Matrix Games Forums

Hmm interesting thread.

Well I don't yet have UV (simple lack of funds).

I am assuming WitP will be my big Pacfic purchase if I can get one at all.

Frankly I want it to mirror my board game Pacific War (which is a tad difficult to play due to immense space eating proportions of game materials involved).

Now if I want a simple game ala Strategic Command, of course I will wait till I can buy one that looks like it.
But I am hoping for a game where when I begin it's "don't bug me I am in the middle of a war here can't you see".

I want detail as much as can be excused in the design (without making it so it never sees the light of day though).
Detail is detail. Some games give you a little like in Strategic Command, some games use a lot like in TOAW.

But I would never stop playing a game, because of one of MY screw ups. A faulty program maybe, but heck I won't quit when the only flaw in the game, was my skill level. I might concede if it is clear my error has cost me the game. But I will shake hands and say cool move.

Skill level is just skill level. I recall playing a guy from out of town a game of Advanced Third Reich after not having played it a year of so.
And this was against someone that played it all the time.
Well he folded spindled and mutilated my lame excuse for a game right big time. And I thanked him for the wake up call.
My strategies that were fine against my usual buddy I played with over the years went where they belonged, in the round file.

I have yet to get a game of Steel Panthers in, where I was able to master each and every facet of the game each and every turn. Doesn't ruin the fun though.
I play Civ 3 and know full well, I am likely missing oodles of opportunities some turns. Some times I just click end turn to fast before realising I wanted to do something. Hardly rates getting moody though.

Fortunately the lives at stake are not real, otherwise it would bother me.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Hmm interesting thread.

Well I don't yet have UV (simple lack of funds).

I am assuming WitP will be my big Pacfic purchase if I can get one at all.

Frankly I want it to mirror my board game Pacific War (which is a tad difficult to play due to immense space eating proportions of game materials involved).

Now if I want a simple game ala Strategic Command, of course I will wait till I can buy one that looks like it.
But I am hoping for a game where when I begin it's "don't bug me I am in the middle of a war here can't you see".

I want detail as much as can be excused in the design (without making it so it never sees the light of day though).
Detail is detail. Some games give you a little like in Strategic Command, some games use a lot like in TOAW.

But I would never stop playing a game, because of one of MY screw ups. A faulty program maybe, but heck I won't quit when the only flaw in the game, was my skill level. I might concede if it is clear my error has cost me the game. But I will shake hands and say cool move.

Skill level is just skill level. I recall playing a guy from out of town a game of Advanced Third Reich after not having played it a year of so.
And this was against someone that played it all the time.
Well he folded spindled and mutilated my lame excuse for a game right big time. And I thanked him for the wake up call.
My strategies that were fine against my usual buddy I played with over the years went where they belonged, in the round file.

I have yet to get a game of Steel Panthers in, where I was able to master each and every facet of the game each and every turn. Doesn't ruin the fun though.
I play Civ 3 and know full well, I am likely missing oodles of opportunities some turns. Some times I just click end turn to fast before realising I wanted to do something. Hardly rates getting moody though.

Fortunately the lives at stake are not real, otherwise it would bother me.

Two things I didnt like about PacWar the board game.

First you have no control over air unit production.
Second the game ends when you get within range to bomb
Japan. For me, the fun IS bombing Japan.

Plus I could never figure out the 'shoestring' supply rules.

Originally posted by Chiteng
I didnt state any of that. YOU did. I spoke of oversight.
I spoke of design limitations. Make all the straw men you wish.
It doesnt matter to me.
If you think that sinking Kido Butai because your opponent
forgot to put his CAP up is gratifying, then I guess that speaks for itself.

Then I obviously misunderstood your previous post.

Then I suggest you reduce the game to simply avoiding errors rather than actual strategy.

No better than playing marbles really.

-What does this mean? It seems to indicate that that strategy is more important than paying attention to detail. Having a strategy is important. But like in Chess, if you make one wrong move, and you do not realize it until you opponent moves, you can't take it back. Great strategy with poor execution can easily result in a loss.

If you win by that method, you didnt defeat the other players skill. He defeats himself, by making the error. You are merely an observer.

- Please explain this? As I read it, it is stating that if I screw up, my opponent didn't really win. In warfare, professional sports, and wargaming, victory often goes to the side making fewer mistakes. If you want to win, you have to be better in both the strategy and execution. Once again, planning is wonderful, but it is nothing until you execute. A very true military maxim makes a very good point in this matter: A mediocre plan executed well is better than the perfect plan executed poorly.

If I am wrong, feel free to point out exactly what you meant.

My post adressed these isues as I read them. If the meaning of your posts was otherwise, feel free to enlighten me.

Originally posted by denisonh
Then I obviously misunderstood your previous post.



-What does this mean? It seems to indicate that that strategy is more important than paying attention to detail. Having a strategy is important. But like in Chess, if you make one wrong move, and you do not realize it until you opponent moves, you can't take it back. Great strategy with poor execution can easily result in a loss.



