Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

CaptDave
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:11 pm
Location: Federal Way, WA

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by CaptDave »

Given the number of people already complaining about how "unrealistic" the game is, I don't see why anyone would want to know that a die roll for leadership failed, for example. There's no such thing in real life! In truth, there isn't usually a single reason a real life failure would occur; it's almost always a combination of little things.

What might be useful would be a comprehensive guide as to what factors are taken into account for various actions. We've been speculating for years about what leader traits are important when. We had a good idea in the original WitP, but I don't remember anything definitive coming out for AE (and even then it was only highly informed speculation, as I recall -- I could be wrong and the information was actually provided by a developer). We don't need to know exactly how everything interacts, just a binary yes/no as to whether something is a consideration. What we know for sure is the effect of terrain.

Obviously, I'm all in favor of the way things are now. Real battle isn't run according to a table full of numbers and random die rolls though Lady Luck does come into play. Luck can't be predicted, and it seems contrary to the experience to let us know the numbers that are being used. But, since we don't have insight into the psyches of the men under our control, I can understand at least wanting to know what's taken into account.

Now I'm repeating myself!
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Given the number of people already complaining about how "unrealistic" the game is, I don't see why anyone would want to know that a die roll for leadership failed, for example. There's no such thing in real life! In truth, there isn't usually a single reason a real life failure would occur; it's almost always a combination of little things.

Yes there is. It's called the after action review. They did them in real life too.

"General X made a tatical error that the enemy exploited" (land roll failed)
"Major Y panicked and issued contradictory orders" (leadership roll failed)
"Major Z failed to motivate low level leaders to fully press the attack" (inspiration roll failed)
We don't need to know exactly how everything interacts, just a binary yes/no as to whether something is a consideration. What we know for sure is the effect of terrain.

I don't even want to know how everything interacts. When I see a leaders (-) on my combat report, I'd like to know what leaders led to that modifier being there.
Obviously, I'm all in favor of the way things are now. Real battle isn't run according to a table full of numbers and random die rolls though Lady Luck does come into play. Luck can't be predicted, and it seems contrary to the experience to let us know the numbers that are being used. But, since we don't have insight into the psyches of the men under our control, I can understand at least wanting to know what's taken into account.

Sure, but in a real battle, you get the losses of your own side presented in a nice table, with the number of losses taken by each unit. It would be nice to have that sort of information in the actual combat report, rather than having to resort to tracker.

I'm not asking for a detailed explanation of the source code of the game here, I just want information on combats presented in a more sensible way.
Seytan
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:19 pm

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Seytan »

As a aside to Terminus, I think the information and the way it is presented
is actually amateurish. If this is your claim to fame with the game its actually quite
sub par given the existing examples people have pointed out. I also think you could
have done a better job if you applied yourself.
Game has its merits...it isn't the holy grail of gaming...get that off your chest.
Seytan
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:19 pm

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Seytan »

Why not...the idea is to understand the mechanics that govern the processes of the engine that result in same.
Why not? As a aside who determines who can see "under the hood"? AFAIK it may all be garbage...or it may be genius.
ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Given the number of people already complaining about how "unrealistic" the game is, I don't see why anyone would want to know that a die roll for leadership failed, for example. There's no such thing in real life! In truth, there isn't usually a single reason a real life failure would occur; it's almost always a combination of little things.

What might be useful would be a comprehensive guide as to what factors are taken into account for various actions. We've been speculating for years about what leader traits are important when. We had a good idea in the original WitP, but I don't remember anything definitive coming out for AE (and even then it was only highly informed speculation, as I recall -- I could be wrong and the information was actually provided by a developer). We don't need to know exactly how everything interacts, just a binary yes/no as to whether something is a consideration. What we know for sure is the effect of terrain.

Obviously, I'm all in favor of the way things are now. Real battle isn't run according to a table full of numbers and random die rolls though Lady Luck does come into play. Luck can't be predicted, and it seems contrary to the experience to let us know the numbers that are being used. But, since we don't have insight into the psyches of the men under our control, I can understand at least wanting to know what's taken into account.

