one inherent problem with this system

[Chiteng]

The facts are that it is VERY easy to make a simple mistake
in UV. It will be even easier in WITP.

Some players are understanding, some are not.

Some expect you to push a broken position, effectively immolating
yourself to gratify the victor.

Some are more than willing to do a turn over to repair a mistake.

1200 days is alot of turns. I forsee many such mistakes.

I mean just one example...forgetting to change the mission to
'Bombard' and that is simply one example.

[pasternakski]

Simple mistakes are far easier for some than for others. Some can live with their simple mistakes. Some cannot. Some can live with their simplicity. Some have to be artificially complex.

Some have to foresee, even when foresight is flawed, for the sake of seeming profound.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Simple mistakes are far easier for some than for others. Some can live with their simple mistakes. Some cannot. Some can live with their simplicity. Some have to be artificially complex.

Some have to foresee, even when foresight is flawed, for the sake of seeming profound.

And some are more willing to actually contribute to the game
design. It is a real issue.

[Fred98]

My view is that a mistake is a mistake.

The only way I seem to have any success is when an opponent makes a mistake.

Otherwise I get slaughtered.

[Luskan]

I make more mistakes than my opponents - so there are no replays for mistakes. Take it as it comes (forgetting to set a CAP over your CVs is something that the game should not allow. ie. If you set 0% CAP but then enemy CVs are sighted, the AI should scramble your fighters automatically!).

As for bugs - I'll replay for bugs. Have had an entire opponents invasion fleet hammered beneath the ocean by his own LBA. One of those confusing moments when you forget which side you are playing and can't figure out who to cheer for during the combat replay . . .

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Luskan
I make more mistakes than my opponents - so there are no replays for mistakes. Take it as it comes (forgetting to set a CAP over your CVs is something that the game should not allow. ie. If you set 0% CAP but then enemy CVs are sighted, the AI should scramble your fighters automatically!).

As for bugs - I'll replay for bugs. Have had an entire opponents invasion fleet hammered beneath the ocean by his own LBA. One of those confusing moments when you forget which side you are playing and can't figure out who to cheer for during the combat replay . . .

Bravo!!!

Mistakes happend with RL commanders and so your mistakes should reflect that. There should be fewer opportunities to make the "Oh **** I forgot to set retirement allowed" mistakes built into the game. Because IRL an order that stupid would be questioned by the commander on the scene and an opportunity to alter/clarify the order would occur (in most cases). The only real mistakes you shold be allowed to make are of the strategic type - not the game mechanics/micromanagement type.

Even being bombed by your LBA is not entirely out of the realm of possibility IRL. But it is a bug (at least I think it is a bug) and good sport to allow replay.

The CAP thing is right on target also. Some of the jerk commanders do some strange things - why not let them do something realistic for a change and order a scramble - with appropriate penalties for not having CAP ready of course.

Back when i was playing 6 PBEM games at once I would often get confused as to which side to cheer for when the combat replay was going on - feeble minded I guess - which is why I would like to see fewer possibilities to screw up.

[Raverdave]

Don't ever play against me Chiteng ! I don't let anyone off the hook, nor do I expect my oponents to either.

[Mike Scholl]

Most decisive combats in real life are decided based on the mistakes of the losing side. MacArthur didn't believe Japanese
Fighters could reach the Phillippines from Formosa..., Nagumo
was far too skimpy with his search planes..., etc. Those players
should be required to live with.

But in a game as large and intense as this promises to be, an
"auto CAP" rule for air bases and carriers that have them available would be a nice touch. There is a difference between actively making a bad choice and forgetting to make one at all.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Don't ever play against me Chiteng ! I don't let anyone off the hook, nor do I expect my oponents to either.

Then I would resign =)
I wont push a defeated position to gratify anyones lust for slaughter. I would just say, 'Great you win'

[Chiteng]

I am talking about oversight, not bad decisions.

If I sail my best CV towards Midway underescorted
and they get jumped by unseen USN CV that is NOT
the type of mistake I am talking about.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I am talking about oversight, not bad decisions.

If I sail my best CV towards Midway underescorted
and they get jumped by unseen USN CV that is NOT
the type of mistake I am talking about.

Exactly!

[Drex]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The facts are that it is VERY easy to make a simple mistake
in UV. It will be even easier in WITP.

Some players are understanding, some are not.

Some expect you to push a broken position, effectively immolating
yourself to gratify the victor.

Some are more than willing to do a turn over to repair a mistake.

1200 days is alot of turns. I forsee many such mistakes.

I mean just one example...forgetting to change the mission to
'Bombard' and that is simply one example.

