I would have no problem paying for the game. If some advertising at the beginning and at the end would help defray some of the cost, then do it.
I agree with the comments about air crew experince. It would be interesting to play the what-if games where the Japanese pilots didn't have to overcome the elitism of their historical counterparts.
Having played both PW and the old massive board game War in the Pacific (old SPI), it would be nice to have the necessity of yard periods built in. Some interesting decisions had to made in whether to risk potential damage to the ship or proceed with the dock time and be without the ship's services.
I also agree that it would be nice to be allowed to pull some Japanese units from China. In all of the campaigns I played with PW, the Chinese eventually surrendered.
Suggestions
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
I need to put a spike through the heart of this idea and ensure it doesn't rise. Space on a game screen is a premium. To clutter if with advertising, will destroy the game. I for one, don't like seeing advertising on the web or in computer magazines. I don't have a choice in these mediums. If the computer game has advertising, I do have a choice, I just won't play it. If you can't afford 30 or 40 dollars for a computer game, which you are waiting for, then just scrap you PC and go back to board games
Originally posted by A_Master:
I need to put a spike through the heart of this idea and ensure it doesn't rise. Space on a game screen is a premium. To clutter if with advertising, will destroy the game. I for one, don't like seeing advertising on the web or in computer magazines. I don't have a choice in these mediums. If the computer game has advertising, I do have a choice, I just won't play it. If you can't afford 30 or 40 dollars for a computer game, which you are waiting for, then just scrap you PC and go back to board games
The problem is that 30 or 40 dollars up front is not going to provide the same income as advertising, clearly room can be found (as per SPWaW) on the monitor (if you can't afford a decent sized monitor, go back to boardgames) and having a high quality free download means that many people who will not pony up 30 or 40 dollars will download it and try it.
Frankly I can afford to pay, I just think Matrix will do better in the long run if they sell advertising - look at the "take up rates" between paid for TV and free to air (with advertising).
I support onscreen adverts because I think Matrix deserve to be paid as much as possible for the product.
Going back to the original question (getting away from the ad debate), I think that there should be a larger list of orders for ships and airgroups. Possibly state the desired focus of the attack. If you have a surface combat Task Force and you want it to target AP and MCS over warships you should have this option instead of going for the default. Commander skill and aggressiveness should play an important part in them following the correct orders.
Orders like Concentrate on...
Carriers
Warships
Transport
Sometimes recon will be wrong, identify a unit to be something it isn't, so they have to break the orders and attack what they find. And, some commanders might disobey orders, taking initiative in their own hands.
Also, Commanders should have some sort of faults. Cowardice, incompetence, etc... There should be also an option to have modified (ie. computer generated and random), and indeed hidden stats for the commanders. You should not know that Nimitz has a 7 value for aircraft handling, just that it is good. You could change the ratings from 1-3 = Poor, 4-6 = Average, 7-9 = Good. Any faults should be hidden. Halsey had a major fault of glory hunting (Leyte), or too much aggressiveness, where he went after the Carriers while stripping the landing craft of aircover.
Orders like Concentrate on...
Carriers
Warships
Transport
Sometimes recon will be wrong, identify a unit to be something it isn't, so they have to break the orders and attack what they find. And, some commanders might disobey orders, taking initiative in their own hands.
Also, Commanders should have some sort of faults. Cowardice, incompetence, etc... There should be also an option to have modified (ie. computer generated and random), and indeed hidden stats for the commanders. You should not know that Nimitz has a 7 value for aircraft handling, just that it is good. You could change the ratings from 1-3 = Poor, 4-6 = Average, 7-9 = Good. Any faults should be hidden. Halsey had a major fault of glory hunting (Leyte), or too much aggressiveness, where he went after the Carriers while stripping the landing craft of aircover.
Umm, Advertising is not going to not going to generate the same income as $30 or $40 up front. If advertising could, it would have been done. The $30 up front actually translates to maybe $5 or $10 to the developer. The rest is packaging and distribution. If a game is really good, it might sell 50,000 copies, a war game of this nature, maybe half (very optimistic). 25,000*$5 gives you $125000. This is called a receivable. You go to the bank to get a loan to pay your developers. Now try convincing a bank manager that your going to get the same income from giving a game away free but generate revenue from nebulous advertising when for a 10th of the cost you could run full page adds in all the major computer magazines.