- Please explain this? As I read it, it is stating that if I screw up, my opponent didn't really win. In warfare, professional sports, and wargaming, victory often goes to the side making fewer mistakes. If you want to win, you have to be better in both the strategy and execution. Once again, planning is wonderful, but it is nothing until you execute. A very true military maxim makes a very good point in this matter: A mediocre plan executed well is better than the perfect plan executed poorly.

If I am wrong, feel free to point out exactly what you meant.

My post adressed these isues as I read them. If the meaning of your posts was otherwise, feel free to enlighten me.

A wargame, is not a sport. A Wargame is also NOT war.
It is simply a system for representing the abstract.

Wargames exist that do NOT have the level of catastophe
that oversight has in this game. Wargames exist that DO have similar levels. My comment is addressed to the design.
1200 turns is a LONG game. Hate to see a great game get trashed because one player forgot to put his CAP up.
Or realized on turn 50 that his subs had been having a good time
in Oahu for two months because he forgot to use them.

Originally posted by Chiteng
A wargame, is not a sport. A Wargame is also NOT war.
It is simply a system for representing the abstract.

Wargames exist that do NOT have the level of catastophe
that oversight has in this game. Wargames exist that DO have similar levels. My comment is addressed to the design.
1200 turns is a LONG game. Hate to see a great game get trashed because one player forgot to put his CAP up.
Or realized on turn 50 that his subs had been having a good time
in Oahu for two months because he forgot to use them.

I do not believe I said a wargame is a sport, or that a wargame is war (or as you would say "you said that not me"), I only compared certain aspects of the three that are similiar. A wargame is a competition using a representation of war, and in those three activities, success often is associated with the participants who make the fewest mistakes.

I agree that there must be automated routines that are reliable, reporting processes to highlight critical information for timely decisions by the player, and a game interface that allows you translate your decision into action with minimum "oversight" error. Yes, it should be highlighted in the game design effort to minimize errors of this kind.

But all that being said, once you engage in playing a PBEM game of this scope, you assume responsibility for all aspects of your sides play. It is like taking command (well, the player IS the "virtual" commander of forces). So at that point, the onus of execution is on the player, bad decision or oversight.

Originally posted by denisonh
I do not believe I said a wargame is a sport, or that a wargame is war (or as you would say "you said that not me"), I only compared certain aspects of the three that are similiar. A wargame is a competition using a representation of war, and in those three activities, success often is associated with the participants who make the fewest mistakes.

I agree that there must be automated routines that are reliable, reporting processes to highlight critical information for timely decisions by the player, and a game interface that allows you translate your decision into action with minimum "oversight" error. Yes, it should be highlighted in the game design effort to minimize errors of this kind.

But all that being said, once you engage in playing a PBEM game of this scope, you assume responsibility for all aspects of your sides play. It is like taking command (well, the player IS the "virtual" commander of forces). So at that point, the onus of execution is on the player, bad decision or oversight.

All you are telling me, is that YOU dont feel that you will ever make
such an error. Because IF you did, it would bother you a great deal. It must be nice to be infallible.

like I said earlier in this lengthy thread, make yourself a logical checklist to force you to address all the steps involved. They did it in PacWar, they will need it in WitP and we all could use it in UV. Maybe one of us can come up with one. I ain't got all the steps down yet by far.

Originally posted by Chiteng
All you are telling me, is that YOU dont feel that you will ever make
such an error. Because IF you did, it would bother you a great deal. It must be nice to be infallible.

Hardly.

I have made my share of mistakes. I lost the Lex and Yorktown in one of my first UV PBEM games because I had the CAP set to zero. But I stuck with it and won the game. Sure, I was unhappy, but it was my mistake. I learned from it and have gotten better, as that has not happened again.

Yes it bothered me, as nothing upsets me more than suffering because of my own stupidity. But I ask for nothing, as it was MY RESPONSIBILTY AND NO ONE ELSE'S to ensure the CAP level was set properly. As the commander of forces, I accept responsibility for my actions, inactions, and oversights. I learn from the situation and move on.

Like Drex has said about the checklist, I have one that I use in UV which keeps me from repeating those mistakes.

Originally posted by Chiteng
It must be nice to be infallible.

It is, believe me!

The only difficulty is making sure that the Pope and I don't have an argument that ends with a complete disagreement (two infallible people at odds would obviously tear a rift in the space-time continuum).

Originally posted by Luskan
The only difficulty is making sure that the Pope and I don't have an argument that ends with a complete disagreement.

Yeah, well, not long ago, a very holy priest died and his soul stood before the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter said, "Father, you have lived such an exemplary life and done such good work, it has been decided to return you to Earth in your mortal form to continue. As a further reward, you have been judged worthy of meeting the Lord and receiving the answers to three questions.

Saint Peter disappears, and, in a cloud of glory, Jesus appears. "Father, I will answer three questions."

