Well, with that rapid response from Rich and Jeremy, I'm convinced I may even get an answer for this one. Here's my rub: I played the very first "Real" game on carrier warfare called "Carrier Strike". I know SSG put out Carriers at War and yes it's fun (sorta). But the campaign option just blew CAW out of the water (no pun intended ;} ). But after becoming quite efficient at taking down American task forces I couldn't wait to see the Pacwar release, expecting an expansion on an excellent design. But much to my dismay it completely eliminated any reference to a tactical or operational side game. To shore this up (no pun intended ;} ) I was hoping a later release of Pacwar would offer the players the option of an operational sub-game for the week turn. Perhaps I'd better give some details and stop whining. Here's the idea: If a carrier engagement is about to commence, what about allowing the player/s the option of breaking the week turn into 20 minute turns (ala Carrier Strike) for the region if the computer detects a large force on both sides that are going to have at it. This option would allow the players to have a greater feel for how fun carrier operations can be. There is just something about Carrier Strike and its operational feel that draws me back time and again! So what about incorporating that small aside into the game to give the commanders a little more say in how the war is won (or lost), by introducing an operational phase option when the computer detects two carrier forces preparing to get into it? Introducing the option of going tactical for a region of say a 1000 miles or a twenty by twenty grid area would really add a new feel and make the rerelease something to behold. In short, creating a sub-routine that runs carrier ops like a scenario of Carrier Strike for one week (one turn in Pacwar terms, a scenario in Carrier Strike terms) or until one side withdraws. I bow humbly and await your reply. (Imagine running the Pearl Harbor Operation, calling the strikes and actually nailing the American carriers, afterall, that was the plan.) Any nibbles?
Stew,
Am I too zealous about these Grigsby rereleases?
(But I still feel the Japanese would lose)
Carriers
I think that is a great idea Ron! Being able to control the engagement and outcome instead of watching it unfold in front of you. Kind of like PTO2 by KOEI, where you are able to watch and control the battle or skip and let the computer decide. This would be great if this applied to land units and air units as well. Kind of like Pacwar meets Panzer General meets PTO2.
Hello...
We will not be able to add carrier tactical considerations to the PacWar patch, because it is a DOS game that has already used all available memory.
We have a number of games about the Pacific in the que. I hope to write a "Great Naval Battles" scale game with an extensive Pacific campaign, at some point. But, that is a couple years down the pike.
For right now, we are trying to remove as many bugs as we can from PacWar, add a few features to make it a bit more user friendly and upgrade the art a little.
Thank You for Your interest...
Michael Wood,
Lead Programmer
Matrix Games
We will not be able to add carrier tactical considerations to the PacWar patch, because it is a DOS game that has already used all available memory.
We have a number of games about the Pacific in the que. I hope to write a "Great Naval Battles" scale game with an extensive Pacific campaign, at some point. But, that is a couple years down the pike.
For right now, we are trying to remove as many bugs as we can from PacWar, add a few features to make it a bit more user friendly and upgrade the art a little.
Thank You for Your interest...
Michael Wood,
Lead Programmer
Matrix Games
-
Steven Clarke
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
It seems to me that Grisby has been working on a grand unified global WWII wargame all of these years.
PacWar, WIR, and WF at the strategic scale. CAW, Battle of Britain and 12 O’clock High at the operational level (strategic level production system). Warships and Steel Panthers at the tactical level (a system like Over the Rich would fit well here). The combat units have remained consistent throughout the scales, squads, planes and ships. Plan your week at strategic level, call up the operational systems for each day, and resolve each combat with the tactical systems.
It would be a fun year working though a week of the war.
PacWar, WIR, and WF at the strategic scale. CAW, Battle of Britain and 12 O’clock High at the operational level (strategic level production system). Warships and Steel Panthers at the tactical level (a system like Over the Rich would fit well here). The combat units have remained consistent throughout the scales, squads, planes and ships. Plan your week at strategic level, call up the operational systems for each day, and resolve each combat with the tactical systems.
It would be a fun year working though a week of the war.
