Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I like the complexity ....

TFs react correctly in this game. In fact, if I have a complaint, it's that reactions are too frequent, leading to far more action in the game than occurred in the real world. Admittedly this makes it more approachable and less frustrating to play, however.

The game puts compression and other abstractions that make for more action than historically, while maintaining a historical feel. I believe striking a good balance, personally though, like you, if it had to be changed it would change toward the less action, less accurate (bombers, naval rifles), more historical. But that can make a game what it can not be, a historical study; and can become quite tedious to play.

As you say it makes game play less frustrating and more approachable, less boring, for the average player who wants this level of detail. Still you have plenty of complaints on the forum from those who do not know their history well, or want more of a video game feel; lots of action, bomb hits, and naval rifle hits.

This player if not a troll seems to wants more of a theme video game. Much simpler with lots more action, more of a comic book feel. The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player. Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story. This level of detail combined with a historical feel becomes tedious and complicated instead of adding depth and playability.

Everyone has their preferred style of game play. Just like shopping one person's quick interesting shop is another's longest, tedious day.

“The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player.
Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.”

False...It is not “some general guidance from the player.” This game takes a
great deal of player input. More detailed player input than any other wargame
in my humble opinion. Nowhere near a video experience for most players.

Seems the OP was looking for a fun tactical wargame instead of a strategic wargame.

It is a common problem with some people who try this game.

Everyone thinks “carrier battles” when they think of the Pacific War.
This game is not about “carrier battles” it is about the strategic aspects
of brutal mid 20th century industrial warfare. That is very complex and
the workload can be tedious at times.

The Pacific War was more about non-sexy logistics than carrier battles.

This is one of the reasons that I always recommend a new player start with the
main campaign scenarios instead of the small scenarios. They give a much better
understanding of the game right from the start.

A new player can get the idea that the small scenarios are real easy and they can
jump right in, not look at the manual, not do their homework and get some
fun carrier battles which they can easily win. After getting beat numerous times
they blame the game and quit.

This game is not for children or casual gamers it is for very hard core wargamers.

The game carries the label “Expert level” in the game description. Amen!

There is a very good argument for never dropping the price of this game because
a very high price weeds out the casual players and children.

This player if not a troll seems to wants more of a theme video game. Much simpler with lots more action, more of a comic book feel. The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player. Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I don't think the OP is looking for a fun tactical wargame or "theme video game", with nice graphics and lots of action - if so, he wouldn't have played Pacwar! Yes, the OP is criticising the game results because they do not match his expectations - but that's because he does not understand the game mechanics - and for this he justly deserves the drubbing here! But on the other hand he is criticising the UI - and there he has a point IMO. We have had threads about this in the past - the game is a clickfest and can be tedious, and some UI improvements would be welcome. Be honest, if you hit the "C" key to bring-up the combat reports, wouldn't it be nice if clicking on a location name or coordinates would center the map on the location of the battle? IIRC Pacwar had a keyboard shortcut to display battle locations on the map. Apparently the OP misses things like that in AE - but when he calls the entire game "truly terrible" due to some shortcomings, he completely ignores all the good stuff it has to offer. His loss - everybody has to make his own mistakes.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.[:D][&:]

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.[:D][8|]

“The game engine does its thing with some general guidance from the player.
Like a video with some guidance from the viewer which effects the story.”

False...It is not “some general guidance from the player.” This game takes a
great deal of player input. More detailed player input than any other wargame
in my humble opinion. Nowhere near a video experience for most players.

Seems the OP was looking for a fun tactical wargame instead of a strategic wargame.

It is a common problem with some people who try this game.

Everyone thinks “carrier battles” when they think of the Pacific War.
This game is not about “carrier battles” it is about the strategic aspects
of brutal mid 20th century industrial warfare. That is very complex and
the workload can be tedious at times.

The Pacific War was more about non-sexy logistics than carrier battles.

This is one of the reasons that I always recommend a new player start with the
main campaign scenarios instead of the small scenarios. They give a much better
understanding of the game right from the start.

A new player can get the idea that the small scenarios are real easy and they can
jump right in, not look at the manual, not do their homework and get some
fun carrier battles which they can easily win. After getting beat numerous times
they blame the game and quit.

This game is not for children or casual gamers it is for very hard core wargamers.

