How can you guys stand PBEM?

[mogami]

Hi, At issue is a very simple question. If the USN lost more CV then historical would they have built more? And when would these ships arrive. Now my problem with the rule is that the way it works the USN does not get ships it actually built with the historic loss and if they lose more then history they don't get extra but no matter how it works out they do not get real ships that really arrived in the correct period. I'm still worried because 1943 gets screwy.
Only the dates CV arrive change using this rule not the number. Who cares about CA they can't hurt the Japanese.

(PS the US shipyards could build an Essex in under 2 years. The time the rule uses is fine but it does not really help. The point of all this is that if the USN loses one of it's 6 starting CV it will have one with that name before the war is over. There is not enough time for a respawned Essex to count much. The rule is to preserve names not number of carriers. In order for Japan not to have a USN CV named Hornet sailing around it has to sink two of them. And it is there because that is how they want it. I say leave it alone and let the guys who made the game have it their way on a few issues. They have been changing things that were the way they wanted it all over the game.

[Ron Saueracker]

I don't know and have beaten this respawn topic to death since I found out about it after my health hiatus...but making a scenario which can satisfy both camps can't be a bad thing.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
and I will be even happier when everything works as designed.

Thereby highlighting the difference between "Design Specifications Finalized" and "Ready For Release".

[emorbius44]

ORIGINAL: bordric

I keep hearing all this talk about pbem but I could not imagine playing like that. Turns are painful enough against the AI, 1 or 2 turns a day would take years to finish one of the long scenario's.

Do you just play the small scenario's ?

Nah, all you need to do is find someone as crazy as you are and go for it. I've had several games go two or three years. My present opponent with WITP and I are finishing up UV as we're down to the last 30 turns. We've been playing monsters since the early 90's. You just have to stop looking at it as playing a game and more as a way of life. LOL

Bob

[emorbius44]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Yes that is true. Also the game is much more fun once you forget about winning or losing it and concentrate on doing the best you can and winning a battle here and there along the way. A person who frets about losing a game of WITP should never play the Japanese in the long campaign. (It is almost a done deal)
The fun is in messing up the plans of the enemy when you can and keeping out of his clutches when you can't.

I almost always play the axis. Fascinatnmg to try "what if's" and see how well you can do versus history. A human opponent reacts to your plans. I got hooked with 2nd front way back when. Don't have as many opponents (just one main one right now) and only do five to seven turns a week but we'll finish eventually. Right now I'm having my 150-300 turns of fun before I get crushed by the eventual allied steamroller.

Bob

[emorbius44]

ORIGINAL: bordric

So basically unless you play PBEM the game is broke and there is no need to even have it? Because the AI is broke and can not/will not be fixed...

That is not good news for someone who just started playing. Especially considering the price. I would venture to say most did not purchase it to play PBEM.

All the talk about fretting I am not sure where that came from. Not fretting about losing, if there was no chance to lose then not much of a game. Although playing the Allies you would have to be really horrible to lose.

You have alot of veteran game players on this forum who have been wth Grigsby since the early 80's, have probably done alot of playtesting and played a zillion e-mail games. They can pretty much crush the computer opponent because it ius so predictable and just not very smart. Playing against the computer is not a waste of time and for less experienced players may be quite challenging. For more experienced players having a human opponent is much more interesting. Right now mine is driving me up the wall with those damned dutch submarines!

Bob

[emorbius44]

ORIGINAL: Kid

The AI is not broke it is as good as any AI out there. And we have made improvments to the AI, read the patch notes. No one has sent me any saves showing the AI doing something stupid over and over again. Sure it will never be as good as a human but to call it broke it totally unfair.

People want a computer opponent that "thinks." they'll have to come back in about 50 years or wait for WITP pr Pacwar 3 (I once asked Gary Grigsby during Pacwar playtest if he had to do it all over again would he? It took about one nano-second for him to say NO!!!!!) Yet low and behold 12 years later WITP was done so you never know. LOL)

Bob

[jwilkerson]

The US absolutely would've built more CV if needed 8 Essex and 3 Midways were cancelled IRL.

That being said ... experienced players ... as are on this thread ... certainly know that "game victory" has little to do with how many "widgets" one guy has ... but instead the consistency with which one player exceeds his own and his opponents expectations by superior planning and execution ... many a game has seen me feel ( and be declared to be ) victorius even though I'm playing the Italians or the Turks or even the Japanese and I know going in I will not win an absolute victory ... but the reason I play these hopeless entities is that if I exceed my own and my opponents expectations ... then I win regardless ...

That being said ... should the US get extra CVs ? Sure ... should it be tied to how many get sunk ... nah ... all the cancelled units should be in there regardless ... the player can cancel them if he doesn't need them and if the game doesn't support cancelling ... then he can promise to keep them docked on the WC USA and thereby increase his "bragging rights".