Now I'm repeating myself!
Knavey
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Valrico, Florida

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Knavey »

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

There's no such thing in real life!

....resist the urge...

[:@]
[:D][:@][:D][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Knavey



....resist the urge...

[:@]
[:D][:@][:D][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
+1
Pax
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Alpha77 »

So you think in real life war - commanders knew everything ? [X(] There is actually more confusion and missing info in most real WW2 combat (not to speak of earlier eras) than in this game. The uncertainty adds to realism (for me at least). So you might say BUT we know a lot of why certain victories or defeats happened, yes but a bigger part of knowledge came from wide research years after these events.


This is also why I would rather have NO or RANDOM stats leaders in games. Normally one cannot evaluate leaders exactly on points value.

Also there were leaders that were just not to judge really. I think of eg. Paulus or Monty. Had they been in different situations, they would have performed differently. So you assign a good offensive value to Monty. He would deserve it for El Alamein, maybe not so much for France or Arnheim. Therefore he could inspire troops and be more careful (or slow) in his approach. Now for dashing tank raid not the right person, but to wear an enemy in a fort down more so....

Paulus you give bad defensive value for Stalingrad... well was the wrong person there anyway. As chief of general staff (more planning than leading) he would deserve a better rating.

Whats with guys in the game, is Yamamoto in ? Guess yes, I dont know his stats. Guess they must be quite bad...Nimitz, he could perform so well cause he had the backing of his superiors... and the big industrial machine behing him. How had he performed with meager resources and in steady conflict with other officers or politicians?

Bit OT.[:'(]
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

So you think in real life war - commanders knew everything ? [X(] There is actually more confusion and missing info in most real WW2 combat (not to speak of earlier eras) than in this game. The uncertainty adds to realism (for me at least). So you might say BUT we know a lot of why certain victories or defeats happened, yes but a bigger part of knowledge came from wide research years after these events.

Commanders knew more than we can learn from the combat reports.

It's not about uncertainty, it's about clarifying the information already provided to us. I'm not asking for FOW to be done away with.

If you're mounting a multi-divisional attack and your units suffer a bad leaders roll, why should we not know what unit's failed the roll? In reality it would be obvious that Colonel A's infantry regiment blundered right into an enemy ambush because he didn't have scouts.
This is also why I would rather have NO or RANDOM stats leaders in games. Normally one cannot evaluate leaders exactly on points value.

Also there were leaders that were just not to judge really. I think of eg. Paulus or Monty. Had they been in different situations, they would have performed differently. So you assign a good offensive value to Monty. He would deserve it for El Alamein, maybe not so much for France or Arnheim. Therefore he could inspire troops and be more careful (or slow) in his approach. Now for dashing tank raid not the right person, but to wear an enemy in a fort down more so....

Paulus you give bad defensive value for Stalingrad... well was the wrong person there anyway. As chief of general staff (more planning than leading) he would deserve a better rating.

Whats with guys in the game, is Yamamoto in ? Guess yes, I dont know his stats. Guess they must be quite bad...Nimitz, he could perform so well cause he had the backing of his superiors... and the big industrial machine behing him. How had he performed with meager resources and in steady conflict with other officers or politicians?

Bit OT.

The leaders system in-game does a good job of capturing the quirks of leaders.

Monty would have a high land value but low aggressiveness.

Paulus would have an above average land value but low leadership and inspiration to capture the fact that he was competent enough for staff work but ill suited for the actual role of commander.

The fact that the game can solidly model the Japanese leaders that are outliers validates the leaders system for me. The Japanese leaders with high aggressiveness, leadership and inspiration but abysmal land skill means banzai charges and such make sense in the game's context.

I would have preferred a more dynamic system to leaders myself, but on a game of this scope that simply isn't possible, and the model we have works well given the scope.


OT:

As an aside, I always thought a leaders system based on traits would lead to interesting choices for command. Rather than assigning numerical values to leaders and presenting players with numbers, you'd be presented with a leader with various traits.

