Thats the spirit!:) Me tooOriginally posted by Raverdave
Now hear this, Now hear this!
I will only be playing WiTP with one day turns!
That is all.
Dan
UV a good idea
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings. A TF or Airgroup under radio silence can still receive messages
That is true, but, The TF commander has all the local search info and is not going to break silence to tell higher HQ.
Orders coming down from above would deal with general redeployment over a longer timescale, relating to external conditions.
the TF commander alone controls his airgroups. This is why UV does not allow targeting of enemy taskforces by the player.UV is not a tactical game.
Greetings. A TF or Airgroup under radio silence can still receive messages
That is true, but, The TF commander has all the local search info and is not going to break silence to tell higher HQ.
Orders coming down from above would deal with general redeployment over a longer timescale, relating to external conditions.
the TF commander alone controls his airgroups. This is why UV does not allow targeting of enemy taskforces by the player.UV is not a tactical game.
1 day versus 7day
Greetings, OK I might be a little thick right now.
How does this relate to turn length again? The HQ in Operational control of a TF will be the TF's primary source of direction during periods of radio silence. (Pass on all intell gathered by other units-such as the might have been French Frigate Shoal recon-submarine contact-long range land based air-results of combats else where. ) Limited the player to inputs every 7 days does not make the game more realistic. In 1 day turns there will be players who only look at a unit/base/TF every few days or weeks. Others will check everything every turn.
(Just like some actual commanders could not be bothered with detail and others buried them selves in it)
Some TF commanders WILL!!! break radio silence (and expose their force to detection) Others will not even when they have no clue as to the course they should follow.
I don't want tactical control. I think the UV system works just fine. People have to realize WITP will be a monster game. It was a monster war. If detail is not what they want that is another issue. Trying to make the game managable by compressing it into 7 day turns will lesson it's realism (It might make it more approachable to the fainter stomachs)
How does this relate to turn length again? The HQ in Operational control of a TF will be the TF's primary source of direction during periods of radio silence. (Pass on all intell gathered by other units-such as the might have been French Frigate Shoal recon-submarine contact-long range land based air-results of combats else where. ) Limited the player to inputs every 7 days does not make the game more realistic. In 1 day turns there will be players who only look at a unit/base/TF every few days or weeks. Others will check everything every turn.
(Just like some actual commanders could not be bothered with detail and others buried them selves in it)
Some TF commanders WILL!!! break radio silence (and expose their force to detection) Others will not even when they have no clue as to the course they should follow.
I don't want tactical control. I think the UV system works just fine. People have to realize WITP will be a monster game. It was a monster war. If detail is not what they want that is another issue. Trying to make the game managable by compressing it into 7 day turns will lesson it's realism (It might make it more approachable to the fainter stomachs)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I don't mind managing a lot of detail. And I don't mind leting my TF commanders make decisions.
What I have a problem with is not being able to give my TF commanders sufficiently detailed orders to carry out my intent.
We just need a few more tweaks (features) to enable a fine 7-day turn game.
1. Be able to assign a patrol area of many hexes for TFs, instead of just a one hex destination.
2. Be able to plot a route with waypoints for TFs (and maybe air groups being transferred or on bombing runs, too, to avoid an enemy base or TF).
3. Be able to assign naval attack TF type priorities to both TFs and land based air groups.
4. Be able to assign or designate a mission such as "defend Gili Gili base from sea borne invasion" or "provide air cover for TF 203 while they perform an amphibious landing" or "prevent a sea bombardment of base X, but retire if attacked in strength from the air", i.e. we need to be able to better coordinate the movement of multiple TFs, perhaps a follow x hexes behind order would work.
A lot of this is possible, or nearly so, now. It would just take a few additional tweaks to really make this work.
I would hate to see a seven day turn where my TF proceeds to a destination hex with do not retire orders, only to see it sit at the destination hex for 7 days taking a pounding from air attacks, never to move or do anything else. In the meantime a juicy enemy transport TF steams by in the next hex, unmolested. This is my nightmare with 7-day turns.
