Matrix Games Forums

Many of the threads up on the board right now pose questions
that can only be discussed rationally if 2by3 will let us know if
(and to what extent) the realities of the Historic Situation are
going to be imposed on the players. Are we to be at the level
of Roosevelt and the Joint Chiefs..., and therefor able to make
any and all production and commitment decisions any way we want? Chose to "toss" Rainbow 5 and send 70% of our effort
to the Pacific? Commit our forces to attacks anywhere we de-
sire with no restrictions?

Or are we to be somewhere lower on the "chain of command"
and only able to initiate actions within the framework of our
established "National Policy"? If Rainbow 5's "Europe First"
directive is the Law of the Land, then at least through 1942
US forces would be limited in offensive choices. Even IF they
"scored a Midway", players would still have to deal with the
FACT that the Pacific was considered a "backwater" by the
"higher ups", and permission for any "offensive" action was
going to be almost impossible to get UNLESS the "target" of
the action presented a demonstrable threat to one of the few
areas that the National Command Authority felt HAD to be
held. Things like Hawaii, Alaska, the Canal Zone, and the
"lifeline" to Australia. If it didn't threaten those, it wasn't a
threat the US was going to worry about in 1942. Which means
that no matter what the "player" thought, permission would not
be given nor resources allocated.

Most of the "lessons" from UNCOMMON VALOR would seem to
indicate that 2by3 sees the "player" in a "subordinate role"---
just not subordinate enough to have much input on Naval
Tactics. The problem with WAR IN THE PACIFIC is going to be
that if the "player" is high enough up the ladder to be able to
chose his own objectives as he sees fit with NO CONSTRAINTS;
then he is at the "Roosevelt/Joint Chiefs" level of command---
and he should also be able to commit as much or as little to
the Pacific as he wishes, hand out production contracts for
everything, and generally operate as the National Command
Authority. If the "player" is not allowed control over all produc-
tion and force allocation, then he is down on the Nimitz/Mac-
Arthur level---in which case he SHOULD NOT have full freedom
of action to chose his own objectives.

SO, WHAT'S IT TO BE..., 2by3? Mind giving us a hint so we don't
waste hours and pages arguing about things that won't matter?
Will it be "Free Kriegspiel".., or Historical Realities? Joel?

As Gary currently envisions the game, you do not get to choose the split of resources between the Pacific and the Atlantic. As the Japanese player it is possible that we will end up with quite a bit of control over Japanese production decisions, but we haven't gotten there yet. We have a system where all the industry, resources, manpower and oil are accounted for along with particular factories for specific items (Val aircraft assembly, Hitachi engines, etc.). This system functions and requires the correct raw material input to make it work (a major factor for the Japanese to deal with in prosecuting the war). Exactly how we allow players to control this has not been determined. We don't plan on personally using the public forums to discuss our plans when we come up with them. However, we have solicited some input from certain testers and I can't say how much they are influenced by public discussion or even how much weight we will give to their input when it comes. I'm not trying to discount their value (it can be very helpful), just to be honest in admitting that design by committee is not the ultimate goal. If you want to have an impact I suggest you find a tester that is particularly interested in the topic and deal with them. I hope this helps your understanding of where we are with this.

By the way, we fully intend to make the editor better in WitP, in that we expect to allow players to modify the basic game data (aircraft performance, ship classes, weapons data, etc.). We hope this will allow for players to tinker with more of our basic assumptions when making scenarios.

We are making good progress with WitP, but there is a lot left to do.

As for "Free Kriegspiel".., or Historical Realities?, as always it will be a combination of the two and you will have to decide for yourself whether we got the mix right for you. As with any game this complex, it tends to take on a life of its own during development, no matter how hard we try to control it.

Joel

The main thrust of my question was if there was going to be
any consistancy in the viewpoint of what command level the
"player" represented with regards to the "command decisions"
he was to be allowed (or denied). You all (2by3) shoveled a
barrel of rationalizations in the UV discussions as to the "player"
command level making tighter command of naval searches and
naval strike missions inappropriate.

