What is fun?

[GaryChildress]

Just out of curiosity, what does everyone think of WitP as a "game". I know there is dispute over the title "simulation". So let's stay off that, but as far as having a "game" what do players think?

It seems like a forgone conclusion that Japan never stood a chance against the combined forces of the US, UK and finally the USSR. Would the game be more fun if things were roughly even, if there were a 50/50 chance that either side could dominate in the end? I've been on and off toying around with a scenario to give both sides something closer to parity. I don't pretend that this scenario is remotely realistic, except that it will be using the standard game mechanics devised by the developers. But the OOBs will be pure fiction. So basically the mod sacrifices realism in favor of hopefully being more fun. What do you think? Would WITP be more fun if it were winnable by both sides or is the "seesaw" effect actually more fun, where both players get the opportunity (Japan early and Allies later) to have a glorious heyday of uncontested dominance.

What makes a game interesting? Does being on the edge of your seat with every turn, not knowing what the overall outcome of the game will be more fun or is playing out the historical sequence of the war more fun? Does fantasy ruin it for the game?

[Treetop64]

Deluding myself into thinking I'm actually a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... [8|][:D]

[Capt Hornblower]

I thought the point of having Victory Points was to assess one's performance relative to history. If as a player of the Japanese side, one doesn't wish to endure the depressing inevitability of being crushed by the US and its allies, then just end the game somewhere between Jan 1942 and Jan 1943 and then see how the situation compares to that date in history. If you hold significantly more territory than the Japanese did historically, then you won; if about the same, the game was a draw; if less, sorry about that.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
What makes a game interesting? Does being on the edge of your seat with every turn, not knowing what the overall outcome of the game will be more fun or is playing out the historical sequence of the war more fun? Does fantasy ruin it for the game?

Damn good questions... I often have a weak spot for underdogs, no matter whether it is the Civil War or WW2, so Japan being vastly inferior to the Allies does add some sort of a challenge. That's of course not the full story, i.e. playing Allies in 1942 and trying to stop the waltzing empire is also something very exciting. I can see the point of scenario 2 or the mods that bump up the IJ side a bit for PBEM, though, and also generally, but I kinda prefer the historical Scen 1.

This game somehow has extreme addictive potential. A lot of it comes from my perspective from the level of detail, OOBs and technical, and the vast logistical and organizational "nightmare" following from that. A positive nightmare, sorts of. There's always new aspects to learn and find some eye openers. It's like a well-researched, interactive book. And it lets you try out things, "what-if" things, and (almost always) gives you even a range of plausible results that very well could have happened in reality. What had happened at Midway had Nagumo's trap worked?

The other aspect that makes this game so addictive for me from the daily turn resolution. It makes it feel so real to watch combats and events unfold "day after day". It is totally different than predecessors with week resolution, or I-Go-U-Go. There is nothing better in this game to watch a critical air combat or major naval battle unfold. Yes, nothing moves, you only read the messages, but it can be very very tense. Perhaps it would be nicer if the ships or planes would move around on a fake map and you could watch them, or the LCU operate as symbols on a random battle map, but it doesn't even need this to be fun. Maybe the latter would be nice, but maybe your fantasy can do a better job there. It often feels like you'd like to jump right into the combat, push a button and fight it a la TF 1942 or IL-2.

On a side note, I know it may sound stupid, but if Matrix/G&G doesn't have the (financial) incentives to put together a (new) team to built a new engine for AE and enhancements, but there seem quite a few people who'd right away buy a successor, how about crowd-funding?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
What makes a game interesting? Does being on the edge of your seat with every turn, not knowing what the overall outcome of the game will be more fun or is playing out the historical sequence of the war more fun? Does fantasy ruin it for the game?

The long-term knowledge that I'm doing better than historical Japanese performance is satisfying. To see how the Japanese war effort could have been improved if only they focused on.... is also very intellectually satisfying.

Of course, the 3.5 year march towards the endgame is more interesting when sprinkled liberally with frantic and heady action. As other posters have stated-a good carrier battle, major air engagement or naval action gets my blood pumping and is a real shot-in-the-arm to gameplay.

