one inherent problem with this system

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Not sure what exactly you are talking about. I do not pretend. I only make observations, and provide my analysis.

But I will say the EiA is not WitP or UV. The scope, detail, and complexity are much different. The level of abstraction is also the difference in the complexity.

I only say that there are players who crave the detail, and those who do not.

It is those who are in between that are the hardest to satisfy. If you want the detail of BOTR and have it play like Janes WWII fighters, then dissappointment is yours far to often.

All I say is that that the profile of a the "QUAKE" gamers and the PacWar gamers is very different. Very.

Yes, there are some who play both, that is certain. But let us not confuse that Gary Grigsby writes games like BOTR, PacWar, and UV. If you bought those products, you are more than likely the target audience for WitP.

If you expect WitP to be a departure from his previous products, then you have unrealistic expectations.

I expect the same level of detail, improvements in the game engine, and some information management tools to make WitP a great, detailed and complex game.

So you are saying that Gary is incapable of learning from past mistakes? I find that very hard to believe.

It always hurts the parent if the child is stillborn. By training
I am a programmer. I can tell you nothing sucks quite as bad
as 2k lines of code that you never use.

I think this forum is an example of how they DO want player input.

If all you ever do is tell them 'yes' your not helping.

The BtR strafe kludge is a case in point.

Try playing the Germans sometime.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
So you are saying that Gary is incapable of learning from past mistakes? I find that very hard to believe.

It always hurts the parent if the child is stillborn. By training
I am a programmer. I can tell you nothing sucks quite as bad
as 2k lines of code that you never use.

I think this forum is an example of how they DO want player input.

If all you ever do is tell them 'yes' your not helping.

The BtR strafe kludge is a case in point.

Try playing the Germans sometime.

The allied Fighter Sweeps are a serious problem for the allied players, so they tend to balance out, as FS missions go joy riding and get clobbered by human opponents. So I lose more pilots and planes than necessary engaging in FS missions, and the German player loses more planes and pilots than he should.

As a result, I use them sparingly, with "expendable" aircraft.

But I do not simply agree with everything, but most things. Hence why I buy and play GG games.

And I expect GG's games to get better. I just don't expect them to become something grossly different than his previous products. Then they wouldn't be GG games.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
The allied Fighter Sweeps are a serious problem for the allied players, so they tend to balance out, as FS missions go joy riding and get clobbered by human opponents. So I lose more pilots and planes than necessary engaging in FS missions, and the German player loses more planes and pilots than he should.

As a result, I use them sparingly, with "expendable" aircraft.

But I do not simply agree with everything, but most things. Hence why I buy and play GG games.

And I expect GG's games to get better. I just don't expect them to become something grossly different than his previous products. Then they wouldn't be GG games.

They are a problem for the allied player?
What???? You send 16 Spits that you never use for anything constructive anyways, and they go kill 42 Me-109 AND get shot up.

I think The Spits win that equation.

What is even more absurd is that the Pilots die, even when they are not in the planes. That is amazing.
The Night Fighters we assume are somewhere else during the day.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Chiteng
There is a great deal of information that passes by in a turn.
It would be nice to have a summary.
Alot of work however.

No, I don't think it is a lot of work. The information is all there in the computer - it displays the sightings and bombing of subs and mine hits etc. - when you put it on the screen, put it in a file. Right now in UV you have lists of bases and lists of aircraft and list of ground units etc. - just make thos lists more useful. Wouldn't it be nice to see a list of subs with endurance and ammo (among other stats) and you could sort the list by either of those two very useful stats? (And be able to click on a sub and go to it on the map.) How about a list of bases (like you have now) with an approx. number of CAP flying? Maybe even sort the lists by theater. A list of TFs with the # of aircraft flying CAP. And of course there will be other factors in WitP - production etc. for which we will need good stats on which to base our (in)decisions.

This is not to put down UV - it does have a lot of stats but for WitP they need to be more accessible and useful.

Will this eliminate oversight errors? Not entirely. But from a personal point of view it will certainly help to cut down on them.