If the Japanese players in WAR IN THE PACIFIC are going to
represent people high enough to have major input into all levels
of production, as well as the specific raw materials necessary
to produce things; that would seem to put the player at the
"National Command Authority" level. And well above the level of
making the kind of day-to-day tactical decisions which represent
the bulk of the game in UNCOMMON VALOR.

You seem to be saying that players will be involved in the game
at a number of different levels..., from deciding National Policy
and Political goals down to flight operations on the squadron
level and where individual submarines should be sent. In other words, they will control almost everything top to bottom. Except
that the Allied side will only have some National Command
Authority powers, and neither side will have any control over
search and naval attack. Sounds both inconsistant and inco-
herant Joel, like 2by3 itself hasn't yet decided on a "point of
view" for this game.

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
Sounds both inconsistant and inco-
herant Joel, like 2by3 itself hasn't yet decided on a "point of
view" for this game.

Yes, I plead guilty. We don't pick a point of view and stick to it rigidly. I understand their are some advantages of doing things that way, but we just don't do it that way because it doesn't necessarily make the best game (at least in our opinion). Some of what you attribute to us:

You all (2by3) shoveled a
barrel of rationalizations in the UV discussions as to the "player"
command level making tighter command of naval searches and
naval strike missions inappropriate.

are pretty harsh words and I don't think fair as a lot of times others answer for us in forums and it is taken as 2by3 or Matrix gospel. There are many reasons why we do things the way we do them and they often involve a designers viewpoint, trying to achieve one goal that is incompatible with another, or just problems getting code to work the way we want it to without spending tons of time getting it to do something that the system just isn't set up for. I'm a pragmatist and you seem to be arguing black and white. Mike, I appreciate some of the stuff you have done to help out with UV, but I live in the world of grey. If I set up a game that put you in Tojo's shoes you'd be bored. But if I put you in a game where you were the CV commander, someone would want to control production. Most good games are a mixture of points of view (that's my point of view).

Originally posted by Joel Billings
Yes, I plead guilty. We don't pick a point of view and stick to it rigidly. I understand their are some advantages of doing things that way, but we just don't do it that way because it doesn't necessarily make the best game (at least in our opinion). Some of what you attribute to us:

You all (2by3) shoveled a
barrel of rationalizations in the UV discussions as to the "player"
command level making tighter command of naval searches and
naval strike missions inappropriate.

are pretty harsh words and I don't think fair as a lot of times others answer for us in forums and it is taken as 2by3 or Matrix gospel. There are many reasons why we do things the way we do them and they often involve a designers viewpoint, trying to achieve one goal that is incompatible with another, or just problems getting code to work the way we want it to without spending tons of time getting it to do something that the system just isn't set up for. I'm a pragmatist and you seem to be arguing black and white. Mike, I appreciate some of the stuff you have done to help out with UV, but I live in the world of grey. If I set up a game that put you in Tojo's shoes you'd be bored. But if I put you in a game where you were the CV commander, someone would want to control production. Most good games are a mixture of points of view (that's my point of view).

Sorry Joel.., they weren't meant to be harsh. (Harsh would have
used b**ls**t in place of rationalizations---and wasn't my
intention). Actually, your last paragraph makes my point for
me. What got me started in this whole thing was 2by3's refusal
to consider allowing more player control of Naval Search and Naval Attacks. And in your response you used the analigy that
that type of control was inappropriate for the "level of command"
the player represented. You guys brought up the "black and
white" argument when the players were asking for "grey" (and
more control). Now you are the one reccomending "shades of
grey" Not consistant... You don't have to tell me how difficult
it is to design a game. I've been working with them since 1960
and still haven't designed an original one I was happy with.
Lots of "modifications", some of which even made it into print
and erratta---but "original" is another story. But I think if you
are going to allow players to command at all levels in so many
other respects---then you owe them a chance to make their own
mistakes with Naval search/strikes. If you've decided to be
inconsistant, then at least be consistantly inconsistant.

