Are you going to update the Naval Model?

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: Keke

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

Hear, hear!

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: ydejin

ORIGINAL: JMS2

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.

I suspected that much, however note that you are limiting yourself by 2 factors: the time the designer devoted to putting together a decent programmed opponent and the actual capability of the AI. When playing a human you are likely to find a harder, more satisfying opponent, specially if you win. Yes, things tend to go slower, but then you can have multiple games going at the same time.

[Panama Red]

What if you are like me, I do not have time to sit down every day and play PEBM. If I wanted to do that, I could go back to playing board games. I buy PC games so I can set down and play a game when I have the time and not wait for anybody else or hold them up waiting for me.

[JMS2]

Who says I am not? I usually only have time for a turn a day in the best of cases, but I have no problem skipping one day if needs to be. I reckon I use other games for days that I have more time than that, but they are from the navalwarfare.com side.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Keke

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

Well, I'd go for the AI, and let the database(s) go open-source. That way I strongly suspect we'd all get what we were really after! [:)]

Steve.

P.S. PBEMers deserve no more than any other who paid for the game, nor any less. Equal-Opportunity gaming, as it were...

P.P.S. this has what to do with the Naval Model, btw? [;)]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

ORIGINAL: Keke

If there's a choice between better AI, or better overall simulation, I'd go for the latter. People who have kept the game alive, ie PBEM-crowd, deserve it.

Well, I'd go for the AI, and let the database(s) go open-source. That way I strongly suspect we'd all get what we were really after! [:)]

Steve.

P.S. PBEMers deserve no more than any other who paid for the game, nor any less. Equal-Opportunity gaming, as it were...

P.P.S. this has what to do with the Naval Model, btw? [;)]

I don't see how an open database will turn gamers into Norm Kogers adding new features to the game.

To make any new feature to work well with the AI is helluva burden for the coder...

[steveh11Matrix]

Well, the Open Database is, itself, one of the features that's been called for. In and of itself, it would require no 'extra' AI work.

TBH, I don't think there'll be much work on extra fatures, more likely a 'cleaning up' exercise. Precisely because there's not an infinite supply of Norm Kogers! [:'(] But perhaps a scripted/scriptable AI, better formation control, one or two other bits...

I actually tend to agree with the view that the Naval model, while flawed, is something that could be left alone, while effort was put in elsewhere. If I want to play an Operational game in the Pacific, I've got WitP for that - and, in fact, that's what I'm doing right now! [:)]

Steve.

[Mike Carroll]

I would like a better naval game. Some of the best grand strategic scenario's such as Europe Aflame, the Great War, etc. would be so much better if there was a naval simulation that worked well with the land combat. It does not have to be War in the Pacific, but the ability to intercept, subs, air interdiction would add alot to the game.

Personally on the AI side, I used to be in the camp where I just played the computer. But my first PBEM game, I was hooked. I will never go back to playing against the AI - it just is not challenging. The more complex the game the harder it is to create an AI that is effective.

[TSCofield]

I agree on a better naval game. Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio. You could have very limited fighting with the Pacific simply because the entire conflict focused on naval operations. Norm's game was brilliant for its time but for me to truly call it a complete operational wargame naval modeling has to be included. I would love to see some of what has been done with UV/WitP put into a game like TOAW. WitP is weak in the land combat portions of the game and TOAW is weak in naval ops. Imagine a pairing of the two, what a wargame that would be.

Do, that, create a game that has WitP on the sea and TOAW on the ground and I would pay easily 100$ for it. I suspect most of us would here too.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: SimHq Tom Cofield

I agree on a better naval game. Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio. You could have very limited fighting with the Pacific simply because the entire conflict focused on naval operations. Norm's game was brilliant for its time but for me to truly call it a complete operational wargame naval modeling has to be included. I would love to see some of what has been done with UV/WitP put into a game like TOAW. WitP is weak in the land combat portions of the game and TOAW is weak in naval ops. Imagine a pairing of the two, what a wargame that would be.

Yeah. I'd like to see an updated naval system as well. At least there should be semi-realistic results when the ships fire at each other! Also, naval interdiction is a must. I think we'll get that at least.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: SimHq Tom Cofield
Lets face it, if we don't do that then it will simply be kept as a continental game with either the Allies against Germany/Italy or a China/Japan type scenerio.

How could you forget the Mother of all "continental" wars, the Eastern Front? [;)]

[DandricSturm]

How could you forget the Mother of all "continental" wars, the Eastern Front?

Would that not be included in the Allies against Germany/Italy? Russia was one of the Allies.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: ydejin

ORIGINAL: JMS2

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.

You might consider trying a few games PBEM. I have known many players who swore by PO games until they tried a few PBEM games. In my experience I can't think of one that ever went back after playing some PBEM games. The difference is like night and day.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

I think the naval model could be made similar to the current air model, in the sense in which we could have naval units stationed at a port, with a fight range

Not a bad idea really. I'd like to see it increasingly tweaked in the future but as a starting point I think this is pretty good.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Depending on who you play against PBEM can be as slow or as fast paced as you like.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: DandricSturm

How could you forget the Mother of all "continental" wars, the Eastern Front?

Would that not be included in the Allies against Germany/Italy? Russia was one of the Allies.

True dat. [:o]

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

ORIGINAL: ydejin

ORIGINAL: JMS2

However, let me ask you a question, have you ever played against a human?

No, I prefer to play against the computer. The only computer games I've played against/with humans are RTS and CRPG. While I love Turn-Based Strategy, I don't think I have the patience to wait for another human and I think an PBEM game of TOAW would probably take to long to hold my interest.

You might consider trying a few games PBEM. I have known many players who swore by PO games until they tried a few PBEM games. In my experience I can't think of one that ever went back after playing some PBEM games. The difference is like night and day.

(Raises hand) Hello! Speaking!

I've played PBEM - not TOAW, true, but other games - and disliked it intensely. I don't plan to repeat it.

I also like speaking for the 'silent majority' - those gamers who never, ever play anything but solo. There are more of us than of you, gaming-wide - and therefore if TOAW becomes viewed as a PBEM only game, it's potential (buying!) audience is greatly reduced.

But this is a tiny bit off-topic, isn't it? Maybe a thread of it's own?

Steve.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

I also like speaking for the 'silent majority' - those gamers who never, ever play anything but solo. There are more of us than of you, gaming-wide - and therefore if TOAW becomes viewed as a PBEM only game, it's potential (buying!) audience is greatly reduced.

This is the same 'silent majority' which supported Nixon, right? [;)]

[macgregor]

To me it seems that improving the naval warfare aspect of TOAW is so feasible. Most of the mechanics are already there and what's not there, is being used for land warfare. I've posted more details about how I think it should be done, but really all I've done is try to translate what works so well for the land combat (air interdiction, reserve movement, multiple hit units, semi-covert units) and work it into the naval combat. I'll post my ideas on a new thread. Please check it out and give me some feedback. I'm still coming up with ideas.