Matrix Games Forums

I am voluntarily using myself as the Bobo clown, so here it goes.

I'm coming to the conclusion that WiTP, yet alone another AE with a smaller scale to 40 mi's/hex may be 'unplayable'. Here's my experience thus far. I have started the May '42 - to the end scenerio, and have made it to Oct '42 vs the AI. It has taken about 30 hours of my time. Now I'm not complaining...I have little else to do recovering from a hernia operation....Seriously, the most vexing concern is I'm getting bored. I thought I could run my war on 3-day turns - not plausible, I find myself alternating between 1 day or 2 day turns. How can it get better with 40 mi hexes? It takes too much time to do minute tasks that my Lt's, Capt's, Col's, Gen's, etc. should be doing without me.

As the Pacific Allied War God (Nimitz/Macarthur), I find my time being wasted with toooooooo many details that significantly slow this game down. This is what I need to run a good war:
1) An AI officer who can evaluate all enemy info, and to place it on the main map for me. It should show all data including SALUTE (size, activity, location, units, time, & equipment. Arrows showing directions of enemy TF's would be helpful.
2) Logistics officer who can run my supplies - I'm tired of making my own supply/transport convoys.
3) Transport officer who can ferry my units to my theater commanders. I tell him where they need to go - he gets it done. I'm paying him well, I shouldn't have to do the work for him.
4) Submarine officer who can carry out the zones of which I want to conduct sub operations. Maybe I give him 3- 4 zones - done deal.
5) Air officers that know what altitude to fly, when they need a rest/standdown/grab a pilot, etc. They know their job better than me. I spend a lot of time running the Pacific Theater, schmoozing Capital Hill/Roosevelt/Marshall, I don't have the time to tell Capt. Smith how to fly his air mission.
6) TF commanders that can handle simple tasks such as refueling at sea, evading enemy air zoc's, loading/unlading, refitting, withdrawal, etc.
7) War production/procurrment of resources is convoluted & tedious. Maybe an icon button at the top showing my base/factories? I need A Production Czar.

Wouldn't it be nice if I could designate where my major bases will be, and my underlings would carry them out? List where my units should go (naval transit) and they will pool the ships, and then they go? List where my suppiles will go (maybe ie 15% NorthPac/ 35% CentPac/ 30% SoPac/ etc?). Can any new tools/userinterface be developed for simple delegation of tasks? I would rather be several Nimitz's, Halsey's, Blamey's, etc, than to do several hundred Major Jone's.

I LOVE MILTARY HISTORY. I LOVE COMPETING AGAINST HISTORY.

WITP is a strategic/operational level game, but has far too many tactical demands that though is very interesting, realistic, and fun at the outset, is deflating my fun factor.

Can there possibly be options for me to deligate these details in the new AE? This game needs to pick up the pace. (And no, I am not going to relegate myselve to just the smaller scenerios).

OK folks, looks like meat's back on the table (please be kind).

There needs to be more thought on how all these wonderful, remarkable changes we comment about (me included) on these threads can make a better strategic game using these newer operational/tactical devices.

I'm with you. WitP is a "funny" mix of high level command and very low level decisions. That also (for me) greatly reduces the feel of "being there". I am neither Nimitz (or McArthur) nor am I Joe Donut. So what am I (as a player)?

However, there are at least three reasons why the game is as it is:
1. Gary Grigsby likes it that way. Alway has. See Pacific War and the Steel Panther series. And War in Russia, and Bombing the Reich etc. etc.

2. A lot of players seem to like this as well.

3. Programming the decision making processes you request is apparently tricky, to put it mildly.

Therefore we have to live with what we got/get.

Cheers
Rainer

PS: Nearly forgot: best wishes for your recovery.

Hm, strange that no one else seems to have opinions about this, isn't it?

I think this got beat to death probably back in 2005 .. you are correct WITP does have a "strange mix" of roles for the players ... but equally strange is the massive popularity of the game - which definitely exceeded expectations. I would speculate that this "multi-level" aspect of the game is at least one factor in this popularity. A theather level game, that let's you micro-manage many details. Not many games replicate this level of detail in this scope - and maybe few games will do so in the future. But it is what it is - and AE is not able to change that aspect - it is definitely baked in. Something like a HOI/HOI2 offers a more consistent strategic role for the player.

Look at it this way
I know thet a human has pressed every button that will be used agaianst me and I know what I press will or may make him feel I am a worthy opponent

AI cares and feels nothing and you can aford to be casual

If you find a very delicated pbem I think you will not mind checking down to low levels sometimes .I find in my PBEM an average turn takes only about 20 mins provided I can remember what I was planning the last turn . Turns take longer when returns are slow

Michael

Thanks for caring Joe [:)]

Not many games replicate this level of detail in this scope

yeah, GG's hallmark

Something like a HOI/HOI2

[8|] what is HOI ?

