Matrix got it wrong???

[treespider]

I keep reading threads about how Matrix has the game all wrong....can anyone please point me to a game where anybody got it right?

[Mr.Frag]

As the old saying goes, "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one". Find one person who says one thing and twenty will show up to shoot him down with "facts".

The only way to "get it right" is to do a fantasy game as there is no ability to argue the "facts" as they don't exist. Even then people will bitch that the model is flawed because "their" fantasy is different. [:D]

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I keep reading threads about how Matrix has the game all wrong....can anyone please point me to a game where anybody got it right?

-Hi, the game is not bad, quite the opposite, it is the most ambitious wargame ever published and has an unrivaled level of detail. The big trouble is that the complexity of this monster is such that it is was published with lots of flaws in the game engine. While these flaws don´t cripple the game, they result in very strange combat results. It must be noticed, however, that the game was published with an editor that can be used to fix many of these troubles (other are hard coded and must be fixed in future versions). The truth is that this game is, to some extent, a beta version, and it is not a criticism directed to Matrix. I´m actually very happy in having the opportunity to give my opinions in this forum. Given the complexity of the game, we will not not thousands, but millions of hours of playtesting to reach the final product, and this only be achieved by allowing us to act as beta testers (to some extent). Eventually, many of the design biases we have in this game will be fixed, as this company is quite sensible to the complaints of their customers. I spent happily the US$70,00 to buy the game and would do it again. My only complaint is that some things (like ASW, attack aircraft effectiveness as a whole and replacement system for land units, for instance) seem to have worsened in relation to UV, and this was not expected.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

As the old saying goes, "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one". Find one person who says one thing and twenty will show up to shoot him down with "facts".

The only way to "get it right" is to do a fantasy game as there is no ability to argue the "facts" as they don't exist. Even then people will bitch that the model is flawed because "their" fantasy is different. [:D]

Yeah, like the one that includes my wife, a female stripper, ice cubes, and chocolate ice cream with strawberries...

Oh, wait, that's supposed to got on Penthouse Forum...

[Titanwarrior89]

Overall i think they got Witp right. Yes there is problems with it and there will always be problems with it. It is not correct in everything it is modeling. But with the large scope of it, Matrix did a excellent job on it.

So i would vote Witp as right as you can get overall with all things taken into account.[;)]

[Grotius]

I'm with Titanwarrior. Given the massive scope of the game, it's a pretty impressive achievement. Sure, I can tick off two dozen things I would change. In a game as complex as this, everyone will have two dozen complaints. And we're never all going to agree on, say, how effective Betties should be or how many Op Losses aircraft should take. But as I read the AARs in the AAR forum, I'm usually pretty satisfied that the game plays out in a historically plausible way. And my own experience, especially in PBEM, has been similar.

This game makes you think. In a PBEM, I really think hard about what the other guy might do, about logistics problems, about strategic choices, and so on. I like that.

I have bought dozens of computer wargames, not to mention dozens of old board wargames. This is the only computer wargame (other than its predecessor, Uncommon Valor) that has kept my attention for the better part of a year. A pretty good sign, that.

[Drex]

I even took UV off my computer for this game.

[Blackwatch_it]

ORIGINAL: Drex

I even took UV off my computer for this game.

I still have UV on my pc, but I didn't open it from July 04

[Tom Hunter]

There is also quite a bit of poorly informed speculation and debate about things that may have been fixed.

For example before 1.4 China may have been impossible to defend. I did not play then so I don't know, but lots of people I respect thought so. Fixes were put in with 1.4 and some people lost in China anyway. So there was still talk of China not being strong enough, but its very possible these people did not understand the land warfare system and lost China for that reason.

Likewise a well written AAR with a big following can change people point of view and feedback. PzBs successful invasion of India against Wobbly is a perfect example of both a gripping AAR and an event that changed a lot of peoples opinions. Now there is a lot of talk about India not being defensable and needing more troops.

Personally I completely disagree with that thesis, I think India is plenty strong and that PzB won thier because he achieved strategic suprise.

However regardless of my personal opinion its dangerous to make assumptions about the whole game because of one test case between two players. There is huge variability in the quality of command out there, and it can produce startling upsets.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
This is the only computer wargame (other than its predecessor, Uncommon Valor) that has kept my attention for the better part of a year.

I concur! Although I bitch a lot and post pipe dreams about missing features etc., I'd like to emphasize that this game rocks and that the only games that have kept and will keep my attention for many years are good ol' PacWar and WitP (mmh, and Civilization 3, although I haven't touched it since WitP is out). Nevertheless, this game could be even better if only they would corrrect this, add that and tweak... [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Grotius
This is the only computer wargame (other than its predecessor, Uncommon Valor) that has kept my attention for the better part of a year.

I concur! Although I bitch a lot and post pipe dreams about missing features etc., I'd like to emphasize that this game rocks and that the only games that have kept and will keep my attention for many years are good ol' PacWar and WitP (mmh, and Civilization 3, although I haven't touched it since WitP is out). Nevertheless, this game could be even better if only they would corrrect this, add that and tweak... [:D]

Yep, there is so much wrong with it but there is so much right with it! KFC is so wrong but it is soooo good.[:D]

I think given more chance to develop, and using the first year or so as a playtest and research period, this game could be revamped to something much more than it is now. So what if the code is old, what isn't regarding PC tech today?

