One difference between PacWar and WITP that factors into the equation, Jeremy, is that PacWar was designed around one-week turns as the baseline, whereas WITP, being based on the UV engine, breaks down into one-day elements in resolution of all game-relevant details.
For example. Suppose you are the Japanese invading Port Moresby in PacWar. You have assembled all your troops, ships, planes, and materiel at their points of origin. When you shove off, seven days' activity will roll by during the execution phase - this is not separable into smaller segments. In WITP, as I understand it from the designers' comments and from having played UV, each day that passes, notwithstanding whether you have chosen one-day increments, seven-day increments, or something in between, the events of each day will have their individual effect on the ultimate outcome of the battle.
Small wonder, then, that many potential players want to have control over the daily decisions that are crucial to the conduct of the operation.
The designs, and the designs' intentions, are very different, it seems to me. The practical result? Being satisfied with seven-day turns in WITP (or UV, for that matter) turns you into a bystander when you should be a crucial arbiter of the course of action. PacWar is one game, with its own design features. The UV series is just a different environment, from both design and gaming standpoints.
Again, what works for you is fine with me. Just don't expect to see me shirking my command responsibilities for seven days of wine, women, and song in between "command opportunities."
As far as what Nimitz would have loved at Leyte Gulf, he had no better information than Halsey. Just because you are playing one-day turns does not mean that you have better intelligence or that it is always possible to make major changes to plans that are already being executed. It does give you the opportunity to be flexible - as, historically, good commanders have always been (witness Alexander at Issus). And woe be to the commander who is unable to change the direction of his task forces to meet a new threat - unless that new threat is a diversion, a misapprehension, or not as much a threat as the one that was already being met, in which case, woe be to the commander who abandons carefully laid plans.
Such is the burden of command.
7 Day Turns
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Actually GGPW was originally designed for one day turns, but it was changed because they thought that the time requirements to complete a large campaign would be astronomical. They originally planned for the game to be a series of mini-campaigns, which they thought was suitable for 1 day turns. They said that they only had to make minor changes to the game to make it work on a 7 day/turn basis, and the playtesters agreed that it was a much more manageable game, primarily based on the time it takes to play. I guess an option will not hurt, but you will be hard pressed to find too many opponents who want to do a 1941-45 campaign on 1 day turns.
I personally believe that the WitP 7 day cycle will be suitable for a strategic commander to have effective control over their forces. The micromanagement that you can do on 1 day turns is really 'unecessary' in waging an operation level war. The level of possible micromanagement is pretty large, but I know that it will be an effective 7 day cycle that is comparatively effective as one run day by day with heavy micromanagement. It is not like things won't happen during those days, as a sufficient Tactical AI will take over those necessary reaction moves.
Actually, Nimitz was pretty pissed that Halsey went chasing after the IJN Carrier TF after it withdrew from combat after being severely mauled. They had a pretty good idea that the IJN Carrier force was crippled beyond recovery, and knew that the real threat was a surface breakthrough. Even if the IJN surface fleet looked as if it retreated after its mauling, it was much more of a threat then the comparably small carrier TF which also retreated. Covering the landing was much more important then catching a few carriers that had no chance at threatening them in the future.
I personally believe that the WitP 7 day cycle will be suitable for a strategic commander to have effective control over their forces. The micromanagement that you can do on 1 day turns is really 'unecessary' in waging an operation level war. The level of possible micromanagement is pretty large, but I know that it will be an effective 7 day cycle that is comparatively effective as one run day by day with heavy micromanagement. It is not like things won't happen during those days, as a sufficient Tactical AI will take over those necessary reaction moves.
