I have just bought this version of the game and am preparing for an email battle with a friend. I decided to run the first historical turn to familiarise myself with the system again.
Without delving too deeply I note that force Z is out to sea on the 7th and attacked on that day. In reality they were in Singapore harbour till the 8th and while bombed ineffectually there were seriously attacked till the 10th after they attempted to attack the Singora invasion force and were returning. By this early attack several chance happenings are bypassed. ie the sighting by a sub on the way to Singora which may not have happened in which case Force Z might have made an intercept. The Japanese player has no problem with force Z at all where in reality not only did the Air force change plans to bomb Singapore but a SAG was dispatched to try and intercept them.
This is totally wrong and alters the balance of power and options available to both sides, and worst of all its a far cry from historical.
Similarly the invasion of Malaya and the Phillipines all take place a day early. Historical it most definitely isn't and these issues are apparently without even looking closely.
The game also runs like a slug, and this on a high end machine which handles far more complex and graphically detailed programs with ease. And yet it is very expensive! I would have expected something far more polished given the exhorbitent price.
Ahistorical first turn
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Ahistorical first turn
First, you are expecting the wrong thing from the game - it does not try to be an exact simulator of history, it uses approximate force dispositions and then gives the Japanese some advantages to keep the Japanese player interested in the game (no fun if he does not get some victories in the beginning). So expect a game, not a simulator.ORIGINAL: dduncan74
I have just bought this version of the game and am preparing for an email battle with a friend. I decided to run the first historical turn to familiarise myself with the system again.
Without delving too deeply I note that force Z is out to sea on the 7th and attacked on that day. In reality they were in Singapore harbour till the 8th and while bombed ineffectually there were seriously attacked till the 10th after they attempted to attack the Singora invasion force and were returning. By this early attack several chance happenings are bypassed. ie the sighting by a sub on the way to Singora which may not have happened in which case Force Z might have made an intercept. The Japanese player has no problem with force Z at all where in reality not only did the Air force change plans to bomb Singapore but a SAG was dispatched to try and intercept them.
This is totally wrong and alters the balance of power and options available to both sides, and worst of all its a far cry from historical.
Similarly the invasion of Malaya and the Phillipines all take place a day early. Historical it most definitely isn't and these issues are apparently without even looking closely.
The game also runs like a slug, and this on a high end machine which handles far more complex and graphically detailed programs with ease. And yet it is very expensive! I would have expected something far more polished given the exhorbitent price.
Re: the dates and dispositions - IRL things in the western Pacific happened on December 8 because of the international date line. To avoid confusion the game just uses the same time everywhere so force locations are 24 hours off.
Re: the sluggishness - you can get it working very fast if you use the appropriate switches in your starting short cut (NOT the one the install puts on your desktop, but one you make yourself pointing directly to the War In The Pacific-Admiral Edition.exe file in your game folder). Look at the many threads on the Tech Support section of this Forum where others have had the same issues. What the solution will be for you depends on your system configuration and O/S, so I cannot just give you a fix. Read up about the "switches" and how others have used them, then experiment to find out what will work for you.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
RE: Ahistorical first turn
In fact the need to have Force Z at sea at the beginning of the game (7/8th Dec) is an attempt to recreate history. The simple fact is that in the game, if these ships were not at sea from the outset, given the fact that the Allied player KNOWS the range of Kates and their attacking ability (something that the British did NOT know until long after the demise of Force Z), no Allied player in his/her right mind would put Force Z within range of those Kates. Thus there would be ZERO possibility that the Allied player would allow them to sail northeast on December 10th which, as you correctly point out, was the actual date of their demise. Thus the developers decided to have them at sea on the opening move to allow the Japanese player the opportunity to sink them as per history. A clever way to allow history to repeat itself.