Did I ever say that the naval attack questions was one that was done that way primarily due to point of view? If I did then I'm sorry for simplifying the situation. The fact that we don't let you pick a TF as a target is given the system scale and our desire not to interrupt the execution phase for input. The fact that we haven't added a layer of priorities for the player to give to his forces for their naval attacks is because it wasn't part of Gary's original design, and adding such a system now would entail a major design, programming and test effort to come up with a system that:
1) Did something that players would be happy with
2) Worked correctly given the code base we are dealing with

I can't argue that such a system isn't desirable in the ideal world, but given the difficulties in achieving 1 and 2 above and the effort it would take (vs. the reward and the lost time on other projects), I've consistently said it is not something we can do in the near future. It would be great if you had an understanding of the code so you could propose a detailed plan that would fit within the system and likely be workable. If you did that we'd find a way to implement it if the risk of unintended consequences was low, but unfortunately the code is complex enough that it isn't possible to get you (or anyone else) involved that way (including me). Believe me, I wish this wasn't the case.

Joel

OK. Joel. I didn't start this thread to pick on you or rain on 2by3's
parade. You guys DO have the closest thing to a great game on
this subject that's out there now. If you didn't, it wouldn't be
WORTH complaining about. And the only person I know who was
a gamer, an historian, and could write machine code off the top
of his head, has just been hired as C.I.O. of some outfit in San
Jose.

I actually AGREE with you and Gary about the player control of
"naval strikes" now that you have explained your thinking on
"command level" being inapproiate to making decisions "during"
the Turn/Day. (Not here---but in various other threads). If you
are working on taking away the AI's proclivity to make stupid
and counter-productive attacks that's all I would ask---so I am
eagerly awaiting the next UV patch.

But "naval search" is set for the entire Turn/Day, and as such
seemed to be the perfect way to give the players SOME control
without lowering the "command level". I'll continue to hope
that 2by3 IS working on a search system that will allow the
players more "hands on" influence over the most important
area of these games. Remembering that it was Sir John Jellico
who was described as "the only man on either side who could
lose the war in an afternoon"---and that in the view of many at
the time it WAS Admiral Nagumo who DID lose the war in a
single morning at Midway. These "sea fights" are potentially a KEY turning point in the game---players deserve a chance to do
more than "just observe them". You can even make a strong
case that it was Nagumo's failure to mount a strong search that
lost the battle at Midway.

Getting the resources home to the industries should be a concern
of the Japanese Player. But what to turn them into isn't nearly
as important to his gaming experiance as being able to exert
some additional positive control over the outcome of "naval airstrikes". Given the amount of time that will be invested in
actually playing this game, it would be nice if a player who may
be facing three years of "going down the tubes" after suffering
a "Midway-type" defeat could blame his own errors rather than
an arbitrary AI decision. And certainly his opponant would rather
feel that he "won" the battle, and not just that the AI "took a
dump" on the other side.

You guys bring this on yourselves. You've come up with a product
that's so close to being great that people can't help but want to
try and lend a hand to push it to the next level. Even us SAP
Systems dummies who can't write code can still visualize what
the "promised land" ought to look like. I'm sorry if it sounds like
"one continual gripe" on your end. I've been told by more than
one actual "code writer" that "if you know so much, you write it!"
It's a good line to back people off with---but it doesn't mean that
their analisys of the problem was wrong. Only that they can't fix
it themselves. Good Luck..., and keep trying. Please?

point

Did anyone ever notice how reading some people's posts just makes your butt tired.

Originally posted by MemoryLeak
Did anyone ever notice how reading some people's posts just makes your butt tired.

Well, my butt's tired enough (and when MY butt gets tired, I'm REAL tired) to ask how "historical reality" and "level of command" turned out being the same thing somehow, but(t) I wouldn't want to get something like THAT started...

Originally posted by MemoryLeak
Did anyone ever notice how reading some people's posts just makes your butt tired.

You forgot the question mark. If that doesn't make your butt tired, nothing will.