Actually, Nimitz was pretty pissed that Halsey went chasing after the IJN Carrier TF after it withdrew from combat after being severely mauled. They had a pretty good idea that the IJN Carrier force was crippled beyond recovery, and knew that the real threat was a surface breakthrough. Even if the IJN surface fleet looked as if it retreated after its mauling, it was much more of a threat then the comparably small carrier TF which also retreated. Covering the landing was much more important then catching a few carriers that had no chance at threatening them in the future.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Hee hee. Which means that Nimitz had himself a good old time playing WITP, don't it, what with his subordinate commanders screwing up and all?Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
Actually, Nimitz was pretty pissed that Halsey went chasing after the IJN Carrier TF after it withdrew from combat after being severely mauled. They had a pretty good idea that the IJN Carrier force was crippled beyond recovery, and knew that the real threat was a surface breakthrough. Even if the IJN surface fleet looked as if it retreated after its mauling, it was much more of a threat then the comparably small carrier TF which also retreated. Covering the landing was much more important then catching a few carriers that had no chance at threatening them in the future.
By the way, Jeremy, have I mentioned lately how much I appreciate the hard work you and your team have put, and are putting into, PW? You are keeping one of my all time favorite games alive, and I am very thankful (unconscionable suckup spot #117 fer ole Pasternakski. Now, back to the Jackson Five story, starring the Osmond brothers).
Nimitz wanted those carriers sunk just as much as Halsey did. His information about Japanese carrier air strength was nowhere near as complete as our hindsight scholarship reveals to us. "Pretty good ideas" were seldom pretty or good in the Pacific theater. Besides, as indicated in Nimitz's campaign notes (which are preserved at the Naval Academy), he fretted over ordering Halsey to sit passively while waiting for an enemy of unknown strength with aircraft of superior range to stalk him - and the invasion fleet.
In any event, I want to sit in Nimitz's seat and bask in the glory, or suffer the ignominy, of the consequences of my strategic decision making. And I want to be in the hot seat every day.
I have yet to see a "sufficient tactical AI." Furthermore, it will not be a "tactical" AI working for me - it will be an operational AI working in my stead, and very likely against my wishes.
Gimme daily turns, pal. All day long.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I personally feel that 1/2 or 1 week turns are the most realistic, but having 1 day turns won't bug me much. PBEM games will probably be forced to run at a set number of days per turn, so they will be set at 1 day, 1/2 week or 1 week (or other combo) turns at the beginning.
I never had any problem with 1 week turns in Pacific War, it just meant that you had to plan for a lot of contingencies, a lot of things to happen, within that one turn. I did not find it too difficult keeping track of everything, and would have found it impossible (just like they did back when they were developing the game in 1992) to have the game run on 1 day turns.
I love another wargame, called Combat Mission. It has a turn based system, where you give your troops/vehicles orders, then the game ran for 'real time' for 1 minute where all that you did was watch. Many people freaked over this (they did actually freak) and said that not controlling their troops every second would be maddening. However, this required a lot of planning and thinking to go into each one of your turns, as you knew full well that it is not up to you to dictate every little movement of your tank, but have to rely on the quality of your crews and troops in order to win the day as well as your ability to command. It was an adrenaline rush every time you hit the end of turn key in a PBEM game, to see wether or not your orders will lead to disaster or to victory. It resulted in a very good, and very fun game, which still gives me that feeling of fear every turn I send out.
Don't write off the 7 day turns, as they are manageable and lead a lot to requiring you to be a very good stragetic commander, to anticipate things that may happen in the next 7 days without the ability to immediately stop the action and change the direction of your TF's to meet a new threat. I bet Nimitz would have LOVED that option during Leyte Gulf to direct Halsey back to the real fight.
I'm not writing them off....as i said, I can see the merit of the "option" of having 7-day turns for the purpose of PBEM with players who have limited time schedules (something i can definately relate too!)
But i disagree that 1/2 or weekly turns are optimal. Yes, PW was originally designed as a 1 day or even a 12-hour turn game if my memory is correct but was later changed to 1-week turns. However IIRC the decision to go with weekly turns was based more on software limitations than anything else.
