one inherent problem with this system

[Chiteng]

This is supposed to be a forum for the design of WitP.
It is not intended for personal attacks. I protest what
Pasternaski is doing.

His comments belong in AoW, not here.

[Aussie]

If a person doesn't have the ability (or willingness) to mitigate oversight in a long game, then Play An Easier Game.
Many of us play these sorts of games because the sheer complexity is a challenge, and the ultimate challenge is to become good at the game despite this complexity.

Aussie's humble advice:

Learn the rules of the game
Learn the limitations (including bugs) of the game
Have a system for minimising/eliminating 'oversights' during a turn


BTW Kido Butai is doomed everntually...

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Aussie
If a person doesn't have the ability (or willingness) to mitigate oversight in a long game, then Play An Easier Game.
Many of us play these sorts of games because the sheer complexity is a challenge, and the ultimate challenge is to become good at the game despite this complexity.

Aussie's humble advice:

Learn the rules of the game
Learn the limitations (including bugs) of the game
Have a system for minimising/eliminating 'oversights' during a turn


BTW Kido Butai is doomed everntually...

So you are saying that time lost in learning these 'bugs' or
undocumented features are what? The cost of playing the game?
If that is the case, I strongly suspect that the 'niche' market for the game will be 'die hard' wargammers and no others.
Because the normal person isnt that sanguine.

[Raverdave]

Got to say that I am still having trouble figuring where you are coming from Chiteng . Most ppl here seem to be of the same opinon in that if you make an honest mistake, well tough titties, learn by it and move on. Godknows I have made my fair share of mistakes, much to my PBEM partners delight. But it cuts both ways, some of my PBEMers have also made mistakes, and if it was such a bad one, they (as have I) will sometimes concede the game. I just don't see this as being a "inherent problem with this system".

And seeing as we

are on the WiTP forum, I shall refrane from calling you a wanker;)

[Aussie]

Most computer games have bugs/errata/undocumented features hence patches,updated versions, readmes etc. WITP is bound to have heaps of these intitally, given how complex the game is. Like PW though, the game will develop over time. If we wait for Matrix to release a 'perfect' first version of WITP, then I doubt that our grandkids will live to see it.

Complex wargames will always appeal to a niche market. Forunately for companies like Matrix, this market is quite large!

[madflava13]

Chiteng,
I agree time is important for Japan. I also agree that once you lose the CVs, they won't be replaced by the pipeline like the US ships. But I disagree with your argument.

While the game is/will be complex, if you want to play as the Japanese, you must have a plan. It must be detailed and it will require time and thought. It will require attention to detail (like remembering to check all your CV TFs' CAP). It also means that as the Japanese player, where time and resources are vitally important, you must be even more focused and attuned to the minor details. This will be a boring and tedious process for most, which is why 2by3/Matrix are in the minority of game designers. It's also why the people in this forum are unique. I do not mind spending hours planning turns and months completing games. I love it. I love the detail and I love the hard work required to be successful at these games. Most people here do too.

But like I said before, forgetting to do something happens to all of us, and none of us like it. This doesn't mean the game is flawed or needs redesign. It just means we shake our head, mutter a curse at the CPU, and drive on.

None of us (well, not most of us) have seen WITP yet. We're arguing and calling names based on speculation, which seems ridiculous to me.

Once the game is out, if its flawed, we can raise a ruckus then. Until then, I think everyone needs to simma down a bit.

As a bit of advice for everyone, if you don't like how complex this game will be, if taking an hour to check your bases and plan your moves per turn seems too much, than maybe this isn't the game for you. It's the game for me (and I suspect many others here) though, and I hope it's as complex and involved as UV, only on a much much larger scale.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Got to say that I am still having trouble figuring where you are coming from Chiteng . Most ppl here seem to be of the same opinon in that if you make an honest mistake, well tough titties, learn by it and move on. Godknows I have made my fair share of mistakes, much to my PBEM partners delight. But it cuts both ways, some of my PBEMers have also made mistakes, and if it was such a bad one, they (as have I) will sometimes concede the game. I just don't see this as being a "inherent problem with this system".

And seeing as we

are on the WiTP forum, I shall refrane from calling you a wanker;)

Because some players dont like the idea of simply tossing 34 hours of game play out the window to an 'undocumented feature'
There are also players that dont like you resigning, on the spot
because they want to pound you into the dust.

You see I am normally generous towards the Japanese play
because they have such limited room for mistakes. The USA
I can let skate. Nothing the USA does will impact him much
unless he does something totally stupid like not building CV.

If after 50 games of using 25 ship TF I have NEVER seen
a case where a fully supplied zero-op TF doesnt engage,
It isnt a far stretch for me to assume that they always engage.

Why would I NOT assume that? It is after all a computer program
NOT reality.

If it were reality, I would just send back to Japan and ask for more MSW.

The limitations of the game.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Aussie
Most computer games have bugs/errata/undocumented features hence patches,updated versions, readmes etc. WITP is bound to have heaps of these intitally, given how complex the game is. Like PW though, the game will develop over time. If we wait for Matrix to release a 'perfect' first version of WITP, then I doubt that our grandkids will live to see it.