I guess I have to chalk up mistakes in game mechanics as the fortunes of war. We all have early on forgot to change our CAP setting or even attack setting and paid the price but it translates into human error and war punishes error. At lest in these long games most effects of error are fleeting and can be recovered over time.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drex
I guess I have to chalk up mistakes in game mechanics as the fortunes of war. We all have early on forgot to change our CAP setting or even attack setting and paid the price but it translates into human error and war punishes error. At lest in these long games most effects of error are fleeting and can be recovered over time.

Not if the oversight sinks ships. Then it is a permanent feature.

[Drex]

Yes sinking and death are permanent and thus are good teachers to take our time with the turns - and still we will make mistakes. My feeling is that we must play on, mistakes or not. But after all it is up to your opponent. as long as he doesn't have a problem with it, then play the turn over. I always let my opponent have another try at it if he requests it, but I choose to live with my faux paus. After all this is a game and I want my opponent to get as much fun out of it as I do.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drex
Yes sinking and death are permanent and thus are good teachers to take our time with the turns - and still we will make mistakes. My feeling is that we must play on, mistakes or not. But after all it is up to your opponent. as long as he doesn't have a problem with it, then play the turn over. I always let my opponent have another try at it if he requests it, but I choose to live with my faux paus. After all this is a game and I want my opponent to get as much fun out of it as I do.

Well I am not talking about a well timed bushwak...I am talking only about (for example) forgetting to use your subs.
Forgetting to load your transports.
Having the TF commander 'react' to a tf and this uncover the TF he was escorting. Things like that.

Alot is learning about the idiocyracies of the game engine
and nothing to do with good war decisions.

[Drex]

I know exactly what you are referring to Chiteng, its just that I don't choose to make that distinction, yet I won't insist my opponent feel that same way I do.

[wobbly]

What we are discussing here is tantamount to development suicide or at least incredible delays. To think of all the things a commander could possibly do with his forces would engender a detrimental level of complication to the game.

What I mean to say is if you do have an auto cap function - then why have cap at all - the computer looks after it. But then what about fatigue: "my d@mn auto-commander keeps sending up my planes and they are dying from operational mistakes and getting a wicked moral hit".

To my eyes they have given us the functionality to do 85% of the things we wish to do - the rest would add little to the game and may instead cause greater consternation.

Players making mistakes like no CAP will happen. Players forgetting to set no react on air TF's will also happen. The difference between beginners and veterens will be the instance of it happening.

The case of your own air power attacking your ships, while occuring IRL is not something that should be modeled in a game (in my opinion anyway - adds too much frustration) so therefore should be considered a bug. Bugs should be and are removed from the game.

To get to the original question in this post, I have voiced my worry about the chances of a WITP full campaign/scenerio going to completion. If you have had the cr@p beaten out of you most people will cry - enough! In UV only the Allies have the oppotunity to come back from severe Klutz-ups.

[bilbow]

There are different opinions on the issue of mistake -replays. Personally, I'm with Drex. You live with your mistakes. If the mistake is so serious that it affect the outcome in a major way, and there aren't many of those, well then concede and start over. Most mistakes and omissions simply don't affect the outcome that seriously. So live with the mistake and learn from it.
We've all probably forgottent to do some key setting, and paid for it. But most of us won't do it again, and we are better players for it.

This is a complex game, and I have learned most of the small but key features the hard way. And I am a much better player for it.

[Sonny]

Did Nagumo make a mistake at Midway? What was it? Was he so worried about all the micromanagement of the IJN forces in the South Pacific that he forgot to tell the CAG to send up CAP to keep those nasty Yankees dogs away from his carriers? Or maybe he forgot to tell the skipper he wanted the fleet to be set to retirement allowed so they set there and got pasted.

There has got to be a way to reduce the possibility of game mechanics/quirks getting in the way of a detailed strategy game like WitP. The game is going to be a lot bigger and there are going to be more mistakes made. The offset of this factor is that the kinds of mistakes we are talking about will have less overall impact in WitP than in UV just because of the scale.

Reducing micromanagement is one way of reducing the chance for errors. Many on the forum have suggested areas where micromanagement can be reduced and the programmers are taking this into account I believe (wasn't there a suggestion thread about this). So perhaps some of our worries are unfounded. Lets hope so.

[Bulldog61]

Originally posted by Sonny
Did Nagumo make a mistake at Midway? What was it?

Yes, poor search and vasilated when he should have decisively gone after the US fleet.


In a game this size both sides are bound to make mistakes. The game will probably end up going to the played that makes the fewest.