What I have a problem with is not being able to give my TF commanders sufficiently detailed orders to carry out my intent.
We just need a few more tweaks (features) to enable a fine 7-day turn game.
1. Be able to assign a patrol area of many hexes for TFs, instead of just a one hex destination.
2. Be able to plot a route with waypoints for TFs (and maybe air groups being transferred or on bombing runs, too, to avoid an enemy base or TF).
3. Be able to assign naval attack TF type priorities to both TFs and land based air groups.
4. Be able to assign or designate a mission such as "defend Gili Gili base from sea borne invasion" or "provide air cover for TF 203 while they perform an amphibious landing" or "prevent a sea bombardment of base X, but retire if attacked in strength from the air", i.e. we need to be able to better coordinate the movement of multiple TFs, perhaps a follow x hexes behind order would work.
A lot of this is possible, or nearly so, now. It would just take a few additional tweaks to really make this work.
I would hate to see a seven day turn where my TF proceeds to a destination hex with do not retire orders, only to see it sit at the destination hex for 7 days taking a pounding from air attacks, never to move or do anything else. In the meantime a juicy enemy transport TF steams by in the next hex, unmolested. This is my nightmare with 7-day turns.
Re: 1 day versus 7day
7 day turns have several advantages:Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings, OK I might be a little thick right now.
How does this relate to turn length again? The HQ in Operational control of a TF will be the TF's primary source of direction during periods of radio silence. (Pass on all intell gathered by other units-such as the might have been French Frigate Shoal recon-submarine contact-long range land based air-results of combats else where. ) Limited the player to inputs every 7 days does not make the game more realistic. In 1 day turns there will be players who only look at a unit/base/TF every few days or weeks. Others will check everything every turn.
(Just like some actual commanders could not be bothered with detail and others buried them selves in it)
Some TF commanders WILL!!! break radio silence (and expose their force to detection) Others will not even when they have no clue as to the course they should follow.
I don't want tactical control. I think the UV system works just fine. People have to realize WITP will be a monster game. It was a monster war. If detail is not what they want that is another issue. Trying to make the game managable by compressing it into 7 day turns will lesson it's realism (It might make it more approachable to the fainter stomachs)
1/ For PBEM We turn around one turn/day.this makes for a real time war:( Too slow. we currently use 3days on UV and it plays OK.7 days means a managable time.Essential for WitP
2/ 7 day inputs gives a good strategic feel.I it forces players to plan ahead, calculate steaming times and RV points. This involves more detail planing not less. It is more fun and has more tension when watching the replays than doing single turns.
3/ It takes several days to transit the UV map, just think of the distances involved in WITP!
Just because it is different doesnt mean it is worse!
Have you tried UV on a 3 day cycle?:)
Great ideas CommC
I agree completly.Originally posted by CommC
I don't mind managing a lot of detail. And I don't mind leting my TF commanders make decisions.
What I have a problem with is not being able to give my TF commanders sufficiently detailed orders to carry out my intent.
We just need a few more tweaks (features) to enable a fine 7-day turn game.
A bit of tweaking to UV systems will make UV more appealing to more players and adapt better to WitP.
I would also like to be able to access sighting reports fron the runfile in a similar way to that used for combat reports.
managable time?
Greetings, I think people who want to play at more then 1 day should have that option. I don't think 7 day turns are more real. (the war was fought one day at a time and I doubt operational commanders let things go for a week between in puts. I do accept that it is easier to finish a 4 year war 7 days at a time then 1 day. My self I am only interested in the day to day management of the war not the week to week management. I don't think my interest is better or worse.
No plan survives contact with the enemy. To have an enemy TF appear on day 1 or 2 of a week long operation and have no in put for 5 more days would be very hard for me. I do realize the commander on the spot would have to make decisions (although only for 24 hours) How long the game takes is not really an issue with me. I did complete dozens of Pac War PBEM games (both sides) In UV I often get off more then 10 turns a day (they don't really take that long even for us "micro-managers")
I think it will be more difficult to control the game with weekly turns while not really requiring better planning (Unless your crystal ball gets better reception then mine).