And going back to the main topic. Yes, I agree. Rate the commanders POOR, AVERAGE and GOOD, with EXCELLENT for the very best (9's in the original).
Carriers should be prime target of a task force regardless of orders, unless hopelessly out gunned. Next I would say troop transports then warships.
In a uneven match, during day, ships should be able to evade. At night, evading should not be available.
And going back to the main topic. Yes, I agree. Rate the commanders POOR, AVERAGE and GOOD, with EXCELLENT for the very best (9's in the original).
Carriers should be prime target of a task force regardless of orders, unless hopelessly out gunned. Next I would say troop transports then warships.
In a uneven match, during day, ships should be able to evade. At night, evading should not be available.
Just to clarify numbers of copies sold. Reading some editorials about PC games verses Console games, apparently a successful PC game sells in the range of 250,000 copies. This is far short of the console sales. Also, successful PC games are generally what is being termed a 'casual software', such as SIM CITY. Games like Pacific War is for hard core games, and in particular war gamers. I would like to think PW could sell 250,000 copies, and would spur additional releases of the genre. Count me as one.
-
norsemanjs
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Enderlin, ND, USA
I do not think carriers should always be the primary target. Strategic situations often arise where some other ship (often troop or merchant ships) is far more important. The area force commander should definitely be able to instruct task force commanders to go after a specific target. This as suggested by Major_Tom should then be affected by random events, quality of the commander, etc.
Anyone hear any projections on release, I'm patient but curious.
Anyone hear any projections on release, I'm patient but curious.
Giving this a lot of though, the right answer is probably don't have any default. Since the turns are weekly, I could imagine your carriers launching a strike against 'troop carriers' empty or otherwise, while enemy carriers strike your own.
The solution would be to query each strike. Prime, then secondary target. Target being an enemy task force or base. The game should go into 'daily' turn mode, so more micro management can be made.
Cap, LR-Cap and strike support should also be made available and effectiveness should depend on command rating and squadron experience. Player should be allowed to control percentage of aircraft on strike, cap or on reserve. Maybe by squadron or flight.
The solution would be to query each strike. Prime, then secondary target. Target being an enemy task force or base. The game should go into 'daily' turn mode, so more micro management can be made.
Cap, LR-Cap and strike support should also be made available and effectiveness should depend on command rating and squadron experience. Player should be allowed to control percentage of aircraft on strike, cap or on reserve. Maybe by squadron or flight.
Yes, the kind of detailed control that A_master has suggested should be in WIP. When two
task forces meet the game should go into a more tactical mode, giving the player a number
of options. How many fighters to assign to CAP to protect the fleet, how many to send on close
escort with the strike planes, etc.
And also, any nearby bases that have fighters in range should be able to join in and send fighters
to strengthen the CAP around the friendly fleet.
Same would go for TF's that close to gun range. Should your battle line press the attack
or attempt to withdraw? If the enemy is trying to escape do you let him or attempt to force the
engagement to go on by pursuing him? Questions like that should be left up to the player. With,
of course, appropriate modifiers for success based on the TF commander's traits and skill level.
And I would like to second the idea which was proposed about all leaders being represented in the
game with a historical photo of them. This would add great flavor and authenticity to the game.
When you call up a stat screen on the commander, it would show his photo and give his list
of traits (aggressive, cautious, etc.) and his skill level at various types of command (air,
ground combat, naval gunnery combat, etc.).
task forces meet the game should go into a more tactical mode, giving the player a number
of options. How many fighters to assign to CAP to protect the fleet, how many to send on close
escort with the strike planes, etc.
And also, any nearby bases that have fighters in range should be able to join in and send fighters
to strengthen the CAP around the friendly fleet.