EDIT: Another helpful thing would be the ability to highlite the command to which a unit belongs on the map - o.k. this may not be an easy one but it is doable.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Sonny
No, I don't think it is a lot of work. The information is all there in the computer - it displays the sightings and bombing of subs and mine hits etc. - when you put it on the screen, put it in a file. Right now in UV you have lists of bases and lists of aircraft and list of ground units etc. - just make thos lists more useful. Wouldn't it be nice to see a list of subs with endurance and ammo (among other stats) and you could sort the list by either of those two very useful stats? (And be able to click on a sub and go to it on the map.) How about a list of bases (like you have now) with an approx. number of CAP flying? Maybe even sort the lists by theater. A list of TFs with the # of aircraft flying CAP. And of course there will be other factors in WitP - production etc. for which we will need good stats on which to base our (in)decisions.

This is not to put down UV - it does have a lot of stats but for WitP they need to be more accessible and useful.

Will this eliminate oversight errors? Not entirely. But from a personal point of view it will certainly help to cut down on them.

EDIT: Another helpful thing would be the ability to highlite the command to which a unit belongs on the map - o.k. this may not be an easy one but it is doable.

Yes...being able to identify the command structure would certainly help/

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Well I would still play BotR but :

The strafe routine is BS. It in no way represents reality.
It looks like it was added with specific intent to allow the allied
player to attrit the Germans.

Just compare it to the same game engine, same designer
BoB. You sure cant strafe Hornchurch and kill 42 planes in one shot. But you CAN do that in BotR.

That tells me it isnt a simulation, its a game. and a bad one.
What good does it to to carefully modify your production
as the German, when your results can be easily destroyed
NOT in combat, but by a delibrete design kludge.

It makes the game SUCK.

I was not making any comment regarding BTR's viability as a wargame in terms of it's game engine or in how historical it played out. I'm hardly qualified given i've never been able to play even one complete game of it. (Even BoB....now a pleasant "BTR light" poses a challenge for me with my schedule) In fact, i only picked up a copy because it was $9 but i knew from day one that the liklihood of me being able to devote the time such a game would demand would be minimal especially when having to compete with wargames such as UV/WitP/Steel Panthers which will always win my attention due to their subject matter.

I was trying to address your "concern" regarding the playability of detailed simms and the level of effort and focus that is required of the player.

Gary could have "dumbed down BTR" by decreasing the level of detail.

Playability (in terms of accesibility and ease) would be increased but the net effect would be a modern clothed version of U.S.A.A.F.

with all the fun, but with all the limitations of that older generation game. That, IMHO, is a bigger waste. If i want to play USAAF....i can boot up my Apple IIe emulator and play it for free...not spend even the small amount i did to pick up a slightly aging modern copy devoted to the same subject. I doubt such a 'title' would have been well received by the wargaming community....especially from Gary who is well known.

(heh, for what it's worth.....i only ever completed one full length campaign of USAAF as well......Longest campaign i ever played as a teenager. I'd love to tackle BTR some day.....maybe after i've won Lotto and can quit my job )

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Nikademus
I was not making any comment regarding BTR's viability as a wargame in terms of it's game engine or in how historical it played out. I'm hardly qualified given i've never been able to play even one complete game of it. (Even BoB....now a pleasant "BTR light" poses a challenge for me with my schedule) In fact, i only picked up a copy because it was $9 but i knew from day one that the liklihood of me being able to devote the time such a game would demand would be minimal especially when having to compete with wargames such as UV/WitP/Steel Panthers which will always win my attention due to their subject matter.

I was trying to address your "concern" regarding the playability of detailed simms and the level of effort and focus that is required of the player.

Gary could have "dumbed down BTR" by decreasing the level of detail.

Playability (in terms of accesibility and ease) would be increased but the net effect would be a modern clothed version of U.S.A.A.F.

with all the fun, but with all the limitations of that older generation game. That, IMHO, is a bigger waste. If i want to play USAAF....i can boot up my Apple IIe emulator and play it for free...not spend even the small amount i did to pick up a slightly aging modern copy devoted to the same subject. I doubt such a 'title' would have been well received by the wargaming community....especially from Gary who is well known.

(heh, for what it's worth.....i only ever completed one full length campaign of USAAF as well......Longest campaign i ever played as a teenager. I'd love to tackle BTR some day.....maybe after i've won Lotto and can quit my job )

Well all I am saying is that the strafing kludge makes me not play the game. I consider myself just as die hard and any wargammer
on this forum. But you cant fight a computer feature. FtF
I could reason with the opponent, but with a computer he can only sympathize. He has no control.