Again, I think multiple length turns should be an option (just one I will never exercise).
The primary test will be how well the game works with 1 day turns, if it fails there it will fail with longer turns. Not every person will even want to play the whole war so the 1 day turns will be well suited for shorter scenarios.
A game that requires work and planning and commitment still can have a following (Chess). I don't wish people to shy away from 1 day turns because the prospect seems daunting or too time consuming. In the course of a long PBEM game you can really get to know your opponent and have many good exchanges of ideas concerning the events. WITP is to me not a simple entertainment program but a learning and experimental endeaver 7 day turns work well for supply and movement but suffer in reflecting air to air (where 1 mission can cancel an operation) and the maneuvering an enemy TF into suitable position for attack. Feints and decoys lose much of their effect (since they must continue on course for a solid week-they actually must go some where)
There will be an un deniable effect on operations if the pace is weekly rather then daily. That pace preference is the heart of this discussion.
No plan survives contact with the enemy. To have an enemy TF appear on day 1 or 2 of a week long operation and have no in put for 5 more days would be very hard for me. I do realize the commander on the spot would have to make decisions (although only for 24 hours) How long the game takes is not really an issue with me. I did complete dozens of Pac War PBEM games (both sides) In UV I often get off more then 10 turns a day (they don't really take that long even for us "micro-managers")
I think it will be more difficult to control the game with weekly turns while not really requiring better planning (Unless your crystal ball gets better reception then mine).
Again, I think multiple length turns should be an option (just one I will never exercise).
The primary test will be how well the game works with 1 day turns, if it fails there it will fail with longer turns. Not every person will even want to play the whole war so the 1 day turns will be well suited for shorter scenarios.
A game that requires work and planning and commitment still can have a following (Chess). I don't wish people to shy away from 1 day turns because the prospect seems daunting or too time consuming. In the course of a long PBEM game you can really get to know your opponent and have many good exchanges of ideas concerning the events. WITP is to me not a simple entertainment program but a learning and experimental endeaver 7 day turns work well for supply and movement but suffer in reflecting air to air (where 1 mission can cancel an operation) and the maneuvering an enemy TF into suitable position for attack. Feints and decoys lose much of their effect (since they must continue on course for a solid week-they actually must go some where)
There will be an un deniable effect on operations if the pace is weekly rather then daily. That pace preference is the heart of this discussion.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Re: managable time?
Hi mogami
I agree with the points you make.
UV works well now for 1 day to 3 day cycles.It would be nice if the extra features were added to make 7 day cycles work well.These features will also enhance play for users such as yourself that have the oportunity to do many turns per day.
We all realise that UV is the test bed for much of the code for Witp.
It has been said that the turn cycle for WitP is to go to 2 day cycles,if this is true than i hope you agree that aside from all the ranting that 1 day turns are the only way, we may all be playing at least 2 days in witp.I know this is possible with UV now, I would just like a few extra controls added to enhance both long and short term play of the game.
Ps: one definite advantage 7 day turns gives is to slow the tempo of naval action to a more historical levil without penalising either player.
I agree with the points you make.
UV works well now for 1 day to 3 day cycles.It would be nice if the extra features were added to make 7 day cycles work well.These features will also enhance play for users such as yourself that have the oportunity to do many turns per day.
We all realise that UV is the test bed for much of the code for Witp.
It has been said that the turn cycle for WitP is to go to 2 day cycles,if this is true than i hope you agree that aside from all the ranting that 1 day turns are the only way, we may all be playing at least 2 days in witp.I know this is possible with UV now, I would just like a few extra controls added to enhance both long and short term play of the game.
Ps: one definite advantage 7 day turns gives is to slow the tempo of naval action to a more historical levil without penalising either player.
-
DoomedMantis
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I have played both one day and two day turns, and while there are some differences in gameplay, these differences are not that grreat. Playing two day turns does however make you think more, and allows that extra bit of sneakiness 
Saying this though like has been mentioned before some extra features are needed to help with the role we are given, especially for longer turns.
Saying this though like has been mentioned before some extra features are needed to help with the role we are given, especially for longer turns.
