.
This is the sort of thing that we need to face. Different ones of us prefer different levels of complexity. I personally find that I prefer different levels of complexity at different times. Having this sort of adjustment may make the game more broadly appealing and thus better for all of us.
I personally see these games as being on a continuum from "Toy" to "Game" to "Simulation" to "God Jr." I prefer games in the Game+ to Sim+ categories. OK maybe sometimes I like to play "God Jr." too. I admit it. PzGnII was more of a "Game" on this scale. PzGn III was more at the "Toy" end of things. "War in Russia" is more of a "Game+" with the limited ability the player has to adjust production.
The entire Pacific war is a gigantic project with a huge time scale. As a player I would want to have the ability to control some aspects of it and to allow the computer to manage other aspects. I prefer to play war-games and war-sims not pure sims or higher. If you wanted to play something on this scale as "God Jr." I think you would be at it a long time and eventually go crazy. "I don't know Doctor, he said he had just adjusted all the ammunition loads on the ships in the Saipan invasion fleet when he ran off screaming!"
Okay, Mr. Croaker, I feel that last message was directed at me. Your level of desired immersion generally sounds like mine. However, I would like the <<OPTION>> of managing production on a fairly detailed basis. I would be happy with just two or maybe three input factors: a generalized resource factor that would represent all raw materials, a production factor that would represent your industrial base and, because ship building is so much different from aircraft building, maybe a division between "light" production factors and "heavy" production factors or "shipyard" v. "other". That would be it. But then let me manufacture the ship class or aircraft model I want. My bet is we agree on that.
I see no problem with having the <<OPTION>> to access this on a daily basis. If I want to change it on December 8th, I should be able to. As you point out, anyone would be nuts to dither with this on a daily basis. My guess is that the factors of production (resources and factory capacity) would only change once a month anyway, e.g., the first day of each month. So unless you decided to change your output for some reason other than to adjust to new resource and production capacity (like, maybe, the Allies lose half their aircraft during a bad series of turns), there wouldn't be anything to do anyway. But I would like the <<OPTION>> of issuing my God, Jr., orders whenever necessary - and not once a month. If you only want to play with production once month - fine. Look at it once a month. If the game has a once a month production cycle that is accessed on the first of the month, what happens when you decide you want to build something on the second day of the month? You have to wait a month? No, sir. That twenty-nine days you're missing could be significant. I would like to have twenty-nine days worth of production of a longer ranged fighter. What if you make a mistake? You have to wait a month to rectify it?. Finally, providing daily access is not any more difficult to program than monthly access. I see no benefits to limiting changes to production once a month. It should be constantly available. If you don't want to access it but once a month - fine. Your choice.
I don't see why your matrix would not only be informational but interactive as well. I see the matrix as being the method of interfacing with the computer. If the matrix shows 10 of something being made, you can enter the number 11 directly into the matrix.
I don't think the sliders will work because they can only alter the balance between two discreet alternatives. Unless you have a ridiculous number of sliders (slider #142 determines the balance between Baltimore and Indianapolis class cruisers), you'll always have more than just two alternatives that are possible. If the sliders are inter-related, then changing one will force you to readjust all of your other sliders that were affected. No thanks.
Think about how you would use sliders to determine the number of Fletcher class destroyers you would make. At a minimum, and for this branch of the tree only, you'd need sliders to adjust the balance between:
1. Ship v. other production;
2. Warship v. Transport class;
3. Sub v. Surface;
4. Carrier class v. surface warfare;
5. Heavy surface (BB and CA) v. light surface (DD-like and CL);
6. DD v. DE;
7. And now that it has taken six sliders to get you to DD's, how do you use a slider to select Fletcher class ships?
Alter the sub v. surface ship slider to make more subs, and now you've got to readjust the sliders for all of the branches of surface warships to get things right. Reduce the number of sliders so that, say, your finest tuning option is between more heavy ships or light ships, and it doesn't provide any flexibility for those that want control. I don't think sliders will work.
Aw, heck. This is kicking a dead horse. We got anything else to talk about?
You're probably right about resources. Too much hassle to run down historical availability figures. I would like to see it, but realistically it won't be done because that is not the focus of this game.
I disagree with you on the marketability of the game. First of all, no one is probably going to pay that much attention to it when they're reading the cool sales pitch. Second, this alternative production is an <<<<<OPTION OPTION OPTION>>>>>>>>. Having realistic flight models with torque effect and high-g gun jams doesn't scare people away from flight sims because they can turn it off. If you don't want fog of war, turn it off. Likewise, if you don't want alternative production, turn it off.
Finally, before anyone responds to my previous slider comments, my logic was probably off - or, rather, I was envisioning a different slider logic. I think what everyone is envisioning is a slider for each class or model of thing being made. Thus, the two discreet choices for each slider is not between heavy ships and light ships but between more or less of that whatever that slider represents. For example, if I want more Fletchers, I move the Fletcher slider higher. If that is what is being referred to, that will work. However, you would have to have a slider for each model of aircraft, e.g., one for P-47C and one for P-47D, for each class of ship, e.g., Essex v. Yorktown. That's a lot of sliders. If you raise the level on one slider, all other sliders will drop because you've diverted resources away from all other production.
In any event, if this is want is envisioned, then it is just Croaker's matrix idea put into slider form. The logic is pretty much the same, but the matrix provides for more options - or at least more interaction - to be displayed for each type of thing being produced. But, if the slider crowd agrees with a slider for each class or model of thing being produced, then we're just talking visual presentation and not substance. At that point, I don't really care.
I agree with the level of production you propose. Actually, if you scroll back a few days worth of posts you can see a couple things I wrote on the topic.
I just think getting too far into the nitty gritty of production would be too complicated for the average person.
Err... sorry, i lost it...
can you forgive me ?
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