An example closer to home is PacWar.
The game engine does NOT model Surface Combat correctly.
It is immpossible to get historical results(without cheating)
So for me, the game isnt fun to play. That and taking out China is too easy.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
They are a problem for the allied player?
What???? You send 16 Spits that you never use for anything constructive anyways, and they go kill 42 Me-109 AND get shot up.

I think The Spits win that equation.

What is even more absurd is that the Pilots die, even when they are not in the planes. That is amazing.
The Night Fighters we assume are somewhere else during the day.

I can't use anything but P-39s and Kittyhawks, because my oppponent makes sure I lose a ton of them. But the range limitations make it hard to hit anything in northern Europe, although I can work in one occaisonaly in Italy.

I can't even imagine using P-38Js or P-47s (which would do a nice job) to strafe, because instead of coming home, they go get shot down in droves.

And my opponent places his fighter beyond Spit Vb range, and I cannot afford to put Spit IXs to do FS as they are far more valueable as escorts.

Nonetheless, I only use them to keep my enemy honest.

And I do not use the "recon bug" either to distract his inteceptors, but he also does not mess with my recon for the most part as result. That is by mutual agreement.

Got to get along with my opponent, because we will be playing for a while.

[mogami]

Hi, Joel Billings says it sounds like Chitengs TF not fighting was a bug. Send the save to Mogami99@aol.com and I will forward it on (They don't need your password but I'd like it so I can look at the replay as well)
They have been trying to get a save for this bug for some time.

[Chiteng]

It isnt that important to me any longer.

You all say you dont care about oversight, I say fine.
Not the first time I have been outvoted.

[madflava13]

Weird - you put up this big fight for days, and then when the head designer who makes these games shows interest in your particular predicament and wants a savegame, you say it isn't important any longer?! Which one is it? The issue that was important enough for over a 100 posts or the issue that isn't a big deal?

This is why a lot of people don't take your complaint seriously, IMHO.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Weird - you put up this big fight for days, and then when the head designer who makes these games shows interest in your particular predicament and wants a savegame, you say it isn't important any longer?! Which one is it? The issue that was important enough for over a 100 posts or the issue that isn't a big deal?

This is why a lot of people don't take your complaint seriously, IMHO.

No the incident with the TF was NOT the issue.
It was a mistake to bring it up.

The issue was the chance of oversight within the context of the
proposed game. I stated it clearly several times.

It is YOU that want the issue to be somethng else. And I am tired of arguing about it.

[madflava13]

I think it just comes down to this: WITP will be a huge game with massive detail. Suitable for the grognard only. Grognards will still make mistakes. There's no way to design around human error in a game like this. Accept it, and move on, or don't buy it in the first place. It's not a game for the mainstream, its for grognards. If you want the AI to hold your hand and cover your rear all the time, this one's not for you.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
I think it just comes down to this: WITP will be a huge game with massive detail. Suitable for the grognard only. Grognards will still make mistakes. There's no way to design around human error in a game like this. Accept it, and move on, or don't buy it in the first place. It's not a game for the mainstream, its for grognards. If you want the AI to hold your hand and cover your rear all the time, this one's not for you.

If I wanted that, I would have said that. All I wanted was an awareness of the issue. How many times do I have to state the same thing?

[Chiteng]

Another thing. My Opponent in that game put up with alot
of hassels in dealing with me. None related to the TF incident.

He is a good player, even if a bit ego-centric.

I would not have blamed him if he had decided to walk away.
But he stuck it out. Another player picked up the game, and
I hope things are going well.

[Drex]

Chiteng has over 5000 posts so He may not be a grognard (whoever that is) but he has been around long enough to analyze the game he is playing. I don't agree with him but if he didn't think this game was worth it he wouldn't comment on it. I'm not an apologist for him(he doesn't need it) but he made his statement and got his replies.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Another thing. My Opponent in that game put up with alot
of hassels in dealing with me. None related to the TF incident.

He is a good player, even if a bit ego-centric.

I would not have blamed him if he had decided to walk away.
But he stuck it out. Another player picked up the game, and
I hope things are going well.

Interesting description "ego-centric". Coming from one who seems to know everything himself (pompous perhaps?), I find it very interesting indeed. I understood Chiteng's desire to resign and though I didn't like it, I respected his decision. My beef was using that particular example in this thread, because it did not quite illustrate the point.