Complex wargames will always appeal to a niche market. Forunately for companies like Matrix, this market is quite large!

Read my next post

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng,
I agree time is important for Japan. I also agree that once you lose the CVs, they won't be replaced by the pipeline like the US ships. But I disagree with your argument.

While the game is/will be complex, if you want to play as the Japanese, you must have a plan. It must be detailed and it will require time and thought. It will require attention to detail (like remembering to check all your CV TFs' CAP). It also means that as the Japanese player, where time and resources are vitally important, you must be even more focused and attuned to the minor details. This will be a boring and tedious process for most, which is why 2by3/Matrix are in the minority of game designers. It's also why the people in this forum are unique. I do not mind spending hours planning turns and months completing games. I love it. I love the detail and I love the hard work required to be successful at these games. Most people here do too.

But like I said before, forgetting to do something happens to all of us, and none of us like it. This doesn't mean the game is flawed or needs redesign. It just means we shake our head, mutter a curse at the CPU, and drive on.

None of us (well, not most of us) have seen WITP yet. We're arguing and calling names based on speculation, which seems ridiculous to me.

Once the game is out, if its flawed, we can raise a ruckus then. Until then, I think everyone needs to simma down a bit.

As a bit of advice for everyone, if you don't like how complex this game will be, if taking an hour to check your bases and plan your moves per turn seems too much, than maybe this isn't the game for you. It's the game for me (and I suspect many others here) though, and I hope it's as complex and involved as UV, only on a much much larger scale.

You err when assuming that I am unfamiliar with complex wargames.

I have played 22 games of WitP to completion (the SPI board game) that is a pretty complex game.
I have played three games of Campaign for North Afrika,
the most complex game I have ever tried to play.
I have played in excess of 100 games of War in Europe (also SPI)
and I have played many many games of Bombing of the Reich
which is possibly the most complicated game for the Germans.

I am not some simple newbie. I have played every title Gary has published. I know his games are very well know to have multiple bugs. However we are talking about OVERSIGHT.

It is easy to forget your key on the way to the car.
However the car doesnt normally blow up when you do that.
It is easy to toss your clothes on the ground when your tired
and take the heat from the wife the next day.

It is easy to miss a better buy at the grocery store
because of all the clutter.

The possibility of catastophic loss in any game on the pacific war
is quite high. I am saying that in a very long game, it is almost
inevitable that the opportunity for a mistake will happen.

I realize that are egos that dont think this will happen to them.

It is part of the game design. If this forum is to address such concerns, then this is a legitimate issue.

[mogami]

Hi, Really in 50 games you have never seen a surface TF not engage in combat (when located in the same hex as an enemy TF)
I have seen it occur from version 1.00. I have also seen where 1 TF took on 4 or more enemy TF's in one night. (Often fighting one or more of these TF's multiple times) I've seen 7 PT-boats turn back an enemy TF containing 3 BB (Yamato among them) (The PT's were pounded but the IJN did not bombard) I've had 7 subchasers take on 5 minesweepers (for several nights in a row USN SC fought it out with IJN MS/ML/PC ) after that I had 4 SC that sank every enemy sub they encountered (night ratings in the 80's) I've seen 4 DD's (both sides) deal mass destruction to larger TF's. As Japan I routinly have ships with exp ratings of 99.
(As USN I get high 80's low 90's )
I'm asking do you consider it illogical that your covering force missed the fight? (I mean do you consider it beyond the realm of a possible result?) I don't recall anything in the manual that would lead me to think surface combat was automatic.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Really in 50 games you have never seen a surface TF not engage in combat (when located in the same hex as an enemy TF)
I have seen it occur from version 1.00. I have also seen where 1 TF took on 4 or more enemy TF's in one night. (Often fighting one or more of these TF's multiple times) I've seen 7 PT-boats turn back an enemy TF containing 3 BB (Yamato among them) (The PT's were pounded but the IJN did not bombard) I've had 7 subchasers take on 5 minesweepers (for several nights in a row USN SC fought it out with IJN MS/ML/PC ) after that I had 4 SC that sank every enemy sub they encountered (night ratings in the 80's) I've seen 4 DD's (both sides) deal mass destruction to larger TF's. As Japan I routinly have ships with exp ratings of 99.
(As USN I get high 80's low 90's )
I'm asking do you consider it illogical that your covering force missed the fight? (I mean do you consider it beyond the realm of a possible result?) I don't recall anything in the manual that would lead me to think surface combat was automatic.

Not at all, but if you refuse to do a replay then DONT get upset
when I quit.
It really is that simple. I could have had three 15 ship surface
combat forces in the same hex just by reforming the existing ships.

But if something like that happens you dont get to complain
if I bail, when you refuse a replay request.

[madflava13]

Chiteng, I apologize if it seemed I was questioning your familiarity with complex games. I just don't understand why you are so upset over what seems to me to be an unlucky break or oversight. Those things happen and you need to just work through them. They're not all bugs.