Jeez, Mike! Chill! I don't see any schizophrenia or inconsistency in allowing the player to range up and down the chain of command. I can only think of one game - a Desert Storm game that came out about a year after the fact - that pretty much tied you into one level of command. And it stank. Other than a FPS, every other game I've ever played - board or computer - necessarily requires that player to make decisions at different levels in the chain of command. In Harpoon, you act as a theater naval commander ordering task forces around but, at the same time, your ordering a group of four F15s to kick in afterburners and go passive on radar. Since when did four-star admirals do that? In any ground game that has more than, say, ten or twelve units, you are necessarily bleeding over chains of command. Anyone at a chain of command level high enough to order a division to attack a city will be too high to determine the route that A Company is going to take while sweeping around behind the city and which of two targets it shoots at on turn five. In Bombing the Reich, you set strategic objectives as a four-star (maybe five) yet determine what altitude a single recon aircraft will fly over its target. I can just see Spaatz and Eaker calling Lt. Smith at Debden and detailing his flight profile. Sorry, Mike, it's simply a part of each and every game. What game have you played, other than a FPS, where you haven't played the role of several different levels in the chain of command?

WitP should be no different. If it froze you at one level of command, I wouldn't buy the game. Place me at too low a level, e.g., task force commander, and I'm going to have the computer cramming orders down my throat like, "sortie at 0500 with these five ships, proceed to coordinates X, Y and sail in a big circle until I order you to come home. You have no authority to leave this quadrant even if there are enemy ships known to be nearby." Realistic in real life, but not much fun to game. Likewise, lock me in too high and that's just as dull. You'd give orders to the Third Army and First Fleet to attack Tarawa on June 1st and then sit back and watch while your subordinates implemented your general orders - probably in a fashion not to your liking. Gee, that's fun. Due to (i) limits in AI and (ii) the gamer wanting to have the hands-on experience, you're going to be making decisions at multiple levels in the chain. The more units you have to control, the more command-level shifting goes on.

WitP necessarily has command-level shifting, and thank goodness for that. I've long hoped that WitP allows me to dictate things from Washington as to theater strategy and production. At a minimum, I would expect to decide whether the 24th ID goes to New Guinea or Guadalcanal - a very high level decision. I would hope to do that and, at the same time, drop down to a one-star level so that I can dictate the composition and path of a single task force and the level of CAP. Would you have it any other way?

Mike, in the game you're asking for, you will be saddled with both incompetent superiors and incompetent subordinates, and you will be unable to influence either to the degree that you really want to. I'm buying the game so I can do what I want to do. I'm paying good money to change history the way I want to see it changed. I'm not buying the game to be locked into a single position in the chain of command because that would be very dull. Tell me, which single position would you choose?

I think what you're really saying is that you want certain decisions made in Washington to be made by the computer. These would include production issues and allocation between Europe and the Pacific. That's fine and is a reasonable limitation on the scope of the game (though I've always wanted control over production). And you also want to be able to set more detailed target priorities for air groups, which I agree with. But don't confuse these programming limitations with the argument that the game must lock the player into one level of the chain of command or otherwise be "inconsistent and incoherent."

Originally posted by pasternakski
Well, my butt's tired enough (and when MY butt gets tired, I'm REAL tired) to ask how "historical reality" and "level of command" turned out being the same thing somehow, but(t) I wouldn't want to get something like THAT started...

Sorry. Did I just get something like THAT started?

Originally posted by byron13
Sorry. Did I just get something like THAT started?

bisMARCKbisMARCKbisMARCKbisMARCK...(oops - I forgot -can't do that here. If we can't engage in vituperative nastiness, this thread can NEVER live long and prosper).

....That I had a chance to interact with Joel uninterrupted. Gave
us both a chance to "talk things through". I think we at least
understand one another's viewpoints better now.

Byron.., I think if you would read through the entire exchange
one more time carefully you would find many of your complaints
are based on mis-understanding what was said. But you took
the time to express yourself with elequence on what you felt
had been said, and you did make a couple of legitimate points.

As for the rest of the "pithy and insightful" comments above---
I can only suggest that if you would learn to read with your eyes
your butts wouldn't get so tired...

Fair enough. I was responding primarily to the first two posts you'd made in the thread. The focus of your later posts definitely changed to the air group targeting, and I certainly share your frustration in that regard.

Peace reigns once again on the WitP forum.