RE: Ahistorical first turn
One more thing Mr. Duncan, yes the game is somewhat dated in many respects including the animation (YEARS ago I was surprised at how dated it was when I first bought it, let alone buying it now as you have done). HOWEVER, that's NOT the reason most of us play this game, it is the level of detail and the all encompassing strategic design of the game that really gets you involved. Plus this is the ONLY GAME that has ongoing support by so many people in the history of gaming which allows for updates and additions that are fantastic. For proof just look at this forum, the number of posts, the wide ranging aspects of those posts, etc. They speak for themselves. Try the game and get involved and you will see what we know. Hal
RE: Ahistorical first turn
I am not expecting the wrong thing from the game, after the first turn and even during it the results will vary wildly from what happened historically and that is as it should be. In war much happens by chance and that is exactly what has been removed here.
My expectations of an historical first turn are that dispositions will be as they were historically. Outcomes may differ but the positions do not. By placing Force Z at sea within easy strike range they are effectively eliminated from the picture well before they were historically. Chance should give the British some chance to: (a) avoid being detected by a sub as they were historically and (b) intercept the invasion fleet which it is generally accepted that they would have done had they left a day earlier. Mind you the reason they didn't was that the invasion fleet retired to avoid them, something which this false deployment negates. Singapore is not out of reach of the Japanese, historically the ships were bombed there on the 8th, and in game you can do the same with a chance of doing better than the historical miss as my opponent has, where he sank them in Singapore. Putting them to sea was a bad move and should not be part of an historical first turn.
I played this game in the earlier versions many years back, I also played the board game so I am well aware of why it piques interest. That in no way justifies the exorbitant price tag. This is by way of comparision, one of the smallest games I have bought (in terms of actual disc size and hence code, the most expensive by a long shot, not much better than the original graphically and one of the poorest performing in terms of actual speed. I would not have expected for that price to have a game which struggles to run on a high end machine and nor should I have to contend with that.
I well appreciate the merits of the game, or would do if I could only get it to run at a reasonable pace, this btw is something the designers should be addressing not relying on work around's. I have played virtually every iteration of the game and most of the rest of Gary Grigsby's games.
I do thank you for your kind reply and helpful suggestion though I must disagree on the wisdom of Force Z being at sea.
My expectations of an historical first turn are that dispositions will be as they were historically. Outcomes may differ but the positions do not. By placing Force Z at sea within easy strike range they are effectively eliminated from the picture well before they were historically. Chance should give the British some chance to: (a) avoid being detected by a sub as they were historically and (b) intercept the invasion fleet which it is generally accepted that they would have done had they left a day earlier. Mind you the reason they didn't was that the invasion fleet retired to avoid them, something which this false deployment negates. Singapore is not out of reach of the Japanese, historically the ships were bombed there on the 8th, and in game you can do the same with a chance of doing better than the historical miss as my opponent has, where he sank them in Singapore. Putting them to sea was a bad move and should not be part of an historical first turn.
I played this game in the earlier versions many years back, I also played the board game so I am well aware of why it piques interest. That in no way justifies the exorbitant price tag. This is by way of comparision, one of the smallest games I have bought (in terms of actual disc size and hence code, the most expensive by a long shot, not much better than the original graphically and one of the poorest performing in terms of actual speed. I would not have expected for that price to have a game which struggles to run on a high end machine and nor should I have to contend with that.
I well appreciate the merits of the game, or would do if I could only get it to run at a reasonable pace, this btw is something the designers should be addressing not relying on work around's. I have played virtually every iteration of the game and most of the rest of Gary Grigsby's games.
I do thank you for your kind reply and helpful suggestion though I must disagree on the wisdom of Force Z being at sea.
RE: Ahistorical first turn
Well, without Force Z at sea, there's no chance to sink it unless Allied player puts it in the harms way. So that happens a bit earlier to give a bit different start. Now, there're also campaigns starting Dec. 8th, which would probably suit you better, maybe you should try them out.
As for pricing, I don't quite agree with Matrix policy, but I perfectly understand their reasoning, even if I think it's rather invalid. Yet it is better than it was few years ago.
Don't get me started on amount of code, really. Size doesn't matter at all. I dare to say, more size means more inefficient code, which needs more RAM and processing power and so on.
As for pricing, I don't quite agree with Matrix policy, but I perfectly understand their reasoning, even if I think it's rather invalid. Yet it is better than it was few years ago.