For example, in a recent game I played against a friend, one of my SBDs got a 1000 lb bomb hit on the Nagato. It caused catastrophic damage (we don't have the replay, but we both think a magazine was hit) and Nagato is now in Rabaul harbor with 86 damage. From one hit. Is this way out there? Yes. Is it still possible? Also yes. As ****** as my friend is about it, he recognizes that weird things like that happen and we're still playing...

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I dont agree =) Nor will I agree. If you call what happened
a victory more power to you. I resigned. You win.

Now the concern is OVERSIGHT and game length. It is a real issue.

I never called it a victory. You resigned. It is like calling a forfiet a victory (which, technically, it is).

But nonetheless, you made a bad decision. It was not game mechanics. I repeat, not game mechanics.

So please stop blaming the game engine for your bad decision.

You do not have to agree with me or believe me. The fact is you knew that surface forces were going to be in a hex which you deployed your carriers. That is a bad choice no matter how you slice it.

Bad decisions lead to defeat. Defeat is a state where the opponent is the victor.

Yes, games can be won and lost. And when you have beaten yourself, the enemy is the victor.

So learn from your mistakes so as not to repeat them. Blaming poor decision making on the game engine will not help your decision making.

This victim mentality has no place in wargaming.

Buck up, recognize that you have failed, learn and drive on.

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Not at all, but if you refuse to do a replay then DONT get upset
when I quit.
It really is that simple. I could have had three 15 ship surface
combat forces in the same hex just by reforming the existing ships.

But if something like that happens you dont get to complain
if I bail, when you refuse a replay request.

Hang on. I've sent a message to the gods. If it is the result of a game malfunction then I think a replay is in order. (I have granted more then one replay in other games most commonly the carrier battle bug where the side struck first launches a counterstrike but no combat occurs (no flak or air to air or bombing) The first phase of such replays always are exactly the same but the other player at least gets his strike (not always effective but a strike) I've also replayed the bug where "Fast" type missions get stuck at the target hex (rather then bombard or unload) and run away they sit. If you replay these the TF (without any orders changes, simply rerunning the turn) behaves correctly. If combat should always take place then it's a bug. Players should not be held accountable for results of bugs.
Human (player input error) is tough luck chum (I'd never ask for a replay I might grant one if you whined enough)

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng, I apologize if it seemed I was questioning your familiarity with complex games. I just don't understand why you are so upset over what seems to me to be an unlucky break or oversight. Those things happen and you need to just work through them. They're not all bugs.

For example, in a recent game I played against a friend, one of my SBDs got a 1000 lb bomb hit on the Nagato. It caused catastrophic damage (we don't have the replay, but we both think a magazine was hit) and Nagato is now in Rabaul harbor with 86 damage. From one hit. Is this way out there? Yes. Is it still possible? Also yes. As ****** as my friend is about it, he recognizes that weird things like that happen and we're still playing...

Well we all know the Mutsu blew up in Port so I guess it IS
possible.

But that isnt what we are talking about here.
If it was a bug, and if the TF should have engaged,
then my CV should not have been at risk.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
I never called it a victory. You resigned. It is like calling a forfiet a victory (which, technically, it is).

But nonetheless, you made a bad decision. It was not game mechanics. I repeat, not game mechanics.

So please stop blaming the game engine for your bad decision.

You do not have to agree with me or believe me. The fact is you knew that surface forces were going to be in a hex which you deployed your carriers. That is a bad choice no matter how you slice it.

Bad decisions lead to defeat. Defeat is a state where the opponent is the victor.

Yes, games can be won and lost. And when you have beaten yourself, the enemy is the victor.

So learn from your mistakes so as not to repeat them. Blaming poor decision making on the game engine will not help your decision making.

This victim mentality has no place in wargaming.

Buck up, recognize that you have failed, learn and drive on.

And again I dont agree.
Nor do I agree with your labeling.
And if you refuse a replay, you have no right to become upset
when I quit.

[madflava13]

Chiteng, I wasn't there for your game, but CVs in the same hex as enemy surface TFs are ALWAYS in trouble. Witness the "Taffy" TFs off Leyte. CVs must always be kept away from enemy surface ships, and if you didn't do this, you made a mistake. Thats not the game's fault.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng, I wasn't there for your game, but CVs in the same hex as enemy surface TFs are ALWAYS in trouble. Witness the "Taffy" TFs off Leyte. CVs must always be kept away from enemy surface ships, and if you didn't do this, you made a mistake. Thats not the game's fault.

The Taffy's won. What is your point?

It is possible that I made a mistake, YES.

and if by making the mistake I lose, then I have the right to resign.

But I have every right to resent heat for that decision.

[Drex]

Chiteng seems to be defending an opinion not widely shared by the rest of us but i got to admire his preserverence. What an opponent he would make. This is all rhetoric as far s I am concerned. If Chiteng did not think UV had some merit , he wouldn't be wasting his time in this forum. I think his talents should be directed in beating his opponents.

[Chiteng]

None of this has anything to do with the original point.

Complexity plus extreme game length == opportunity for error.
THAT is a design concern.