[pasternakski]

...but let's be sure to give the Japanese player more and more and more advanced aircraft types earlier and earlier and earlier with each patch while continuing to pretend that Allied aircraft development ended in late 1944...

[mogami]

Hi, I think that's a typo. Allied aircraft development ended in 1934.


And rather then Garands after Guadalcanal the USMC will be issued and retain throughout the war the excellent 1863 Springfield of .58cal

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

...but let's be sure to give the Japanese player more and more and more advanced aircraft types earlier and earlier and earlier with each patch while continuing to pretend that Allied aircraft development ended in late 1944...

Where do you draw this conclusion from? Have you even tried to get advanced Japanese aircraft?

Nothing is confirmed, but I would be willing to bet that no matter how much R&D you pour into an aircraft, that until it is a year from it's availability date that you will never advance it's avail date. I have doubled R&D for the A6M3 and only advanced it's date by one month. And doubled the D4Y R&D and it also came in a month early.

It is not as easy as it sounds and it definitly is not 100 R&D per month automatically advances the date 1 month. It is too random, there has to be a hidden dice roll there somewhere.

[pasternakski]

I was referring to the changes that are apparently going to be wrought by v. 1.41...

[freeboy]

Not addressing the play or not against the ia..
simply want to thank the makers for pbem, and my worthy oponents who make this a true learner.. and while we can always look at what this game frustrates us in, it does manage to give a good reconning of the issues of both daily warfar.. and all its associated problems.. moral supplies etc
and strategic planning... playing pbem is so awesome in the later, do you fight now or run? where so you attack and how, if surprised by the enemy.. like Kaleun attacking Baker and Palmyria in Dec 41, when do you retake them? Do you commit to a quick attack and overwhelm against Indi in 42 or take SRA and digg in and wait as the Jap?

One could easily say they have these same issues in solo, but they are enhanced in pbem
because of the higher reasoning of the human you are playing.. and I see this as an enjoyment.. not as a destination... if the game simply did not end I am enjoying the three pbem games as much as any game ever, including probably 25 super games over the last 25 years

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I was referring to the changes that are apparently going to be wrought by v. 1.41...

Is 1.41 going to repeat the mistake made in other games preceding WITP in that it allows players (Japan basically) to only manufacture and equip squadrons with the successful aircraft, thereby skipping entire production runs of less capable but crucial aircraft to the historical R&D progression?[:(][&:] Like, screw Oscars, man...go Frank all the way. Gawd I hope not.....[8|] Screwing with the ship OOBs and build queues was badenough.

[2ndACR]

I can say that I doubt very seriously if the Allies will be running into Franks/Georges in 1943 or early 1944.

If GG goes true to form, those advanced planes will not be very easy to build. You may have 60 a/c a month slated to roll out, but I bet you only get around 15 or so. I smell the TA152 roadblock coming.

Now yes, v1.41 with the upgrade paths will allow the Japanese player to equip (if he can) the entire land based navy with Frank/Georges and the IJA with the other one if he so desires. Fighters that is. All this does is allow the player to really streamline his production of a/c. No more producing 5 different IJA fighters, 5 different IJA fighters etc.

Plus it will allow the player to downgrade his units too. No sitting on the side line because no a/c are available.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I can say that I doubt very seriously if the Allies will be running into Franks/Georges in 1943 or early 1944.

If GG goes true to form, those advanced planes will not be very easy to build. You may have 60 a/c a month slated to roll out, but I bet you only get around 15 or so. I smell the TA152 roadblock coming.

Now yes, v1.41 with the upgrade paths will allow the Japanese player to equip (if he can) the entire land based navy with Frank/Georges and the IJA with the other one if he so desires. Fighters that is. All this does is allow the player to really streamline his production of a/c. No more producing 5 different IJA fighters, 5 different IJA fighters etc.

Plus it will allow the player to downgrade his units too. No sitting on the side line because no a/c are available.

Hear we go...another game that started with good intentions but...[:(]

[WiTP_Dude]

Why is anyone going to produce Oscars and other lesser aircraft if they don't have to? Just set all the factories to a few of your best aircraft and away you go. [&:]

[Gen.Hoepner]

I hope there's gonna be a compromise in the next patch for this "free upgrade path rule". It would be very very depressing to see hordes of Franks/zekes/georges vs hordes of Hellcats/corsairs and so on.... i do not know..maybe something like: " for every air-group you change the upgrade path you must spend xxx political points or xxx supplies...something to exchange with. It cannot be just a free choice!
Hope i explained my thoughts clearly enough

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Why is anyone going to produce Oscars and other lesser aircraft if they don't have to? Just set all the factories to a few of your best aircraft and away you go. [&:]

Which completely sucks. And Allies can do the same so it is going to be a psuedo RTS build and blast kinda thing. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![X(][8|][:@]

[Ron Saueracker]

I thought it was agreed that this would not be done because of this BS hindsight side effect.[:-]