Same would go for TF's that close to gun range. Should your battle line press the attack
or attempt to withdraw? If the enemy is trying to escape do you let him or attempt to force the
engagement to go on by pursuing him? Questions like that should be left up to the player. With,
of course, appropriate modifiers for success based on the TF commander's traits and skill level.
And I would like to second the idea which was proposed about all leaders being represented in the
game with a historical photo of them. This would add great flavor and authenticity to the game.
When you call up a stat screen on the commander, it would show his photo and give his list
of traits (aggressive, cautious, etc.) and his skill level at various types of command (air,
ground combat, naval gunnery combat, etc.).
Looking back through history you cannot find too many instances of Carrier aircraft and land based aircraft coordinating attacks effectively. The Japanese at Battle of the Philippine Sea tried to do this, and failed drastically. I don't know if it was possible back then, with the miscommunication between the different air arms.
Having the ability to order airstrikes would be good (Like Carrier Strike), but, might be putting too much micro-battle management into the game. The addition of such a relatively small feature would require much more time and effort into coding than will be gained from having this option. I would only suggest attempting such things when the main base of the game is completed and working fine.
Having the ability to order airstrikes would be good (Like Carrier Strike), but, might be putting too much micro-battle management into the game. The addition of such a relatively small feature would require much more time and effort into coding than will be gained from having this option. I would only suggest attempting such things when the main base of the game is completed and working fine.
Now comes the big 'game question'. How realistic to you want the game. You may order your squadron to attack the main enemy TF, but how often did the planes attack something else. I can recall at least twice that airplanes reported sinking enemy carriers, where in reality they sunk an oilier or similar type ship.
Just because you order an attack on TF1, it might not occur. Other targets in the area, squadron experience, command experience, weather, time of day (this is tough on weekly turns), range of target, spotting level, random factor, etc.... should all factor into the attack.
Just because you order an attack on TF1, it might not occur. Other targets in the area, squadron experience, command experience, weather, time of day (this is tough on weekly turns), range of target, spotting level, random factor, etc.... should all factor into the attack.
Just remember that this is being touted as a strategic level game and not a tactical level game. A that level most of the detailed tasks (how big of CAP etc) is left to the on-scene commander, not the Admiral back at Pearl Harbor or Tokyo. My vote is to let them get the strategic part right and maybe add-on later a module for more of the tactical decisions.
Good points about this being a strategic wargame and not having quite that much tactical
crontrol to get to decide numbers of fighters for CAP, etc.
But one thing that I think should be in is the option for the player to decide if he want's his
TF to attempt to withdraw, continue the engagement or pursue the enemy TF after the initial round
of exchange of fire between the TF's. This is realistic and would represent the TF commander
requesting additional orders. "The enemy TF is attempting to flee, we have sustained substantial
losses ourselves. Shall we pursue them and continue the fight?". That sort of thing.
Of course, commander traits would play into that as well. An aggressive commander might attack
even when you tell him to withdraw.
What do you think?
crontrol to get to decide numbers of fighters for CAP, etc.
But one thing that I think should be in is the option for the player to decide if he want's his
TF to attempt to withdraw, continue the engagement or pursue the enemy TF after the initial round
of exchange of fire between the TF's. This is realistic and would represent the TF commander
requesting additional orders. "The enemy TF is attempting to flee, we have sustained substantial
losses ourselves. Shall we pursue them and continue the fight?". That sort of thing.
Of course, commander traits would play into that as well. An aggressive commander might attack
even when you tell him to withdraw.
What do you think?
I would like some more orders than the game presently offers. I would like the ability to send my commanders out on only a one day mission (or one night mission). Of course it would only stick around the target area for a short while, but, it wouldn't be constantly at prey to enemy aircraft. The Japanese were very good at sending task forces out just at night to bombard Guadalcanal or attack the American fleet by traveling just at night and avoiding air attack. I would also like an option for the attacking commander to tell them to try to engage at night, or during the day. Since the Japanese (at leasst early in the war) had a distinct advantage for night engagement you should be able to order your commanders to take full advantage of this and to have them battle mostly at night, if you choose to.