-
RonStewart
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: VAFB, CA, USA
Steve,
Excellent point! For the longest time I've wanted to ask Mr. Grigsby to put it all together with Western Front(which database has data on the early Axis and Allied armour and aircraft) War in Russia, and Pacific War with Carrier Strike for the Tactical Carrier Ops as an option. Call me a dreamer. But to me that kind of a title would be the definitive work (with far greater graphics of course) on the 2nd World War. And to boot it could have multiple players if you included the navies of the world powers. And with an addition of the Mediteranean Front to include North Africa I'd readily spend $100.00 for a rerelease of a game I'd play exclusively. But The customer is not always satisfied. I thank the code writers with a heavy heart to be so close to the ultimate and recall the bittersweat memories of someday being at this point of being able speak to the designers about what I hoped their product would someday be. (Insert tears and sniffle here.) Oh well, be happy with what you get and maybe someday.........
Stew,
Just the same though, thanks for giving us the game to at least dream about.
Excellent point! For the longest time I've wanted to ask Mr. Grigsby to put it all together with Western Front(which database has data on the early Axis and Allied armour and aircraft) War in Russia, and Pacific War with Carrier Strike for the Tactical Carrier Ops as an option. Call me a dreamer. But to me that kind of a title would be the definitive work (with far greater graphics of course) on the 2nd World War. And to boot it could have multiple players if you included the navies of the world powers. And with an addition of the Mediteranean Front to include North Africa I'd readily spend $100.00 for a rerelease of a game I'd play exclusively. But The customer is not always satisfied. I thank the code writers with a heavy heart to be so close to the ultimate and recall the bittersweat memories of someday being at this point of being able speak to the designers about what I hoped their product would someday be. (Insert tears and sniffle here.) Oh well, be happy with what you get and maybe someday.........
Stew,
Just the same though, thanks for giving us the game to at least dream about.
-
Wallymanowar
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Vernon, B.C., Canada
The thought of the type of game you guys are describing sends shivers down my spine. It reminds me of something I tried to do in my younger years by combining the SPI game War in Europe with AH's Advanced Squad Leader, GDW's Airforce/Dauntless, and SPI's Dreadnought, using WIE for strategic movement and the other games for the operational/tactical resolution of combat. A little unwieldy to say the least, but it was a fun exercise trying. With today's computer s processing all the raw data it is more possible but as Steven said it would be a fun year playing a week 
------------------
'Bitter Mike'
------------------
'Bitter Mike'
I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra
Yogi Berra
-
Wallymanowar
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Vernon, B.C., Canada
As an aside to my last post, I get the impression that something like what has been discussed concerning a strategic/operational combination might be in the works with Matrix's 'War in the Pacific'. This type of game would be amenable to operations in the Pacific where strategic maneuvering of fleets , airforces, and amphibious troops would lead to clashes which could be fought out on a tactical scale without too much consumption of the player's time.
For example, imagine the Coral Sea Campaign in May 1942. Using a strategic model game to maneuver your forces into position and plan your airstrikes etc, you could then resolve the sea battles on a tactical scale using a game engine like Carrier Strike; resolve air battles using a game engine like Achtung Spitfire and Over the Riech; and resolve the land battles using a game engine like SPWAW. The size of the forces involved would mean that the application of tactical or operational scale phases would not be too time consuming (indeed, they could be considered real 'Real-Time' games because the resolution of the combat would probably take the player the actual time of the real combat - on the down side that means that an entire came of 'War in the Pacific' would take four years to complete)
------------------
'Bitter Mike'
For example, imagine the Coral Sea Campaign in May 1942. Using a strategic model game to maneuver your forces into position and plan your airstrikes etc, you could then resolve the sea battles on a tactical scale using a game engine like Carrier Strike; resolve air battles using a game engine like Achtung Spitfire and Over the Riech; and resolve the land battles using a game engine like SPWAW. The size of the forces involved would mean that the application of tactical or operational scale phases would not be too time consuming (indeed, they could be considered real 'Real-Time' games because the resolution of the combat would probably take the player the actual time of the real combat - on the down side that means that an entire came of 'War in the Pacific' would take four years to complete)
------------------
'Bitter Mike'
I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra
Yogi Berra
-
RonStewart
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: VAFB, CA, USA
Bitter Mike,
I understand fully! (And thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to respond) When I had the time I used PanzerBlitz or Tank Leader to fight the tactical ops for the battles started via Russian Campaign. I loved it. When I purchased Pacific War I encountered many a Carrier Ops I wished I'd had an option to run the Carrier Strike engine for the ones I knew I could have won, "If only I'd been there!" But that was a only a dream. But then that's all games are for. And aren't computers there to fullfill the dreams of things many of us will never do? Afterall, the computers are designed to take all that number crunching out of the way of fun for us. Leaving us the fun stuff. Talonsoft hit on the idea some with Eastern Front but of course it's really more of a rehash of Panzer General in my eyes. The only game that can come close to the feel I want is the War in Russia, (Russian Front rehash for those of you who remember the thrill of the very first one in the series!) Western Front, Carrier Strike, and Pacific War. Will no one hear our cries?! (insert national anthem here) But again Mike, thanks for at least hearing us out.