The game carries the label “Expert level” in the game description. Amen!

There is a very good argument for never dropping the price of this game because
a very high price weeds out the casual players and children.

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.[:D][&:]

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.[:D][8|]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.[:D][&:]

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.[:D][8|]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.[:D][&:]

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.[:D][8|]

warspite1

Authentic Frontier Gibberish [;)]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.[:D][&:]

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.[:D][8|]

OK.

A football manager who plays a 1-1-8 formation and when his team is awarded a penalty, which is converted demands that it is worth 5 goals. Or a tennis player in the French Open who loses the first 3 sets 6-7, 6-7, 6-7 and then remains on the court demanding the match proceeds because he has already won 18 games and his opponent's 21 won games is not insurmountable as he can win the fourth and fifth sets 6-4, 6-4 giving him a total of 30 won games to his opponent's total of only 29 won games. Or a chess player whose ELO rating is 2300 who manages to draw with an opponent rated 2500 and claims that as he is the lower rated player, he deserves to be awarded 1 point and his opponent 0 point.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred

I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.[:D][&:]

More specifically, I perfectly understood the first paragraph, but absolutely not the second.[:D][8|]

OK.

A football manager who plays a 1-1-8 formation and when his team is awarded a penalty, which is converted demands that it is worth 5 goals. Or a tennis player in the French Open who loses the first 3 sets 6-7, 6-7, 6-7 and then remains on the court demanding the match proceeds because he has already won 18 games and his opponent's 21 won games is not insurmountable as he can win the fourth and fifth sets 6-4, 6-4 giving him a total of 30 won games to his opponent's total of only 29 won games. Or a chess player whose ELO rating is 2300 who manages to draw with an opponent rated 2500 and claims that as he is the lower rated player, he deserves to be awarded 1 point and his opponent 0 point.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth.

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

ORIGINAL: alimentary

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth.

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
I’m not familiar enough with baseball to get half of what you said.

Irrelevant baseball details...

If the batter hits the ball into the air and a fielder catches it before it hits the ground, this is called a "fly ball" or "fly out" and the batter is "out". He loses his turn at bat. He is not allowed to run to a base.

In an "inning", one player after another from the batting team take their place at the batters box where they attempt to hit balls thrown past ("pitched to") them. After three players are "out", the inning ends and the other team takes its turn. A standard game has nine innings. A "fly out" as described above is only one of several ways in which a player can be "out". He could also strike out, be tagged out or forced out.

Google tells me the "mercy rule" is that a team that is ahead by 10 runs or more after seven complete innings [or by 15 or more after five] is deemed the winner.

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Then only frustration I feel in this game is when I suffer a consequence because of my own stupidity or lack of understanding of a rule or game mechanic. I'm still learning. I've also had the game for years, played UV, and have been playing war games in one form or another since the 1970s. This is still the best game I've ever played. I don't fault the game because I fail to understand something. Instead, I think how much of a learning curve the actual war was for the real players, and thank God I am not playing with real lives.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Then only frustration I feel in this game is when I suffer a consequence because of my own stupidity or lack of understanding of a rule or game mechanic. I'm still learning. I've also had the game for years, played UV, and have been playing war games in one form or another since the 1970s. This is still the best game I've ever played. I don't fault the game because I fail to understand something. Instead, I think how much of a learning curve the actual war was for the real players, and thank God I am not playing with real lives.

Wish this attitude were adopted by all new players. It would make their life much easier and make the game much more enjoyable for them.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In his almost 40 years of designing wargames, no Grigsby game design has ever been lauded as having a cutting edge GUI. Much more common has been the claim that his game designs are just essentially a spreadsheet. One should take with a grain of salt any claim to having invested much time playing old Grigsby games and finding their old, DOS based "GUI" (which of course is a tautological statement in itself), to be better.

The OP is like a baseball batter who hits a flyball and then complains he isn't allowed to run. Or the baseball coach who complains that after 3 outs, the innings ends. Or the baseball coach who demands that the mercy rule not be enforced because his team is definitely going to score 11 runs in the ninth. Or the gridiron coach who claims the game is rigged against his team because after making 2 yards forward progress in 4 plays his team has to hand over the ball to the other team. Or demands that his teams touchdown is worth 15 points with the conversion worth another 10 points. There is a common underlying cause in all these exemplars.

Alfred