Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thank you Capt Cruft, the Utah played a fairly huge role, unfortunate for her, and her sacrifice is why she was advocated.

Sorry Ron and Cpt Cruft, but as reason to include target ship in the game, this is the most laughable argument I could imagine.

So, the old target ship fooled couple IJN aviators so what? In confusion of the battle they could have been fooled by nearly anything afloat.

FOW, confusion and bad targeting are already taken care of by the game engine. Who knows how many bombs USN aviators dropped on rusting and unservicable hulls in their bombing of Japanese harbors later in war? Does that mean all those hulls should be researched and modelled?

Well fine, then be comprehensive about it and include them all. Including target ships in the game would IMO only be amateurish approach to wargaming design. Including *only* Utah and Dewey Dock of all the target ships is not only amateurish it is superficial, biased and mish-mash-y too.

Ron, you want to see the game follow history 100%, and will go any length to see it. If Barrack X received 20 bombs you would want Barrack X modelled in the game, even though by any reason it has no place in the OOB otherwise. Sorry this is just completely ridicolous reasoning and approach to wargame design IMO....

O.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Universal bonus was my reference to all naval units Japanese which get the magic carpet ride on the first turn, when historically, it applied to only KB. The game gives the bonus so the IJ player can get KB all the way to Hawaii, but by doing so, completely frigs the game from square one by allowing all TFs the same consideration....major design booboo. This was complained about during Alpha but no joy.

Ah so that is the "universal bonus" you talk about... [X(]

I am no great fan of "magic carpet ride" but it was the designer's way of giving IJN some freedom to choose where to strike on turn 1. That's all, no biggie. I think you'll agree at least about IJN having the "right" to strike first in any Pac War game/simulation? Again, it can be dealt with using the appropriate house rules in PBEM (vs AI who cares anyway).

But I can understand how this, or any other designer's method to give Japs some operational freedom on turn 1 goes against your wish to turn the game into historical Powerpoint slideshow [:D][:D]

Oleg

The problem with wargaming is that the players know what their historical counterparts did not. This is why I've advocated for a more stringently historical adherence to opening moves and capability, not less. Once the game has run a few weeks and random reinforcements options are chosen, the players can experience the lack of intel etc which their counterparts did...at least to a fair degree. By allowing this opening move bonus, we all see Japan making these complete BS moves all over the place to capture undefended islands etc.

I still don't see how allowing Utah is "amateurish" design. Did it not take the torpedoes and sink with loss of life? Yes. During a critical attack which centred the Japanese opening phase. I contend that allowing a game where Japan does not attack PH is amateurish, as it completely falsifies the opening strategy excercised by Japan. Having Utah in and having people say it dilutes the ability of Japan to sink BBs is wrong...the problem is that the designers failed to model the specifics of the PH attack well enough (ie, only 50% of the BBs were capable of being hit by torps, as was the case with about half the ship classes present).

We can list a whole whack of amateurish design examples which are critical to the games arguable failure as anything approaching a simulation. What me to start? Saying that the inclusion of a historically significant ship is amateurish but I have not heard you criticise the actual game design flaws like the wholly inadequate supply model (this was completely fabricated and hardcoded before any real testing was done to see if it was rubbish or not), land combat, naval combat, air combat, asw combat...this seems rather harsh by you on the CHS guys.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
We can list a whole whack of amateurish design examples which are critical to the games arguable failure as anything approaching a simulation. What me to start? Saying that the inclusion of a historically significant ship is amateurish but I have not heard you criticise the actual game design flaws like the wholly inadequate supply model (this was completely fabricated and hardcoded before any real testing was done to see if it was rubbish or not), land combat, naval combat, air combat, asw combat...this seems rather harsh by you on the CHS guys.

Now... this is old Ron we all know and love [;)] But is also an argument worth discussing IMO.

If you use such harsh words to describe WITP ("failure as anything approaching a simulation"), then any mod is already moot before any work is started. You ask me why I criticise CHS, and am silent about apparently bigger design mistakes of the original game? A valid question. But then you have to answer will anything save the game that is so flawed ultimatelly as to represent, well, a failure, in your opinion?

My opinion is exact opposite of yours - despite all glitches, shortcomings and quirks we all know I think WITP is the most historically accurate game I have ever seen. AI vs AI play produces fantastically historic results considering how incredibly complex the game is and how many things can go astray in such design.

To achieve this, TONS of playtesting was needed. To get the PH results approaching history, I guess beta guys and devs did *thousands* of PH runs, until someone said "thats it". OK. (In my opinion, average PH result still falls short of history, but that's just my opinion.) NOW. What do you CHS guys do? You add another bomb soaking ship to the equation to skew the things even more. [&o] And you even admit that the ONLY function of this ridicolous game device is to "soak bombs". It's not a "historic ship" that "sacrificed itself" Ron. It's a game device to skew the results.