That was 1991, this is 2002 and IMHO, to purposely go with weekly turns as a default would be a definate step backwards for a game like WitP. You simply cannot conduct the very specific types of operations required to reproduce the events that occured in the actual war without fudging things to a degree just as one can see in GGPW. The game would be forced, as with GGPW to mesh sustained and coordinated operations all into simotanious sequencial actions that are mostly "under the hood" to coin a phrase. Consider it this way as well....after being used to the detail and flexibility of UV, would players willfully accept going to clunky week long turns in WitP? Yes the scale is far bigger but its not like every single area will be "UV" in terms of having to manage and fight, most of the time the player(s) will be focusing on one area of the Pacific as their current "offensive" which will produce much of the same situations as in UV, the only difference being that one can have this happen in other areas besides the one theater represented in UV!
One-day turns would provide the detail and flexibility that modern wargamers and grognard wargamers have long sought for the Pacific and i think UV has proven this to be true.
Daunting? you bet? worth it? YOU BET!
Again, i see no compelling reason to alter the UV model from what it is right now.......1-day turns by default, with the option to "accelerate" up to weekly if one so desires.
Mess with it at one's own peril.
I think weekly turns with possible reversion to 1 day either auto or by bid, with one day fixed (-for people without a life-) should make everyone happy.Originally posted by Nikademus
Daunting? you bet? worth it? YOU BET!
Again, i see no compelling reason to alter the UV model from what it is right now.......1-day turns by default, with the option to "accelerate" up to weekly if one so desires.
Mess with it at one's own peril.
The best option would be to allow 1 day turns to cut in prior to main fleet engagements. The question is how to trigger this in PBEM games. Biding for turn length is a possibility with the lower bid allowed but this may leed to "Ganesmanship" in the bidding process. If game parameters could be set to cause an automatic drop out from weekly turns untill re activated by PBEM players eg if a carrier TF reacts, or if an Having this option available during pbem games will go a long way to giving more versatility to campaign play.
Witp still needs some extra features for longer term play but a few of these along with in game turn variation would give the best of both worlds for PBEM.
Grrrr
I could probably deal with 7 day turns if I absolutely have to - very early on in WITP I don't think it would be a problem. My plans would be set in motion and I doubt any of them would take less than a week to complete. However later on when things get hot, 1 day turns are a necessity, not an option.
2 Points about this.
a. At least your PBEM partner told you. Others leave you hanging without any notice.
b. Someone should start a post for "opponent" evaluation (warfare HQ's ladder is a good start, but not enough). You know, something like where you anonymously review your opponent for reliability, speed of turn-return etc.
One of my current opponents always lets me know when it is the last turn for the night (so I'm not up all night waiting), and manages 2 or 3 per weekday and our best is 10(!) turns per day on sat or sun. I am not sure if he intends to go WITPing, but if he does he'll be on my hit-list (in a nice way
)
Every turn has been a nail-biter, and the gaps imbetween are so big - eg. He is about to attempt an Australian invasion (I think - why else are there 5 CVs, 2 surface combat type tfs and a transport TF way south and a bit west of GG??) and has possibly caught me with my pants down.
I would loose all this suspense if it was a week long turn. I'd just get my turn, watch a week of combat replays, swear a lot because I wouldn't be able to react in time to his sneaky move etc. No fun.
Originally posted by jive1
My pbem partner this morning announced that he is pulling out of all of his games due to a life change. This was after 2 months of play. My point is that 1,000 turns would take me 3 years to play - what are the chances of anyone actually finisihing a game?
I for one will need 7 day turns for any hope of completion.
Chris
2 Points about this.
a. At least your PBEM partner told you. Others leave you hanging without any notice.
b. Someone should start a post for "opponent" evaluation (warfare HQ's ladder is a good start, but not enough). You know, something like where you anonymously review your opponent for reliability, speed of turn-return etc.
One of my current opponents always lets me know when it is the last turn for the night (so I'm not up all night waiting), and manages 2 or 3 per weekday and our best is 10(!) turns per day on sat or sun. I am not sure if he intends to go WITPing, but if he does he'll be on my hit-list (in a nice way
)Every turn has been a nail-biter, and the gaps imbetween are so big - eg. He is about to attempt an Australian invasion (I think - why else are there 5 CVs, 2 surface combat type tfs and a transport TF way south and a bit west of GG??) and has possibly caught me with my pants down.