And as for the game, Crocky took it over and is proceeding kick my @ss. I feel like nothing more than a target drone for Crocky at the moment.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Interesting description "ego-centric". Coming from one who seems to know everything himself (pompous perhaps?), I find it very interesting indeed. I understood Chiteng's desire to resign and though I didn't like it, I respected his decision. My beef was using that particular example in this thread, because it did not quite illustrate the point.

And as for the game, Crocky took it over and is proceeding kick my @ss. I feel like nothing more than a target drone for Crocky at the moment.

But I doubt he will take PM =)
The Fort level is likely very high now... that is sad.

All good gamers have egos Densionh.

[Luskan]

Originally posted by madflava13
I think it just comes down to this: WITP will be a huge game with massive detail. Suitable for the grognard only.

Once upon I time I was almost put off a game called UV because it was labelled "for grognards". I'm not a grognard, and I love the game (unless the game has now made me a grognard??).

Anyway, the query I wanted to raise is related to some of the comments about size of WITP, the length of turns, etc. etc.

Mog: Why will it take you 30 minutes to do a turn in WITP? I guess what I'm asking is, how much can you streamline that down to? Do you let the AI automate your game in any way atm? Is this time made up of game mechanics (literally finding and sending the units where you want them to go), or artificial mechanics (like you keeping a mental checklist to avoid mistakes, ticking off the checks on your little plan etc.)?

For us "simple" Aussies, I sort of expected that at the beginning of the game I would need to arrange my house in order, write my plan and set things in motion. However after my supply lines are up, my garrisons are in place and all the squadrons are where I want them to be, and maybe even (gasp) automated my subs and supply TFs . . . Then aside from having to tweak the above, doesn't that simply leave me with a: responding to my opponent, B: manouvreing my warships, c: sending bombers places, and d: invading things.

Even with all this going on in UV, in most games I barely input anything during a turn - 30 seconds tops - before firing it back down the phone line. This occurs 9 turns out of 10 etc.

Under these circumstances - would you still expect the game to take me half an hour a turn? All my CVs will probably be in the one place - maybe four or five surface combat groups near the front line at any one time, and although transport TFs require attention, once you've got them set up right (takes some learning) they don't require anything, expect perhaps the odd refit/repair/rotation.

Just interested to know, since one of the best things about UV is although it is PBEM, you can do ten turns in 2 hours if things are not so time intensive during turns.

[gus]

Originally posted by madflava13
There's no way to design around human error in a game like this.

I think that Chiteng's original intent with this thread was that in a game of this length, level of detail and complexity that to be defeated because the game system wore you down rather than your opponent would spoil the fun for many of us. To this end UV/WitP should do all that it can to protect the player from themselves.

While it has gone unstated for this entire thread I think what was being implied is that if there were more game play tools added to the interface that would allow the user to highlight potential trouble spots or to set global/theater behaviors it would go a long way in avoiding situations where the balance of the entire game changes on one foolish (non-intentional) mistake.

In the current UV system there are certainly tools to help the player but they are rudimentary at best. For example, selecting which ships to send back to Pearl or Tokyo for upgrades is tedious in that you have to examine each individual ship in your OOB to see if it qualifies, or selecting the best ASW or AA platforms. Better would be a naval unit info screen that would allow you to select ships based on these criteria and the results would be filtered for you. The same holds true for LBA, Naval air and LCU's information as well.

There are other areas as well, setting default behaviors for land, naval and air units by base and theater in addition to the unit level. After all it is an 'operational' game we should be allowed to delegate tasks to our junior officers. For example, I want to bomb Lae back into the stone age but I don't want to have to micro-manage the units involved on a turn by turn basis. I should be allowed to delegate this responsiblity to an Airforce HQ if I want. I should be able to assign campaign parameters to this HQ, i.e. which friendly bases are under the HQ's control, min/max levels for morale, fatigue, min # of bombers/escort/CAP to fly, etc.. Similarly there should be naval and army/marine HQ's that should provide similar functions for their subordinate units.

Now some will say that this equates to 'dumbing down' the game but I feel that any system that allows the user to make well informed decisions in an a more efficient manner and gives the player the ability to play some parts of the game/theater at a very abstract level while micromanaging others is not dumb but exceptionally smart!

-g