You don't do any testing, because simulating historic results of PH strike is not CHS task, your task is to add every possible imagiinable Allied hull in the game, be it as ship, or BSD (bomb soaking device).

Mog said some time ago that in order to comment "wrong-ness" of some design decision, we need to know why it's there at the first place. I assume anything we see in the game is result of TONS of testing by betas, and discussions on the dev and beta boards. It's not there just because someone said "lets put a bomb soaking device here and see what happens".

End result? Simulation of PH strike is skewed. But Utah is there. What's more important for the Pacific war? I rest my case [8D]

Now to answer your question. I like to think I know the reality of modern PC game design (wargame design included) very well. Some issues are simply unrealistic from business/design/man-hour/programmer standpoint, and will never happen, as you have been told so many times. More detailed supply system belongs to this cathegory. You will never see supply divided into food, ammo etc. - considering realities of wargame business it's simply not going to happen. Perhaps I would like to see it like yourself, but unlike you I know this discussion will lead nowhere and that's why I keep my mouth shut. And, it is my opinion, it would not change the mechanics of the game all that much. So any discussion about this is flogging the dead horse.

Utah & co & other CHS incosistencies do not change the mechanics of the game that much either - though they help reduce already less-than-historic-on-average PH strikes even more. I will come to regard them as just plain funny [:D]

O.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thank you Capt Cruft, the Utah played a fairly huge role, unfortunate for her, and her sacrifice is why she was advocated.

BTW, Croat born USN sailor Peter Tomich died on Utah. He received MoH posthumously, and got a WW2 destroyer escort named after him. His relatives in Croatia received a medal (or something related to his MoH, I am not sure) only just recently, it made minor news here.

http://www.medalofhonor.com/PeterTomich.htm

So yes there were sacrifices and I am aware of it. Still, it is not a reason to include the target ship in the game IMO.

O.

Well, I guess we disagree. You like mediocrity, I don't.

I can see both sides of the sensible part of this argument ...

To paraphrase (my apologies if this is being presumptuous):

Ron says WitP fails as a simulation of the Pacific War other than at the highest "operational" level = TRUE
Oleg says I don't care, it's still complex and fun = TRUE

Personally, although I do share a lot of the frustrations of the Ron side of the debate I feel that the only way to actually enjoy this thing is to take the Oleg view point. It's an arcade game with the feel of the Pacific War and that's it.

The only things that actually get me down are the apparently "unfixable" bugs, the cranky fixed-size database implementation and general hard-codedness and closed nature of the software.

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I can see both sides of the sensible part of this argument ...

To paraphrase (my apologies if this is being presumptuous):

Ron says WitP fails as a simulation of the Pacific War other than at the highest "operational" level = TRUE
Oleg says I don't care, it's still complex and fun = TRUE

Personally, although I do share a lot of the frustrations of the Ron side of the debate I feel that the only way to actually enjoy this thing is to take the Oleg view point. It's an arcade game with the feel of the Pacific War and that's it.

The only things that actually get me down are the apparently "unfixable" bugs, the cranky fixed-size database implementation and general hard-codedness and closed nature of the software.

It fails at the operational level as much as anything else, but hey, my pants are getting wet because the wind is blowing in the wrong direction and has been for quite awhile.

Strangely, because it is the only puppy out there, I will continue to play it PBEM when I get my PC back online. Despite all the big booboos, it has some pretty good elements as I've said in between my negative rantings.[;)]

Ron what other wargames do you play, if any?

O.

Honestly, I don't think any game is perfect, no game can be.

What matters is do you have fun with it. I had a ball of fun with PTO (I, II, and even IV) which are far greater "failures" than WitP. The campaign series (West Front, East Front II, Rising Sun, Divided Ground) all have their flaws, but even today, 7 years after I bought West Front I still have a ball, and am throughly enjoying my current DCG as commander of the 70th Tank Battalion in the Road to Germany Campaign.

War in the Pacific, War Plan Orange, World at War, Hearts of Iron, the Campaign Series, the Operational Art of War, Panzer General, Pacific General, hell any wargame will have its flaws, and all eventually boil down, in some sense, to an arcade game. The old SSI General Series were far from realistic and historic wargames. Yet, they were fun to play. GG's World at War, while taking a somewhat rushed approach to WWII, is fun to play. War in the Pacific, while still being greatly abstracted in many areas (and I think I for one would find its hard codedness a bit of a stifler as much as anybody would), yet it is still by far the most realistic game out there covering this subject, and it is very fun to play.