[nashvillen]

I like the long term planning and watching those plans come to fruition. Of course, part of the excitement is when those plans make a hard left hand turn and you have to figure out how to get them back on track.

Running the Japanese economy is a challenge in itself. I have, on more than one occasion, told my opponents that if they would just leave me alone, the game would be enough challenge, just to keep the economy going! Great fun! I enjoy this so much that I took on a 1/3 game as the allies doing all the US logistics, with some minor roles (NOPAC, CENTPAC, China, and USSR). Keeping the beans and bullets moving is fun for me.

Don't get me wrong, having a major carrier engagement in June of 1942 and watching the KB sink four US carriers without batting an eye is also great fun, but I do like the more mundane side of things, also!

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
What makes a game interesting? Does being on the edge of your seat with every turn, not knowing what the overall outcome of the game will be more fun or is playing out the historical sequence of the war more fun? Does fantasy ruin it for the game?

Damn good questions... I often have a weak spot for underdogs, no matter whether it is the Civil War or WW2, so Japan being vastly inferior to the Allies does add some sort of a challenge. That's of course not the full story, i.e. playing Allies in 1942 and trying to stop the waltzing empire is also something very exciting. I can see the point of scenario 2 or the mods that bump up the IJ side a bit for PBEM, though, and also generally, but I kinda prefer the historical Scen 1.

This game somehow has extreme addictive potential. A lot of it comes from my perspective from the level of detail, OOBs and technical, and the vast logistical and organizational "nightmare" following from that. A positive nightmare, sorts of. There's always new aspects to learn and find some eye openers. It's like a well-researched, interactive book. And it lets you try out things, "what-if" things, and (almost always) gives you even a range of plausible results that very well could have happened in reality. What had happened at Midway had Nagumo's trap worked?

The other aspect that makes this game so addictive for me from the daily turn resolution. It makes it feel so real to watch combats and events unfold "day after day". It is totally different than predecessors with week resolution, or I-Go-U-Go. There is nothing better in this game to watch a critical air combat or major naval battle unfold. Yes, nothing moves, you only read the messages, but it can be very very tense. Perhaps it would be nicer if the ships or planes would move around on a fake map and you could watch them, or the LCU operate as symbols on a random battle map, but it doesn't even need this to be fun. Maybe the latter would be nice, but maybe your fantasy can do a better job there. It often feels like you'd like to jump right into the combat, push a button and fight it a la TF 1942 or IL-2.

On a side note, I know it may sound stupid, but if Matrix/G&G doesn't have the (financial) incentives to put together a (new) team to built a new engine for AE and enhancements, but there seem quite a few people who'd right away buy a successor, how about crowd-funding?

Echo these sentiments about the underdog in particular. ALWAYS like to play the South as well in Civil War games. Guess we're just gluttons for punishment!

[Razz1]

I think a fiction scenario would be fun and relatively easy to implement.

We have the historical scenarios.

With the fiction scenario, having troops in different locations and strength along with everything else being different like economics, reinforcements R$D would be very fun.

Why? Because many of know history therefore we have learned from it. A scenario that is different with a possibility for both sides to win makes its an edge of your seat game.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Just out of curiosity, what does everyone think of WitP as a "game". I know there is dispute over the title "simulation". So let's stay off that, but as far as having a "game" what do players think?

What makes a game interesting? Does being on the edge of your seat with every turn, not knowing what the overall outcome of the game will be more fun or is playing out the historical sequence of the war more fun? Does fantasy ruin it for the game?

I really don't care for "games", but I'm a big fan of "simulation games". Exploring the possibilities of events that really happened appeals to the historian in me. WW II in the Pacific was NOT an equal struggle. Making it into one simply destroys the notion of it being THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC. I'm not against people doing whatever they want, but I object strongly to calling it WITP. To me, "interesting" means I'm placed as closely as possibly in the same position and facing the same constraints as my historical counterparts. Was MacArthur as big an a-hole as I think he was? I want a chance to prove I could do better. Can't get that in a "game", only in a "simulation".