Their pre-war history would be reviewed and they are assigned traits relevant to their background, with leaders earning other traits based on their experiences in combat. Leaders who have previous combat experience would have a "veteran" trait, giving them bonuses

It would be an interesting mini-game trying to match the leaders to the combat situations you're likely to face.

For leaders that were promoted during the war or without much experience, you'd take the risk that both sides too historically - that untested leaders might not be cut out for command. Sure, that untested Colonel in command of that regiment in New Guinea could develop the "jungle expert" trait, or he might end up with the "coward trait"
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Alpha77 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Sure, but in a real battle, you get the losses of your own side presented in a nice table, with the number of losses taken by each unit. It would be nice to have that sort of information in the actual combat report, rather than having to resort to tracker.

Why tracker ? Dont you check your units after combat ? There is the info you want..10. Div is reduced to 50%. Apparently this was the unit that spearheaded the attack and suffered most consequently....


You need to develope the traits that actual good commanders have. Apart from inspiring / put trust to your men, which would be the most important ?? 1. Luck and 2. A certain gut feeling or 7th sense if you will. Try to play TOAW it has the tools you want. Eg. the combat planning dialogue, it will give odds and losses estiminates before any combat. And mostly it is right....a bit boring perhaps...[:)]

Btw: I do not have this gut feeling in this game, so I am perhaps an average or below commander now. Made huge blunders eg. in China, wrote some of them in the AAR forum....

OTH in TOAW or Steel Panthers which I played more and also made some scens or OOBs for them I believe I am an adequate or above average commander in these games, because I have a certain 7th sense in these. I didnt use the combat planning in TOAW in my last game (Russian full campaign as Axis) but could judge beforehand what would likely happen...
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Alpha77 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As an aside, I always thought a leaders system based on traits would lead to interesting choices for command. Rather than assigning numerical values to leaders and presenting players with numbers, you'd be presented with a leader with various traits.

The trait system you speak of are in the AEGOD games as well HOI series. I believe also the EU series, as well the Total War games. They are fun but I would just prefer to NOT have any leaders with skills or points. Just my personal opinion, also it takes too much time, to select leaders. This is why I check only leaders of major units. I even havent checked air units much for their leaders, I will do if one will perform abysmal tho. I mean this abysmal performance might stem from my own error or just that the enemy was better. Or bad luck. But if none of these negative factors are present I might assume something wrong with leader(s) and check em out :)
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Sure, but in a real battle, you get the losses of your own side presented in a nice table, with the number of losses taken by each unit. It would be nice to have that sort of information in the actual combat report, rather than having to resort to tracker.

Why tracker ? Dont you check your units after combat ? There is the info you want..10. Div is reduced to 50%. Apparently this was the unit that spearheaded the attack and suffered most consequently....


You need to develope the traits that actual good commanders have. Apart from inspiring / put trust to your men, which would be the most important ?? 1. Luck and 2. A certain gut feeling or 7th sense if you will. Try to play TOAW it has the tools you want. Eg. the combat planning dialogue, it will give odds and losses estiminates before any combat. And mostly it is right....a bit boring perhaps...[:)]

Btw: I do not have this gut feeling in this game, so I am perhaps an average or below commander now. Made huge blunders eg. in China, wrote some of them in the AAR forum....

OTH in TOAW or Steel Panthers which I played more and also made some scens or OOBs for them I believe I am an adequate or above average commander in these games, because I have a certain 7th sense in these. I didnt use the combat planning in TOAW in my last game (Russian full campaign as Axis) but could judge beforehand what would likely happen...

But the combat report doesn't tell you that, when it very well could.

Even just some kind of adjusted AV for each unit present would be extremely helpful in learning why your attack went the way it did, instead of "Oh, the defenders must have been really messed up from no supply or high disruption even though they had lots of devices still at 100%" or "My adjusted AV was 150 even though the total on the LCU screen was 1200?!" There's lots of reasons that can happen. Even if you only knew which units fell extremely low, you could then use the other things you know (leaders, supply, morale, disruption, etc.) to piece together what might have gone wrong instead of looking at the entire list and being like "It could have been any one of those things, but I really don't know which."