Other than maybe pong and tetris, I challenge anybody, WitP hater or lover, to name any game that was perfect, that didn't have flaws, that wasn't frustrating, and that was all it could be. That rules out every game I own, hell that rules out the one I am making.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Honestly, I don't think any game is perfect, no game can be.

What matters is do you have fun with it. I had a ball of fun with PTO (I, II, and even IV) which are far greater "failures" than WitP. The campaign series (West Front, East Front II, Rising Sun, Divided Ground) all have their flaws, but even today, 7 years after I bought West Front I still have a ball, and am throughly enjoying my current DCG as commander of the 70th Tank Battalion in the Road to Germany Campaign.

War in the Pacific, War Plan Orange, World at War, Hearts of Iron, the Campaign Series, the Operational Art of War, Panzer General, Pacific General, hell any wargame will have its flaws, and all eventually boil down, in some sense, to an arcade game. The old SSI General Series were far from realistic and historic wargames. Yet, they were fun to play. GG's World at War, while taking a somewhat rushed approach to WWII, is fun to play. War in the Pacific, while still being greatly abstracted in many areas (and I think I for one would find its hard codedness a bit of a stifler as much as anybody would), yet it is still by far the most realistic game out there covering this subject, and it is very fun to play.

Other than maybe pong and tetris, I challenge anybody, WitP hater or lover, to name any game that was perfect, that didn't have flaws, that wasn't frustrating, and that was all it could be. That rules out every game I own, hell that rules out the one I am making.

"To be perfect is to be God" old Muslim proverb. Indeed, not a single game can simulate reality, thus all are imperfect. But most are fun to play and can give hours of stimluating interaction.

Is this one of those threads that end in a group hug? [:D] [:D]

O.

Back! Back I say! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Ron what other wargames do you play, if any?

O.

At the moment, none really. Like the Silent Hunter I game but the SH2 blew, and have not bothered buying any games the last few years. 99% of what I have bought is history...they were so bad I just chucked them.

Close Combat was OK as well.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Ron what other wargames do you play, if any?

O.

At the moment, none really. Like the Silent Hunter I game but the SH2 blew, and have not bothered buying any games the last few years. 99% of what I have bought is history...they were so bad I just chucked them.

Close Combat was OK as well.

Well at least you're true to your words I give you that...

And I agree SH1 and Close Combats 2, 3 and 5 were great games.

Many other excellent games available at the moment though, you should give them a chance (most of them buggier than WITP too, but still very good [:D], could use to show WITP is not as bad as you make it to be).

Try SH3 if you can live with playing as German sub [:D]

O.

I guess quite a bit of my problem with criticism of the modders is that their contributions are free. One can choose to not play (or download) their mod.
As others have stated before, the solution is obvious.
If you don't like a particular mod, don't play it.
If you don't play it, move on.
If you have NOTHING to contribute but criticism (of a *free* contribution), you will definitely make yourself a very unwelcome commodity, anywhere.
It's kinda like the unwelcome neighbor coming over and telling the guy on the ladder painting his house "You missed a spot".
Maybe the guy on the ladder just dropped his brush, but the neighbor won't offer to retrieve it for the painter, he will just offer the criticism.

I did mention "UNWELCOME COMMODITY" didn't I ??
Just wanted to make sure..[8|]

IF...(and that is *BIG IF*) my observations will get confirmed and Surface-based air search radars will reduce submarine vulnerability to air attacks, will the US subs get SD (and later model SV) radars in later CHS versions ?? It may seriously unbalance the game, though..and so would need some testing.

Hi guys,

I'm trying to get a base force to Coen (the base in NE Australia, inland). Marching a BF across 6 hexes of trail just destroys the poor unit. You can't airlift the unit because Coen has a 0 level airfield. It's inland, so you can't airlift via Patrol planes.

I'm at a loss as to how to occupy the base.

Can you give the base a starting AF of 1? Or, can you upgrade the trail to a road? Or can you start a base force at the base on 12/7/41?

Or, can you give me advice on how to get a unit there without destroying it completely. (by the time the unit marched 48 miles from Cooktown, not even leaving that hex, it had lost all it's engineering vehicles and a significant portion of AV, Support and engineers were disabled.)

Thanks!!

Did they lose them or were they just disabled?

The eng vehicles were all destroyed. Some of the other devices were destroyed as well, but since there are so many to begin with, most were just disabled. But, I was only part of 1 hex out of 6 to march there. The unit would make it with only some AV and support remaining. I dont' think a unit can take replacements unless it's at a base, so it'd just sit there without engineers to build the base. Which would defeat the purpose of sending it there to begin with.

My problem is that I can't figure out how to get engineers to Coen alive. Hopefully, the scenario can be adjusted with one of my suggestions above.

Paratroops are the only unit that can make it as is. And, I don't know if paratroops have intrinsic engineers or not.