Yes, you should be able to order the TF commander to try to engage at night or in the day, whichever
is your preference. Of course, if the TF does fight at night, any carriers would be useless,
with only capital ships with their own guns participating in the battle. The carriers would
still be there and be fully vulnerable to enemy guns and torpedoes, but they wouldn't be able
to take any offensive action.
I also like the idea of being able to order TF's to make rapid night time sorties, always leaving
enemy territory well before light. This is an important part of Japanese strategy. But this
would require some sort of special order menu. Perhaps the player could decide how many
nights during the current weekly turn he would like to send TF's on night time incursions
into enemy territory. The player would pick which path for the TF/TF's to take and assign the
missions to them (engage any TF's you come across, bombard this port, etc.). Then each nightly
excursion would be seperately calculated to see what, if anything, happens. You might send
them out 1 time in a weekly turn or 7 times. And each TF could have it's own individual orders
for where to go and what mission to undertake.
It would be great if this could be implemented.
And wouldn't be too hard to do either, I think.
[This message has been edited by Dunedain (edited 05-27-2000).]
is your preference. Of course, if the TF does fight at night, any carriers would be useless,
with only capital ships with their own guns participating in the battle. The carriers would
still be there and be fully vulnerable to enemy guns and torpedoes, but they wouldn't be able
to take any offensive action.
I also like the idea of being able to order TF's to make rapid night time sorties, always leaving
enemy territory well before light. This is an important part of Japanese strategy. But this
would require some sort of special order menu. Perhaps the player could decide how many
nights during the current weekly turn he would like to send TF's on night time incursions
into enemy territory. The player would pick which path for the TF/TF's to take and assign the
missions to them (engage any TF's you come across, bombard this port, etc.). Then each nightly
excursion would be seperately calculated to see what, if anything, happens. You might send
them out 1 time in a weekly turn or 7 times. And each TF could have it's own individual orders
for where to go and what mission to undertake.
It would be great if this could be implemented.
And wouldn't be too hard to do either, I think.[This message has been edited by Dunedain (edited 05-27-2000).]
I agree. The original game had an option for night operations for aircraft. This should be available for surface TF well but with a caviet. A slow TF should be automatically targeted by available aircraft if within range (lots of luck trying to program something like this). Also ships should be able to lay mines.
I definitely like the strategic element that is planned for this game.
Also, I think it would be very interesting to have a tactical naval game. SSI's Pacfic General may have had a few flaws, but I liked the way the tactical naval battles were handled, and I liked their naval units - very cool. You could click on an aircraft carrier and enter the hanger to order repairs or the launching of a particular type of aircraft.
Also, it might be interesting later (maybe as an add-on?) to use the maps and game engine to model a modern-day or post-1945 strategic naval game. I don't know how difficult that might be, but it would be interesting if it could be done
Finally, with regard to targeting priority: it probably depends on what the enemy intends to do at the time. For example, if the Japanese are planning to invade the Phillipines, then you would want to target troop transports and landing craft as well as aircraft carriers.
Usually, whenever I play a Pacific wargame, generally I strive first to achieve air superiority, then naval superiority (or at least drive the enemy from that local theatre of operations). If my force is too weak to achieve these two objectives than the third option is to hurt and/or deprive the enemy of the means for carrying out his particular mission (ie landing troops on an island).
------------------
A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...
Also, I think it would be very interesting to have a tactical naval game. SSI's Pacfic General may have had a few flaws, but I liked the way the tactical naval battles were handled, and I liked their naval units - very cool. You could click on an aircraft carrier and enter the hanger to order repairs or the launching of a particular type of aircraft.
Also, it might be interesting later (maybe as an add-on?) to use the maps and game engine to model a modern-day or post-1945 strategic naval game. I don't know how difficult that might be, but it would be interesting if it could be done
Finally, with regard to targeting priority: it probably depends on what the enemy intends to do at the time. For example, if the Japanese are planning to invade the Phillipines, then you would want to target troop transports and landing craft as well as aircraft carriers.