Stew,
I understand fully! (And thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to respond) When I had the time I used PanzerBlitz or Tank Leader to fight the tactical ops for the battles started via Russian Campaign. I loved it. When I purchased Pacific War I encountered many a Carrier Ops I wished I'd had an option to run the Carrier Strike engine for the ones I knew I could have won, "If only I'd been there!" But that was a only a dream. But then that's all games are for. And aren't computers there to fullfill the dreams of things many of us will never do? Afterall, the computers are designed to take all that number crunching out of the way of fun for us. Leaving us the fun stuff. Talonsoft hit on the idea some with Eastern Front but of course it's really more of a rehash of Panzer General in my eyes. The only game that can come close to the feel I want is the War in Russia, (Russian Front rehash for those of you who remember the thrill of the very first one in the series!) Western Front, Carrier Strike, and Pacific War. Will no one hear our cries?! (insert national anthem here) But again Mike, thanks for at least hearing us out.
Stew,
I know a little bit about programming, so here are my two bits on the subject. Theoretically, what you want is possible for a Windows game. Shogun: Total War switches between a turn-based strategic game and a real-time tactical game. What you need is two executables; i.e. two programs for the price of one. This is NOT EASY, but it can be done, but DOS is not going to support it. WiTP may be a possibility for it, but I'd really want this to be a separate product; this one is going to take years (yes, plural) to code up if you do it right. Shogun sure did.
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Pacwar is an STRATEGIC view game, not tactical-per se.Originally posted by RonStewart:
Well, with that rapid response from Rich and Jeremy, I'm convinced I may even get an answer for this one. Here's my rub: I played expansion on an excellent design. But much to my dismay it completely eliminated any reference to a tactical or operational side game. To shore this up (no pun intended ;} ) I was hoping a later release of Pacwar would offer the players the option of an operational sub-game for the week turn.
Stew,
It might be possiable, what you wish, but would need be in the total from ground up remake grigsbys doing.
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
I'm positive that I read/heard somewhere that Gary said he wanted to do a full WWII European theater wargame. Obviously, he never was able to talk any company in sponsoring such a game. I wonder if we could "help" him talk Matrix into it.
Think about it. With a full European WWII theater wargame with similar scales like WiR/PacWar, the next step of combining this new game with the in-development "War in the Pacific" makes the possibility of "Gary Grigsby's World at War" a little closer to reality. Ah, one can always dream.....
-
RonStewart
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: VAFB, CA, USA
Yes, I believe your reading my mind. Old Jedi mind tricks. But apparently our skills wont work on the designers. All we've been asking for is a seguey into the Carrier Strike engine whenever carrier forces get
"too" close. Asking for a game that satisfies our desire may be beyond the scope of Matrix's desire for the rerelease. they've been trying to sell us on "War in the Pacific". But I say if it isn't broken dont fix it. Why design a game from the bottom up when you've already got two that do that for you? Just combine the two. Or perhaps War in the Pacific will fulfill the ideal of having a game that allows strategic as well as operational(tactical) level play. Well, perhaps we've simply not communicated ourselves well enough and are to blame. Hmm... the musing of game designing man......
"too" close. Asking for a game that satisfies our desire may be beyond the scope of Matrix's desire for the rerelease. they've been trying to sell us on "War in the Pacific". But I say if it isn't broken dont fix it. Why design a game from the bottom up when you've already got two that do that for you? Just combine the two. Or perhaps War in the Pacific will fulfill the ideal of having a game that allows strategic as well as operational(tactical) level play. Well, perhaps we've simply not communicated ourselves well enough and are to blame. Hmm... the musing of game designing man......