Don't get me started on amount of code, really. Size doesn't matter at all. I dare to say, more size means more inefficient code, which needs more RAM and processing power and so on.
-
Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Ahistorical first turn
ORIGINAL: dduncan74
I played this game in the earlier versions many years back, I also played the board game so I am well aware of why it piques interest. That in no way justifies the exorbitant price tag. This is by way of comparision, one of the smallest games I have bought (in terms of actual disc size and hence code, the most expensive by a long shot, not much better than the original graphically and one of the poorest performing in terms of actual speed. I would not have expected for that price to have a game which struggles to run on a high end machine and nor should I have to contend with that.
I well appreciate the merits of the game, or would do if I could only get it to run at a reasonable pace, this btw is something the designers should be addressing not relying on work around's. I have played virtually every iteration of the game and most of the rest of Gary Grigsby's games.
This is not a GG game.
The designers do not work on it any more. The game shipped in 2009. One developer does volunteer work, and a boatload of that. Through his efforts the game has been patched myriad times in myriad ways. It's rock solid now, vastly improved from the shipped version.
The game runs just fine if you pull your head out and READ what you were told above. You need the switches. If you decline to use them you will get sluggishness. They are not a "workaround." They are part of the design so that the game engine, which is well over a decade old, can continue to run well as systems and OSes evolve. The game runs well on every iteration of Windows from XP forward, including Win 10. If you use the switches. Your call.
The Moose
RE: Ahistorical first turn
And, there is no guarantee that Force Z will be sunk on turn one using a historical start. I have played a number of
games against the AI and I have done a number of historical first turns( trying to make sure the AI does good on turn 1),
and there have been times that Force Z survives in part or totally and sometimes it does not even get attacked.
games against the AI and I have done a number of historical first turns( trying to make sure the AI does good on turn 1),
and there have been times that Force Z survives in part or totally and sometimes it does not even get attacked.
RE: Ahistorical first turn
Mr. Duncan,
Although your quest to keep a first turn historically "pure" is laudable, it is flawed. There is a simply rationale for this observation; the players have so much more knowledge about the "enemy" than the original commanders had at the outset of the war, that it makes no sense to attempt a complete "recreation" of history as it can't be done (you can't undo a player's knowledge)! Additionally you would have to go well beyond Force Z in order to approach this unobtainable goal. Here is but one example; the weather. On the first turn it is clear EVERYWHERE, yet as you probably know, the weather played a major role in why the US forces were caught on the ground at various locations in the PI. That's just one factor that would have to be totally redone in order to approach your goal. There are hundreds of other details that would have to be considered. This is not to say that Force Z can't remain in Singapore, or that other obvious factors can be altered, but this is a game, historically oriented, but still a game. IMHO a great game, as it has been ever since Victory Games presented it back in the late 70s. And it does a good job at reflecting some of the difficulties faced in the Pacific Theater during WWII. Just some thoughts. Hal
Although your quest to keep a first turn historically "pure" is laudable, it is flawed. There is a simply rationale for this observation; the players have so much more knowledge about the "enemy" than the original commanders had at the outset of the war, that it makes no sense to attempt a complete "recreation" of history as it can't be done (you can't undo a player's knowledge)! Additionally you would have to go well beyond Force Z in order to approach this unobtainable goal. Here is but one example; the weather. On the first turn it is clear EVERYWHERE, yet as you probably know, the weather played a major role in why the US forces were caught on the ground at various locations in the PI. That's just one factor that would have to be totally redone in order to approach your goal. There are hundreds of other details that would have to be considered. This is not to say that Force Z can't remain in Singapore, or that other obvious factors can be altered, but this is a game, historically oriented, but still a game. IMHO a great game, as it has been ever since Victory Games presented it back in the late 70s. And it does a good job at reflecting some of the difficulties faced in the Pacific Theater during WWII. Just some thoughts. Hal
RE: Ahistorical first turn
Allied player KNOWS the range of Kates
I believe you mean 'Netties' here, Kates won't reach.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
RE: Ahistorical first turn
ORIGINAL: rustysi
I believe you mean 'Netties' here, Kates won't reach.
Yes, I sit corrected.