Usually, whenever I play a Pacific wargame, generally I strive first to achieve air superiority, then naval superiority (or at least drive the enemy from that local theatre of operations). If my force is too weak to achieve these two objectives than the third option is to hurt and/or deprive the enemy of the means for carrying out his particular mission (ie landing troops on an island).
------------------
A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...
Just a few notes on my Pacific War wish list...
1) As a fan of KOEI's Pacific Theatre of Operations, I liked the 4 hr time window which allowed time to organize attacks (either day or night). The bases, fleets,divisions and commanders should be assigned numerical values for effectiveness and ability to supply/command ARMY,NAVY,MARINE and AIR CORPS types,units & fleets with manpower,equipment,food & fuel.
2) Break down the Pacific into commands and major & minor bases(type & color coded). Then yearly budgeting with quarterly staff meetings to review and amend decisions.
3) Morale could be very important with ability to recruit or draft manpower/workers for industry, as well as feeding/housing clothing the workers. Sabotage and intelligence gathering abilities would be affected by this.
4) SEVERAL good ideas are already on posts here, there are many games out there that have already done this type of work. I suggest there be a idea list posted by the designers to be debated weekly or daily to get our feedback on specific issues. Also last word of mine- NO ADVERTISING in the game screens, save it for the web sites!
Thanks
Jim
1) As a fan of KOEI's Pacific Theatre of Operations, I liked the 4 hr time window which allowed time to organize attacks (either day or night). The bases, fleets,divisions and commanders should be assigned numerical values for effectiveness and ability to supply/command ARMY,NAVY,MARINE and AIR CORPS types,units & fleets with manpower,equipment,food & fuel.
2) Break down the Pacific into commands and major & minor bases(type & color coded). Then yearly budgeting with quarterly staff meetings to review and amend decisions.
3) Morale could be very important with ability to recruit or draft manpower/workers for industry, as well as feeding/housing clothing the workers. Sabotage and intelligence gathering abilities would be affected by this.
4) SEVERAL good ideas are already on posts here, there are many games out there that have already done this type of work. I suggest there be a idea list posted by the designers to be debated weekly or daily to get our feedback on specific issues. Also last word of mine- NO ADVERTISING in the game screens, save it for the web sites!
Thanks
Jim
-
norsemanjs
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Enderlin, ND, USA
A note on morale.
Morale was of course extremely important especially as it affected the troops on the front lines. I think this should be an incorporation of the troop quality or experience. Of course even the most experienced troops could be demoralized and have there ability to fight reduced or made less effective.
Morale could be a seperate factor on each unit being affected by victories, high unit losses or damage, supply, length of time at the front or in action. This was something which was easily seen on the American side, Marine and Army divisions would cycle back to bases to recover, they seldom went from one major engagement directly into another. The marine divisions did a lot of training and preparations for their next amphibious op during these times. I think the japanese were less methodical in their amphibious ops, especially early in the war. They often used the same unit to carry out several landings in rapid succession. I'm not sure how this could be covered in the game but it was a big factor in Japan's early successes.
Lets hear your thoughts on how to handle morale.
Norseman
Morale was of course extremely important especially as it affected the troops on the front lines. I think this should be an incorporation of the troop quality or experience. Of course even the most experienced troops could be demoralized and have there ability to fight reduced or made less effective.
Morale could be a seperate factor on each unit being affected by victories, high unit losses or damage, supply, length of time at the front or in action. This was something which was easily seen on the American side, Marine and Army divisions would cycle back to bases to recover, they seldom went from one major engagement directly into another. The marine divisions did a lot of training and preparations for their next amphibious op during these times. I think the japanese were less methodical in their amphibious ops, especially early in the war. They often used the same unit to carry out several landings in rapid succession. I'm not sure how this could be covered in the game but it was a big factor in Japan's early successes.
Lets hear your thoughts on how to handle morale.
Norseman
There are several OB's out that keep changing the load capacity and speeds of Transports. I think there should be two modes of transporting units. Transit mode and Assualt mode. In Transit mode space is important and equipment is loaded to maximze space. In Assualt mode equipment is "Combat Loaded.
You can run but you'll die tired!