I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.
- Shakespeare
- Shakespeare
Playing against the AI, my preference is to set the turn length to continuous.
Then, from time to time, I will hit F9, stop the game and issue an order.
It is clear this would not be possible in a H2H game with the turn set to 7 days.
H2H, my preference is to set the turn length to 3 days. After all it often takes a unit a week to carry out an order.
For me the issues under a 7 day turn length are:
If I issue an order I have to wait as many as 6 days before I can react to the opponent’s move.
When replacements arrive in theatre, I have to wait as many as 6 days before I can issue them an order.
Then, from time to time, I will hit F9, stop the game and issue an order.
It is clear this would not be possible in a H2H game with the turn set to 7 days.
H2H, my preference is to set the turn length to 3 days. After all it often takes a unit a week to carry out an order.
For me the issues under a 7 day turn length are:
If I issue an order I have to wait as many as 6 days before I can react to the opponent’s move.
When replacements arrive in theatre, I have to wait as many as 6 days before I can issue them an order.
Better idea
Ok - maybe not, but it is a different idea.
Maybe the turn based strategy game needs to take the path the Civilisation sort of took: continuous turn by turn gameplay that only stops depending on what options you have selected.
IE. The turn goes as many days as it possibly can before an end turn event happens.
Players would have the ability to set end turn events like:
"Air attack by enemy planes on friendly TF"
"Enemy spotted" or "New enemy spotted"
"New reinforcements arrived"
"Out of fuel"
"Mission completed" etc.
The question of how often a player can decide to change their minds would still require an election of a timeframe.
So, my PBEM opponent and I select 7 day turns, and all of the options we agree upon for "end turn events" and if no end turn events happen - the turns go for 7 days (as I'm sure there will be lulls in the fighting - or at least in the input required - in WITP if you set the right options.) If something classified as an end turn event happens on day three, well, the computer only creates the combat replays as far as day 3 and unser input is required for the next "turn".
Comments? Suggestions? Abuse?
I'm with you Raverdave - 1 day turns all the way. Means WITP is going to be bloody good value for $$$!!!!
Maybe the turn based strategy game needs to take the path the Civilisation sort of took: continuous turn by turn gameplay that only stops depending on what options you have selected.
IE. The turn goes as many days as it possibly can before an end turn event happens.
Players would have the ability to set end turn events like:
"Air attack by enemy planes on friendly TF"
"Enemy spotted" or "New enemy spotted"
"New reinforcements arrived"
"Out of fuel"
"Mission completed" etc.
The question of how often a player can decide to change their minds would still require an election of a timeframe.
So, my PBEM opponent and I select 7 day turns, and all of the options we agree upon for "end turn events" and if no end turn events happen - the turns go for 7 days (as I'm sure there will be lulls in the fighting - or at least in the input required - in WITP if you set the right options.) If something classified as an end turn event happens on day three, well, the computer only creates the combat replays as far as day 3 and unser input is required for the next "turn".
Comments? Suggestions? Abuse?
I'm with you Raverdave - 1 day turns all the way. Means WITP is going to be bloody good value for $$$!!!!
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
A Moot Point
Hey Guys,
I think that's it's moot to discuss whether Witp will have daily or weekly turns since the decision has been made long ago early in the development process. As I recall from reading the specs on the game the turns are longer, weekly I think, as the mapscale is bigger. I doubt that it will matter when the game comes out as it will be fun regardless.
Eric Larsen
I think that's it's moot to discuss whether Witp will have daily or weekly turns since the decision has been made long ago early in the development process. As I recall from reading the specs on the game the turns are longer, weekly I think, as the mapscale is bigger. I doubt that it will matter when the game comes out as it will be fun regardless.
Eric Larsen
One day turns work very well when playing head to head over a network.Originally posted by Capt Cliff
One day turns are for people who don't have lives! You'd never be able to finish a game. Playing against the computer is really only a learing tool, you got play against a human! Playing PBEM on daily turns is nuts! Fill out the divorce papers now guy's!