HOI = Hearts of Iron.  Pretty interesting game.  Haven't played it since I got WitP though. [:D]

There are OTHER games in this universe ? [;)]

I know there used to be...... [:D]

I know HoI2. AI is a stupid (as in every other game). Playing agianst human is better, but all depends on ability of your politics to move sliders to Free Market vs. Central Planning. It is a Huge difference ). Also you are a bit limited to historical actions taken by your nation if you want to play an even game. If you want to rule the world, its an another story... )

Yeah I would agree that I'd like to see a lot less tactical level upkeep. Generally speaking setting altitude is one of those annoying little things that can have a massive impact on the game. That should be out of my scope and decided on by my subordinates, and if they don't do a consistently good job I should replace them.

Overall the game still works for me, but on a high design level people should keep in mind that sometimes less is more.

what is HOI ?

Basically, it's a nice game but you can to conquer the world with China or Italy [8|] (against AI), HOI isn't an historical game...

Hm, strange that no one else seems to have opinions about this, isn't it?

Personally I prefer more details, I have bought WitP for this.
I like to spend many hours for micro-management, for me is funny as well.
Moreover I consider the land combat not much detailed.

ORIGINAL: Saso

what is HOI ?

Basically, it's a nice game but you can to conquer the world with China or Italy [8|] (against AI), HOI isn't an historical game...

It's funny but I've always considered these two words opposites when it comes to the industry. For something to be perfectly historical, it would no longer be a game but a movie/essay depicting the entire war. The whole game aspect has always been (to me) to change history, who wants to simply repeat the same old actions with the exact same results? We all have different opinions of what's acceptable but if Bhutan can do a world conquest in HOI, then I see no problem with Italy or China.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Saso

what is HOI ?

Basically, it's a nice game but you can to conquer the world with China or Italy [8|] (against AI), HOI isn't an historical game...

It's funny but I've always considered these two words opposites when it comes to the industry. For something to be perfectly historical, it would no longer be a game but a movie/essay depicting the entire war. The whole game aspect has always been (to me) to change history, who wants to simply repeat the same old actions with the exact same results? We all have different opinions of what's acceptable but if Bhutan can do a world conquest in HOI, then I see no problem with Italy or China.[:D]

I believe that what most players mean when they use the term "historical" with regard to waragmes is: "not just set in a historical context, but with at at least reasonably plausible alternatives to actual history". It doesn't mean they want to watch a movie recreating the actual events and outcomes of teh war.

Obviously China or Italy conquering the world in WWII is not even close to reasonably plausible. I enjoyed HOI (both versions) for a bit, but once I learned that their method of creating higher levels of difficulty was by merely giving the AI hundreds if not thousands more units than could have ever been reasonably plausible, I developed a severe distaste for it.

I believe that what most players mean when they use the term "historical" with regard to waragmes is: "not just set in a historical context, but with at at least reasonably plausible alternatives to actual history". It doesn't mean they want to watch a movie recreating the actual events and outcomes of teh war.

Obviously China or Italy conquering the world in WWII is not even close to reasonably plausible.

 
Exactly, I don't want recreate the history.
Anyhow it's a personal idea.

ORIGINAL: Saso

I believe that what most players mean when they use the term "historical" with regard to waragmes is: "not just set in a historical context, but with at at least reasonably plausible alternatives to actual history". It doesn't mean they want to watch a movie recreating the actual events and outcomes of teh war.

Obviously China or Italy conquering the world in WWII is not even close to reasonably plausible.

Exactly, I don't want recreate the history.
Anyhow it's a personal idea.

Recreating history is kinda pointless anyway. We already know how history played out, when I play a historically based game like WiTP, I want to find out if I can do better than the real Generals and Admirals did, not do exactly as they did.

Everyone plays the game their own way and for their own reasons.

If we cannot get a better staff for the many reasons previously discussed can we at least get some more options to control the long runs where not much is going on as my convoys transit from the west coast to south pac.

More specifically, can we get transit times posted to convoys/task forces instead of having to try to count hexes.  In other words it will take 15 days....

Then can we get an option to set number of turns to something other than 1 day, 3 days or continuous (...like maybe the 15 days of interest from above)

And can we set some basic interrupts for when running weeks at a time.  Something like mulitple carries sighted, Port Moresby being bombarded, etc...  Things that my staff would obviously tell me about.

I frequently put my grand strategy into run and walk away to let time pass only to find out that two weeks ago the battle of Coral Sea happened and I never had a chance to react. 

Just a few more thoughts to make a truly great game that I have been playing since the original many years ago (I can remember being able to read a book while a single turn executed) all that much better.

Thanks

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Hm, strange that no one else seems to have opinions about this, isn't it?

I made a similar thread months ago and Im sure there are others:
tm.asp?m=1657527

I have 1 PBEM that had nothing happen for 2.5 months. WOuld have been nice to fast forward through that phase.

[8|]

I believe that someone did a program called WITP utility that would provide transit times between points on the map. I think you just input the beginning point and the end point and the speed of the TF.