"Well, Lord," said the priest, "Will there ever be peace on Earth?"

Jesus said, "Yes, father, but not in your lifetime."

The priest was pensive. Then, he asked, "Well, then, will there ever be an end to the pestilence and disease that have visited humankind in all the millennia they have inhabited the Earth?"

Jesus said again, "Yes, father, but not in your lifetime."

So, the priest asked, "Lord, will Luskan ever be Pope?"

And Jesus said, "Yes, father, but not in my lifetime."

Very good!. My apologies to Luskan. I was laughing at the joke.

Well seeing as I am playing a PBEM against Luskan.......that must make me the anti-christ!:eek:

Chiteng said:

“Hate to see a great game get trashed because one player forgot to put his CAP up. realised on turn 50 that his subs had been having a good time in Oahu for two months because he forgot to use them.”

You started this thread by pointing out the extreme length of the campaign. It seems to me that if the campaign is long, then a player can correct his oversight but if a campaign is short then he cannot.

Therefore your original point is only valid in a short scenario. But the crux of the issue has not been addressed.

- Do you follow a turn routine? If you did you would never forget to put up CAP.
- How long do you spend on a PBEM turn?
- Do you play chess?
- If you make an oversight in chess do you take back your turn?

Originally posted by denisonh
............. But like in Chess, if you make one wrong move, and you do not realize it until you opponent moves, you can't take it back. .................

In chess you have complete control over your moves - no lower level commander making mistakes for you. Unlike the myriad of units/moves in UV (and I would suspect many more in WitP) you can only move one chess piece at a time.

Originally posted by Sonny
In chess you have complete control over your moves - no lower level commander making mistakes for you. Unlike the myriad of units/moves in UV (and I would suspect many more in WitP) you can only move one chess piece at a time.

In a Chess Game, you can see all the pieces and all the potential
moves at once. In most board games, it's pretty close to the
same. But in WITP, you will have to view most actions on sub-maps, and do most of your turn within sub-systems. The potential
for simply overlooking something will be enourmous.

As the UV system already feature "sub-commanders" that take a
lot of the tactical decisions from the players hands, it doesn't
seem outrageous to ask that these "sub-commanders" also
exercise a bit of initiative DEFENSIVELY by reacting to airstrikes
and the like.

I'm not talking about leaving all your subs at Pearl for 50 turns..,
just providing some "on-the-spot" response to an enemy attack.
Putting up some fighters when you spot an incoming air raid is
EXACTLY the kind of response you would EXPECT the local C.O.
to make. Changing the direction of a supply convoy when your
scouts spot an enemy TF closing in on it. This kind of thing could
and should be part of a game system that claims the "player is
too far above the tactical scale to actually direct his own air
strikes". IF the player is held to be responsible for this level of
detail DEFENSIVELY, then he ought to be able to direct his own
strikes OFFENSIVELY! If not..., fine---but it should work BOTH
ways.

Major Tactical and Strategic mistakes should be left to the player
to suffer the consequenses. But in a game of this size and scope,
it would be nice if the system itself could provide some help for
the smaller things that are easy to overlook even if you do your
turn systematiclly.

Originally posted by pasternakski
So, the priest asked, "Lord, will Luskan ever be Pope?"

And Jesus said, "Yes, father, but not in my lifetime."

Hope you don't mind me plagarising your material!! :p

Originally posted by Joe 98
Chiteng said:

“Hate to see a great game get trashed because one player forgot to put his CAP up. realised on turn 50 that his subs had been having a good time in Oahu for two months because he forgot to use them.”

You started this thread by pointing out the extreme length of the campaign. It seems to me that if the campaign is long, then a player can correct his oversight but if a campaign is short then he cannot.

Therefore your original point is only valid in a short scenario. But the crux of the issue has not been addressed.

- Do you follow a turn routine? If you did you would never forget to put up CAP.
- How long do you spend on a PBEM turn?
- Do you play chess?
- If you make an oversight in chess do you take back your turn?

There are more than three ways to create an oversight.
There are a multitude

Originally posted by denisonh
................
Yes it bothered me, as nothing upsets me more than suffering because of my own stupidity. ..............

You are at least right on one thing - better, more useful and more easily accessible data would lead to fewer mistakes - at least in my case (at least I hope it would).

It's a game. The objective of a game is to beat the opponent. One component of that is skill (the other, in many but not all games, luck). One suite of skills involve attention and memory, influencing such things as not forgetting to take your VFs off "training" (or whatever) before you send them into battle. If you screw up you should not call for "do overs."

Originally posted by Chiteng
There are more than three ways to create an oversight.
There are a multitude

Heeheeheeheehee.

"And god said, 'I have no way to control this multitude. I know! I shall create an oversight!'

"And Moses looked across the nation of Israel and said, 'Looky, Joshua. There are a multitude!' And Joshua grumbled, 'yea, but they have no oversight.'"