NOW! HIT THE DECK...........IN COMING!!!!!!!!!!!
To do week turns the game will have to be designed differently to take into account all the things that can take place in a week. Try playing USN (one week turns) and you will see that the game is designed for that turn length which will not work as a day to day turn game. To do week long turns there need to be more options for the overall commander which will translate to more 'intelligent' local commander (AI). There will need to be more types of operational options for the AI.
If the 'little lady' does not understand that I am saving the world for future generations, she should not have married me. WHACK (sound of rolling pin up side the head) :rolleyes:
Re: A Moot Point
I haven’t heard anything about weekly turns being the default. I will check the WitP thread again. I know there is a lot of talk over there about turn length but I didn’t see any comments from the designers.Originally posted by EricLarsen
Hey Guys,
I think that's it's moot to discuss whether Witp will have daily or weekly turns since the decision has been made long ago early in the development process. As I recall from reading the specs on the game the turns are longer, weekly I think, as the mapscale is bigger. I doubt that it will matter when the game comes out as it will be fun regardless.
Eric Larsen
If the shortest turn is a week, I for one will seriously reconsider buying it. Sure, I like to watch the computer play itself as much as the next guy but maybe I’ll just save myself $70 and watch the History channel.
Yamamoto
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Re: Re: A Moot Point
Ditto to that, Yamamoto.Originally posted by Yamamoto
I haven’t heard anything about weekly turns being the default. I will check the WitP thread again. I know there is a lot of talk over there about turn length but I didn’t see any comments from the designers.
If the shortest turn is a week, I for one will seriously reconsider buying it. Sure, I like to watch the computer play itself as much as the next guy but maybe I’ll just save myself $70 and watch the History channel.
Yamamoto
If I want to play a Pacific theater game that is based on one-week turns, I'll continue playing the one we already have (and this is my intention).
A large part of the real "juice" for me in WITP is the colossal size of the undertaking. All of the masochistic imbeciles I play computer and paper-and-cardboard games with agree with this. One day turns, for me, are the only way to go. It has been my understanding all along (perhaps I have been mistaken) that the turn length choice will be similar to what is offered in UV.
If this is wrong, and the minimum turn length is seven days (on ANY map scale in ANY scenario), and the basic engine (as it appears to be) is the UV engine, I am going to be severely disappointed.
And there is no point in telling me that I am an idiot (point conceded), lack a real life (point conceded), or ought to prefer week-long turns (don't wanna, don't hafta, ain't gonna).
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Good news for us, pasternakski. I just took a look at the official WitP web page and saw this:
Game Data:
Complexity: Advance - Grognard
Field of Play: Operational
Historical Period: World War II
Theater: Pacific
Unit Scale: Batt. with Ind.Ships & Planes
Turn Play: Selectable 1- 7 day turns
Players: 1 or 2 Players
AI: Either Side
TCP/IP: No
PBEM: Yes
Game Editor: Yes
Thus enduth the debate.
The good guys win one for a change.
Unfortunately, they seem to have cut my other big hope: TCP/IP. I hope that one is a mistake.
Yamamoto
Game Data:
Complexity: Advance - Grognard
Field of Play: Operational
Historical Period: World War II
Theater: Pacific
Unit Scale: Batt. with Ind.Ships & Planes
Turn Play: Selectable 1- 7 day turns
Players: 1 or 2 Players
AI: Either Side
TCP/IP: No
PBEM: Yes
Game Editor: Yes
Thus enduth the debate.
The good guys win one for a change.
Unfortunately, they seem to have cut my other big hope: TCP/IP. I hope that one is a mistake.
Yamamoto
WITP
Thank heavens, a choice of 1 or 7 day turns, Ill be a one dayer person, and grind my opponents into the dust.
War is as much a matter of endurance as anything. Im tough enough, is the AI? are you:D
Ps Beer is good
War is as much a matter of endurance as anything. Im tough enough, is the AI? are you:D
Ps Beer is good
Big seas, Fast ships, life tastes better with salt
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Yeah, Yamamoto, but
you're more trusting (and probably as a result a much better human being) than I am. That info was posted a long time ago, and who knows what may have changed since then (or, possibly worse, may currently be contemplated, even though it's probably too late to change by now). I'm gonna be nervous about this right up until the day I fire 'er up and see what my options really are.