Perhaps it might be worth using the lessons and research being done on this to start another from scratch using more modern techniques, something which this game seems to have missed out on. All the work done fixing OOBs for PacWar and UV seem to have failed to register. Hash out all the good and bad, add the corrections and lessons learned before committing time and resources to the code phase. What's the point of starting out on the wrong path, as it seems was done with this game...by the time anyone outside the shop got to see what was being attempted the fabric had already been sewn together?

Another thing is to scrap the concept of a full map/full time cycle AI and break it down into theatres and time periods. Sort of like the Close Combat approach to full Campaigns, but actually putting some effort into it (man, CC had a great idea then forgot to bother with the AI). Much easier to create an AI which has fewer possibilities with which to contend with. We all know the AI in this game is a flop and was the main source of headaches for Gary. Perhaps not trying for the Hail Mary and using short passes and a ground game is the way to go.

[ltfightr]

It is human nature to gripe about fault and overlook the greatness. Does WITP have flaws. Yes. But I think it is the best attempt ever written. Do I agree with all of the "features" no. Do I think everything is modeled correctly no. Can it be maybe not. The best you can do is reach a compromise on some issues. I hope the game continues to be improved but God knows I have bought a lot of games and Pi$$ away a lot of money on games with 1/2 the scope 1/100 of the playability and 1/10000 of the value per time spent playing.

[The Gnome]

As stated by many, most of the complaints come out of the fact that the game is so good. The things that are wrong, if corrected, would make it cosmically, mind bendingly, orgasmically, off-the-charts awesome!

Sometimes the arguments about what is wrong are extremely intense and sometimes heated. This is like a married couple of 20 years fighting. If it's the first time you see them together you might think they hate each other. (but they don't )

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I keep reading threads about how Matrix has the game all wrong....can anyone please point me to a game where anybody got it right?

I would like to see a thread where everybody says the game is all wrong. Most people here think it is a great game that we are unlikely to see again but we like to point out flaws in hopes that they will be fixed.

[Tom Hunter]

I bears pointing out that if the air combat system is working well no one comes on the boards to discuss the high quality of the air system. Instead they go play games. But if the air system has problems they want it fixed and they post about it.

So if you want to know what is right about the game look at what people do not complain about.

Here is a short list:

Logistics, no one complains that supply does not work, or that it is either too important or not important enough.

Ship Vs. Ship combat

Air to Air combat

Air to Ship combat

The whole system of planning, loading and launching invasions

Most aspects of Japanese production

Most aspects of base operations

Naval repair

So the list of what is right includes much of the critically important stuff. The list of what is wrong includes some important things but few of them are as important for the game as what is on the list above.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
Logistics, no one complains that supply does not work, or that it is either too important or not important enough.

I do [:'(].

[Ron Saueracker]

high quality of the air system.

Eh?[&:]

The air system I find whacked as well. What about these issues?....

-Morale levels decide whether or not the planes fly? And on an individual level? WTF is that? Morale should have nothing to do with whether they fly, only how they perform. There is no command structure in this game. The concept of duty, orders, chain of command etc have been totally ignored. Obviously this game was designed by civilians with no clue what or how the military functions.

-Uber CAP? Hex based, usually maxed at all times, endless ammo, gets to maul fighter escorts first then bombers (basically being two places at once), no apparent coordination problems...

-strike coordination rules and problems. Japanese get an unwarranted carrier strike coord bonus. Vs land targets, the target selection phase occurs before the CAP phase so each strike vs seperate LCUs (which we can't overide) goes in like uncoordinated strikes.

-design of airbases and how they are damaged, function etc. Too easy to shut down bases (uses same design as BOB yet Biggin Hill is not in the same class as say the Rabaul complex of AFs). Stacking penalties are toothless. All are vulnerable to naval bombardment, and the limited number of air phases allow slower TFs to approach AF without air attack by 1E tactical a/c which normally coulld and did hit these TFs.

-no real maintenance or ops restrictions other than one sided weather issues (nope, we are socked in by the weather so we can't fly but the enemy is bombing the same base which is socked in).

-4E bomber uberness vs just about anything

-weird vulnerability of 4E bombers to lightly armed fighters (formations are not modelled so box defence based on mutually supporting massed armament is moot...basically whole air model is one on one)

-ops losses too high...if we are not going to allow damaged planes to divert to nearest AF, then tone down the ops losses of returning damaged planes

-pilot experience...everyone is a potential Werner Moelders, and many start out as such before even having seen combat (AVG!!!)

-air transfer rules..a joke as the allow aircraft to wisk about Pacific and conduct air ops without any sort of delay or penalty in most cases.

I can keep going......[8|]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

[I would like to see a thread where everybody says the game is all wrong.

Good point. Must be remembered that the majority of WitP players dont post much if at all and i'm sure enjoy the game as most of us do. Those with complaints and/or axes to grind tend to dominate the forum with repeat complaints and can give a lopsided impression.

Gotta take it all with a grain of salt. No game is perfect but i'm thankful that Gary and company made this game and that i was able to be a part of it's development.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
Logistics, no one complains that supply does not work, or that it is either too important or not important enough.

I do [:'(].

I gotta admit, i've also had several posts about supply problems - specifically supply draining off into uninhabited bases.

[The Gnome]

Hey wait a minute, I've griped about Ship v. Ship!