Wow, This reminds me of an old board game DreamGame. I thonk they called it world war two. It was supposed to have counters for every individual involved in the war. You'd need to lay out the mapsheets in the Astrodome and would take 40+ years to play. All kidding aside playing the strategic mode in WitP then switching to a tactical mode game could be done but probably not in a DOS based game. If memory serves me correctly I've played ROE & Breach where you'd fight a space battle from a ship in ROE then load up the Breach game for boarding actions. It might be a little more tricky, as you could have multiple battles going on and the results of one could influence the others. Still it would be interesting.
You can run but you'll die tired!
-
RonStewart
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: VAFB, CA, USA
Man o man, I like it!
A war strategy game that also has operational player input/outcome and Pacific and European War theatres too! Somebody pinch me!
I really think you may be onto something with that, just cost for the project team would be astronomical. The computer gaming industry seems to be shying away from big cost titles due to warez problems. This would have to be a new design (windows based , I agree) with a LARGE folder and would need probably either a multi CD set to play or a "club based" site where you can download scenario plays for a fee. (imho) New genre for wargaming in either case!
Would there be a large enough base of gamers to support such a thing? (it was costing Matrix's ISP >$40, 000 a month for download of SPWaW) Would 8,000 people a month shell out $5 (or $60 a year) for a download site? or realistically double or triple that to include the support necessary for such a venture? Why do I feel like cold water just hit me? If somebody has the deep pockets or financing for it, I'm in!
A war strategy game that also has operational player input/outcome and Pacific and European War theatres too! Somebody pinch me!
I really think you may be onto something with that, just cost for the project team would be astronomical. The computer gaming industry seems to be shying away from big cost titles due to warez problems. This would have to be a new design (windows based , I agree) with a LARGE folder and would need probably either a multi CD set to play or a "club based" site where you can download scenario plays for a fee. (imho) New genre for wargaming in either case!
Would there be a large enough base of gamers to support such a thing? (it was costing Matrix's ISP >$40, 000 a month for download of SPWaW) Would 8,000 people a month shell out $5 (or $60 a year) for a download site? or realistically double or triple that to include the support necessary for such a venture? Why do I feel like cold water just hit me? If somebody has the deep pockets or financing for it, I'm in!
Here I go for a little R&R and you guys are talking about my dream game sort of. I placed a post on the general message forum about just such a strategic grand scale WWII grand mother of all games ... sure to earn Mr. Grigsby a life time achievement award ... makes me drool while thinking of it masterpiece. While I too enjoy the tactical dimensions, a grand scale PW type WWII strategy game would be the ultimate.
Dennis Huff
Dennis Huff
-
RonStewart
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: VAFB, CA, USA
-
RonStewart
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: VAFB, CA, USA
Something about the combining the games into a world wide game, you could make it work if you played in teams or even nations, for example you could team up as Axis (german eastfront, westfront, atlantic, Afrika), Japanese
or Allies ( GB, Russia, US east and west } .
In this way you add reality and even some diplomacy if you want.
Yuo could even allow the players the freedom to deploy there troops and reinforcements in the theatre of there choosing.
Looks fun to me.
Greetings
David
or Allies ( GB, Russia, US east and west } .
In this way you add reality and even some diplomacy if you want.
Yuo could even allow the players the freedom to deploy there troops and reinforcements in the theatre of there choosing.
Looks fun to me.
Greetings
David
You wanna know what really drives me up the wall? No...well here it is any way.
I have 6 carriers, with the mission of attack enemy task force, they locate enemy tasks force with 3 carriers and launch strikes.....at nearby island airbase, supply depot and get creamed when enemy carriers launch strike. Why do they not attack enemy carriers? Do I have to set mission to NI on carrier based planes?
PS I am downloading SPWaW so I will be here for about 12 hours it looks like
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited September 14, 2000).]
I have 6 carriers, with the mission of attack enemy task force, they locate enemy tasks force with 3 carriers and launch strikes.....at nearby island airbase, supply depot and get creamed when enemy carriers launch strike. Why do they not attack enemy carriers? Do I have to set mission to NI on carrier based planes?
PS I am downloading SPWaW so I will be here for about 12 hours it looks like
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited September 14, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!