I only post here (and in the two or three related threads) in order to be sure and weigh in against jettisoning the "1-7 day choice" concept.
I guess I inherited some of my old man's goofball view of life. He always took the most pessimistic view, so that, if things turned out badly, he could say, "I told you so." And, if things turned out better than that, well, he could be pleasantly surprised (the old f**t was almost never pleasantly surprised). He didn't have the Midas touch, he had the Mindless touch - everything he touched turned to s***.
Game on, folks, and to each his own. After we finally GET the doggone thing, we'll sort out the best ways to play it, both AI and PBEM.
I only post here (and in the two or three related threads) in order to be sure and weigh in against jettisoning the "1-7 day choice" concept.
I guess I inherited some of my old man's goofball view of life. He always took the most pessimistic view, so that, if things turned out badly, he could say, "I told you so." And, if things turned out better than that, well, he could be pleasantly surprised (the old f**t was almost never pleasantly surprised). He didn't have the Midas touch, he had the Mindless touch - everything he touched turned to s***.
Game on, folks, and to each his own. After we finally GET the doggone thing, we'll sort out the best ways to play it, both AI and PBEM.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4907
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
The positive aspects of negative thinking
LOL! My old man 'told me so' many times. Made me think it is better to couple pessimistic views with positive action, i.e. prepare to cope with the worst case, not just being a ex post know-it-all. In regards to UV/WITP, one-day turns will allow more opportunities for positive action.
When I first read 'continous' on the UV web site years ago I thought this would mean 'continous time' like in the GNB series, i.e. real time with the (often used) option to accelerate the pace or to pause the game to issue orders. So I was a bit disappointed to discover that 'continous' in UV just means an uninterrupted succession of one-day turns.
Perhaps I will live to see the day when PW/WITP will be married with an real/accelerated-time engine. The features that probably would make such an engine - and also 7-day turns - manageable for a game of the scope, scale and space of the Pacific War are
1) a sophisticated system (means good AI) for the delegation of routine or secondary tasks to subordinates ('use the XX Corps, TFs 23,25 & 45 as well as MAG 3 to mop up Gudalcanal, but leave all other forces in the theater alone) - the 'computer operational control' of PW vastly improved.
and 2). an elaborate 'combat report' system with different levels of information that can be tuned by the player ('I don't care which pilots got his second kill, but I want to know when TF 34 is too low on fuel to proceed with its mission'). It should be adjustable by the player what kind of reports would stop the continous game or the turn to ask for player input when certain events take place ('enemy carriers spotted near PH, do you wish to issue new orders?').
Ooops, just callow daydreaming...
In regards to UV/WITP, one-day turns will allow more opportunities for positive action. When I first read 'continous' on the UV web site years ago I thought this would mean 'continous time' like in the GNB series, i.e. real time with the (often used) option to accelerate the pace or to pause the game to issue orders. So I was a bit disappointed to discover that 'continous' in UV just means an uninterrupted succession of one-day turns.
Perhaps I will live to see the day when PW/WITP will be married with an real/accelerated-time engine. The features that probably would make such an engine - and also 7-day turns - manageable for a game of the scope, scale and space of the Pacific War are
1) a sophisticated system (means good AI) for the delegation of routine or secondary tasks to subordinates ('use the XX Corps, TFs 23,25 & 45 as well as MAG 3 to mop up Gudalcanal, but leave all other forces in the theater alone) - the 'computer operational control' of PW vastly improved.
and 2). an elaborate 'combat report' system with different levels of information that can be tuned by the player ('I don't care which pilots got his second kill, but I want to know when TF 34 is too low on fuel to proceed with its mission'). It should be adjustable by the player what kind of reports would stop the continous game or the turn to ask for player input when certain events take place ('enemy carriers spotted near PH, do you wish to issue new orders?').
Ooops, just callow daydreaming...
