Matrix Games Forums

I get worried when I read certain threads that have certain posters consistently pushing for one side's obvious superiority or the other's, based upon history. I don't want a game where the USN always wins (unless the USN player is a complete fool), historical or not. UV isn't completely USN dominated - but is getting very close IMO.

It depends upon the victory conditions - but I'm interested in discovering how MANY people feel one way or the other - rather than just having certain posters try to "out-post" each other with the number and size of their posts!

I would like to limit this poll to the discussion of game mechanics - not to the discussion of scenario options (although UV tried to fulfill the balanced gameplay field by introducing Scn 19).

In WITP, which would you prefer (please vote and then post your reasons).

1. Historical gameplay (like I feel UV attempts to recreate), with the USN basically always triumphant. Historical, but has imbalance issues.

Or

2. Balanced gameplay, where the game is ahistorical, but gives each player a 50/50 shot at victory. Things like zeroes shooting down B-17s, S boats limited etc. etc.

For myself - I would prefer better gameplay.

Balanced game play please. It is a GAME. The Allies should win the war, but only win the game 50% of the time.

I am in a poll!:eek:

Gameplay based on what the weapon systems are able (did) do IRL.

I don't agree with reducing the historical aspect of the game just to even the odds. Sure there may be little or no chance for a total Japanese victory (for two evenly matched players) but there should be other provisions for the Japanese player to win a victory of sorts. PacWar had the kill multiplier for allied losses in '44 and '45 - maybe WiTP could utilise factors such as those to give the Japanese player a fighting chance.

You could change the stats of a Zero to make it attack B-17s like a Fw-190 but then it wouldn't be a Zero...

All i want is an ingame switch. Gameplay: Historical - Balanced.

Well I hope it is more historical. In fact just like UV only bigger

For most of us the game is not going to run the distance very often regardless of the balance. Once the game becomes pretty one sided why does either want to play on for a year or two of both game time and real time (in PBEM!)? And this is the sort of game when after a while one side is likely to get on top. CVs and major surface assets are rather fragile and once one side gets an edge this could snowball.

For those who want a balanced scenario that is what the editor is for. Scenarios #17 and #19 etc. are fantasy ones where the Japanese have more stuff (or lost less) than they did historically. I am all in favour of an alternative campaign that gives Japan extra CVs, BBs and decent and extra ACs through '42, '43 and beyond. But I would rather that the basic game had (roughly) the real weapons with their capabilities at it's heart.

So historical for me. But with an editor and preferably a decent Japanese fantasy scenario thrown in from the start.

Oh come on??? A deadlock between gameplay and historical and NOBODY thinks beating Raver is most important??? What is wrong with you people??

Originally posted by Luskan
Oh come on??? A deadlock between gameplay and historical and NOBODY thinks beating Raver is most important??? What is wrong with you people??

Hey as long as I can beat Raver the game gets 5/5!:D

My vote should be obvious.

As for the historicity-game balance thing, it's easy. The game should depict historical possibilities to the maximum extent and model historical reality absolutely. Game balance should be taken care of by crafting of victory conditions that give both players a reasonable chance of "winning the game," if not "winning the history."

The poll is useless unless we can agree on what 'history' is.
I doubt that is possible.

With an excellent editor, it should be possible for gamers to have ALL possibilties:

Both historical and "what-if" scenarios/campaigns.

But the key here is to have a very user-friendly scenario editor. Allow us to tweak/change everything in the game, including units, attributes, base names, start times, etc, etc

Cheers!

I want a game that will keep me coming back over and over so I guess gameplay takes precedence. As stated above, the weapons systems need to be historical but the events perhaps could be random. I want the "what ifs".

Posted by Chiteng

The poll is useless unless we can agree on what 'history' is. I doubt that is possible.

Why do I keep thinking of Marvin the Robot in "The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"???

I think history is the most important. What's the point of years of research into historical ships, units, planes, pilots, captains, etc. if you're not going to have historical results? To balance gameplay though, there should be auto victory conditions of some sort, because "historically" the Japanese player cannot win against the manufacturing might of the USA - so who'd want to try? I leave the decision of what auto win should be to others, but thats my take.

I think you can have your cake and -mostly- eat it too...

Wow, I can’t believe the results. This is a GAME. Of course GAMEplay should be of utmost importance. Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don’t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of a game is entertainment.

Yamamoto

Originally posted by Yamamoto
Wow, I can’t believe the results. This is a GAME. Of course GAMEplay should be of utmost importance. Sure, I love to watch the History channel too, but I don’t want to play it out for months on end and feel like my hands are tied if I try to go beyond history. I know it is a balance issue but I would hope the developers would lean heavily toward playability since the purpose of a game is entertainment.

Yamamoto

Well if I wanted to simply play checkers...I would play checkers.
There is a REASON, that I play wargames.

There's no reason why players cant have both. Dont see it as a major issue.

*options* are the key.


example: USN Codebreaking; On or Off

On: Historical crowd preference

Off: playability crowd preference, 'or' historical crowd that would like to play a different slant on the old theme.

Another age old example: Diff levels....Easy, Historical, Hard, Very Hard, Insane

Originally posted by Nikademus
There's no reason why players cant have both. Dont see it as a major issue.

*options* are the key.


example: USN Codebreaking; On or Off

On: Historical crowd preference

Off: playability crowd preference, 'or' historical crowd that would like to play a different slant on the old theme.

Another age old example: Diff levels....Easy, Historical, Hard, Very Hard, Insane

Except of course that the code breaking was not a constant
during the war. It 'surged'

Originally posted by pasternakski
My vote should be obvious.

As for the historicity-game balance thing, it's easy. The game should depict historical possibilities to the maximum extent and model historical reality absolutely. Game balance should be taken care of by crafting of victory conditions that give both players a reasonable chance of "winning the game," if not "winning the history."

Moslty I agree with this - it seems reasonable. It has to be done with caution lest you get into the point counting too deeply and leave reality behind. I think the auto victory for the Japanese in UV is good - it gives a reasonable political scenario. Yeah, I can hear everyone saying "we would never surrender" and "the Chinese didn't surrender" etc. And perhaps the auto victory is only a Japanese dream, but it makes the game playable (at least if you go with the non-historic scenarios).

Originally posted by U2
Hey as long as I can beat Raver the game gets 5/5!:D

Mmmm.....careless he is, thinking about the Raven.....when young warrior should be more focused on current situation.