[Sardaukar]

I invented fictional title for myself...SACPAC...Supreme Allied Commander, Pacific.... [:D]

[AW1Steve]

I perfer "The Grand poo-bah of all allied forces!" [:D]

[crsutton]

I like SOC for me. "Scourge of God." Yeah, that will work just fine. [:D]

[ilovestrategy]

Well, I cannot speak for WiTPAE because I just started playing a week ago. But I will say that in strategy games, I absolutely love being the attacked side against high odds and turning the tide with a well oiled war machine. I've done that with all the Civ games and Ascendancy. I just love the struggle of holding on until I have the men and materials to turn the tide.

It just seems so dramatic to me.

[ilovestrategy]

Oh Crsutton, nice avatar by the way. Thats from a popular comic made in WW2 designed to show the war from the common soldier's point of view isn't it? The artwork looks familiar but the name of the comic and artist escapes me.

[CaptDave]

I don't think I would find it "fun" to play such a non-historical scenario. If a game has a historical setting, I prefer it to be somewhat historical; victory conditions are the means by which to equilibrate (haven't used that word since Chemistry 103, 35 years ago!) the opportunities for each side to win.

At the same time, of course, I see nothing wrong with providing such a scenario to those who would find it entertaining.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
What makes a game interesting? Does being on the edge of your seat with every turn, not knowing what the overall outcome of the game will be more fun or is playing out the historical sequence of the war more fun? Does fantasy ruin it for the game?

The long-term knowledge that I'm doing better than historical Japanese performance is satisfying. To see how the Japanese war effort could have been improved if only they focused on.... is also very intellectually satisfying.

Of course, the 3.5 year march towards the endgame is more interesting when sprinkled liberally with frantic and heady action. As other posters have stated-a good carrier battle, major air engagement or naval action gets my blood pumping and is a real shot-in-the-arm to gameplay.

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

I like the long term planning and watching those plans come to fruition. Of course, part of the excitement is when those plans make a hard left hand turn and you have to figure out how to get them back on track.

Running the Japanese economy is a challenge in itself. I have, on more than one occasion, told my opponents that if they would just leave me alone, the game would be enough challenge, just to keep the economy going! Great fun! I enjoy this so much that I took on a 1/3 game as the allies doing all the US logistics, with some minor roles (NOPAC, CENTPAC, China, and USSR). Keeping the beans and bullets moving is fun for me.

Don't get me wrong, having a major carrier engagement in June of 1942 and watching the KB sink four US carriers without batting an eye is also great fun, but I do like the more mundane side of things, also!

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Echo these sentiments about the underdog in particular. ALWAYS like to play the South as well in Civil War games. Guess we're just gluttons for punishment!

+1

I agree wholeheartedly with CB, Nasvillen and John 3rd on this one.
Just running the economy is a challenge in itself.

The logistical side can be very rewarding, getting units, ships, planes supplies etc in the right place at the right time, if at times a little time consuming[8|]

And then of course there are the inevitable jabs to the head, the right hooks and even the occasional haymakers that my opponent throws at me, that can completely bugger up my best laid plans!!

[Mike Solli]

I love the challenge of playing the Japanese. They're doomed, but doing better than they did historically is the goal for me.

I love to tinker with the production system to make it as efficient as I can.

Surprising my long time opponent where he least expects it is always enjoyable. I particularly love when he sends me an email describing how he swore at the computer while watching the replay.

I've made many very good friends here, and I've never seen or met any of them (yet).

Finally, sinking the Boise!

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I perfer "The Grand poo-bah of all allied forces!" [:D]

So did MacArthur...[;)]


One aspect I haven't seen mentioned here is that I enjoy watching the replay - it as if I am the CinC watching all the reports coming in and am trying to make sense of what's happening...

[denisonh]

Bill Mauldin's works of Willie and Joe. As an infantry officer I kept a complete copy of his works on my desk and would copy an approriate cartoon out when farewelling soldiers NCOs and junior officers.

Used the one Csutton for my driver when he departed given all the trouble we had with my HMMWV.....

And I am with Nashvillen on this one. Love the long range planning mixed with the excitement of short term operations that evolve from that planning in a historical context.

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Oh Crsutton, nice avatar by the way. Thats from a popular comic made in WW2 designed to show the war from the common soldier's point of view isn't it? The artwork looks familiar but the name of the comic and artist escapes me.

[ilovestrategy]

Thanks Den!