I would loose all this suspense if it was a week long turn. I'd just get my turn, watch a week of combat replays, swear a lot because I wouldn't be able to react in time to his sneaky move etc. No fun.
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?
One thing that should be pointed out in all this too is that while PBEM will be a very popular feature, there will still be a sizable AI or Hotseat community as well for those of us who dont have the schedules to seriously consider a PBEM.Originally posted by shark
I think weekly turns with possible reversion to 1 day either auto or by bid, with one day fixed (-for people without a life-) should make everyone happy.
The best option would be to allow 1 day turns to cut in prior to main fleet engagements. The question is how to trigger this in PBEM games. Biding for turn length is a possibility with the lower bid allowed but this may leed to "Ganesmanship" in the bidding process. If game parameters could be set to cause an automatic drop out from weekly turns untill re activated by PBEM players eg if a carrier TF reacts, or if an Having this option available during pbem games will go a long way to giving more versatility to campaign play.
Witp still needs some extra features for longer term play but a few of these along with in game turn variation would give the best of both worlds for PBEM.
I have yet to play one in UV though i would like too. 1-day turns for non-PBEM are far less an issue. Me, i would have a hard time stomaching a WitP game with weekly turns (only) after being used to the detail and depth of UV and it's 24 hour turns. Again i think the system is fine the way it is.....as both 1 and 7 day turns are present.
Just searching through a few old threads. Quite a few good points I didn't see in this one. To me this is one of the most pressing problems with WITP.
1 day turns - reasons I need them :-
a) Ability to react to enemy threats without waiting for an unrealistic amount of time. I just moved my carriers out of Moresby heading to Aus as a Jap carrier/invasion force is spotted inbound. They carry on for 6 days before I can change course?
b) Has anyone played a carrier battle where the PC had control
for 7 days? They are so important I cannot concieve of leaving the AI in control for such a span of time. (It may be the same for both sides - but it could be **** annoying - not how I like to play games)
C) A million other things which could be eased by the ability to set A/C to stand down etc as mentioned previously in this post.
7 day turns - reasons I need them :-
A) I love pbem - I play max 1 turn a day - playing for 4 years not going to happen.
B) Production - shorter scenarios (a few months) will make this pointless and it is one of the main attractions.
The game is wonderful. One of the best all time wargames - but the scale seems to make it one of those impossible to play monsters parodied in the old Avalon Hill General magazine.
Ground combat on this scale needs a week or month long turns - carrier combat - a day max.
If you can pull it off Matrix I will be amazed. I'll be buying it though.
1 day turns - reasons I need them :-
a) Ability to react to enemy threats without waiting for an unrealistic amount of time. I just moved my carriers out of Moresby heading to Aus as a Jap carrier/invasion force is spotted inbound. They carry on for 6 days before I can change course?
b) Has anyone played a carrier battle where the PC had control
for 7 days? They are so important I cannot concieve of leaving the AI in control for such a span of time. (It may be the same for both sides - but it could be **** annoying - not how I like to play games)
C) A million other things which could be eased by the ability to set A/C to stand down etc as mentioned previously in this post.
7 day turns - reasons I need them :-
A) I love pbem - I play max 1 turn a day - playing for 4 years not going to happen.
B) Production - shorter scenarios (a few months) will make this pointless and it is one of the main attractions.
The game is wonderful. One of the best all time wargames - but the scale seems to make it one of those impossible to play monsters parodied in the old Avalon Hill General magazine.
Ground combat on this scale needs a week or month long turns - carrier combat - a day max.
If you can pull it off Matrix I will be amazed. I'll be buying it though.
So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
Agreed, Grotius. One day turns for almost 4 years may not be very do-able, but I am sure going to try. I would have thought the same about UV and one-day turns, so what's another year or two? I'm having a great time with several PBEM long games and I don't want to get to the end. The fun is in the journey, not the destination.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill
- Winston Churchill