The combat report for ground combats is just not at all helpful in trying to improve your ground combat results, aside from occasionally telling you that you have bonuses or penalties for something. However, you might see that disruption(-) or supply(-) when just one of your units in the entire combat is experiencing those things...
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Alpha77 »

I agree with that it isnt very helpful... but its not a big gripe of mine. Guess you might be right, but it does not bother me much. Also the leader thing, if it is in game ok, but I could live without it [:)]

So how about that, BEFORE combat: This would suit your needs, right?

Image


More:

Image
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Alpha77 »

BTW: This "uncertainty" is no general trademark of GG games, I remember well the old (first) War In Russia game had all the details you want. It had 3 levels of details, the highest on will show you any single unit. Every action it does, eg. "anti tank fire from 10. Div destroyed 5 T34 from enemy 15. Tk reg". Or "bombardement of 15. art killed 2 squads from enemy 12. Div". However this is insane it takes ages when you want to review all that, so in the end I would play at the 2nd lowest level of detail which only gives overall figures of any stack involved but not for single units. One turn with many combats would take too long simply with highest detail level.

I do not know how things are with 2 by 3 newer Eastfront and Westfront games, but guess similar.

And BTW2:
Sometimes changing leaders is unrealistic anyway, for sure for the complete Axis side. As for Japan refer to this docu here from 31:00 to 33:00. The complete series is quite good imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFJx3Neat8U
wegman58
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:15 pm
Location: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by wegman58 »

Reading this thread I'm thinking there is ONE thing I'd like in the combat reports (or if I'm missing it I'd like to know)

Delta for ship experience; leader stats (if they change); LCU experience level from the previous turn. I don't care what battle it came from (if more than one); I'd just like the delta without having to record every unit and looking.

Combat is combat, any number of things contribute to the results. The deltas would be useful though.
Bill Goin
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: wegman58

Reading this thread I'm thinking there is ONE thing I'd like in the combat reports (or if I'm missing it I'd like to know)

Delta for ship experience; leader stats (if they change); LCU experience level from the previous turn. I don't care what battle it came from (if more than one); I'd just like the delta without having to record every unit and looking.

Combat is combat, any number of things contribute to the results. The deltas would be useful though.

You can at least see that in Tracker, since it does the turn-by-turn bookkeeping for you.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

BTW: This "uncertainty" is no general trademark of GG games, I remember well the old (first) War In Russia game had all the details you want. It had 3 levels of details, the highest on will show you any single unit. Every action it does, eg. "anti tank fire from 10. Div destroyed 5 T34 from enemy 15. Tk reg". Or "bombardement of 15. art killed 2 squads from enemy 12. Div". However this is insane it takes ages when you want to review all that, so in the end I would play at the 2nd lowest level of detail which only gives overall figures of any stack involved but not for single units. One turn with many combats would take too long simply with highest detail level.

I do not know how things are with 2 by 3 newer Eastfront and Westfront games, but guess similar.

See, that's called choice.

It's nice when players who want to choose to see more detail can do so, an those that don't want to see more detail can choose that too!

And BTW2:
Sometimes changing leaders is unrealistic anyway, for sure for the complete Axis side. As for Japan refer to this docu here from 31:00 to 33:00. The complete series is quite good imo.

Yamashita getting thrown back to Manchuria is just one example I can thing of from the top of my head.

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Sure, but in a real battle, you get the losses of your own side presented in a nice table, with the number of losses taken by each unit. It would be nice to have that sort of information in the actual combat report, rather than having to resort to tracker.

Why tracker ? Dont you check your units after combat ? There is the info you want..10. Div is reduced to 50%. Apparently this was the unit that spearheaded the attack and suffered most consequently....


You need to develope the traits that actual good commanders have. Apart from inspiring / put trust to your men, which would be the most important ?? 1. Luck and 2. A certain gut feeling or 7th sense if you will. Try to play TOAW it has the tools you want. Eg. the combat planning dialogue, it will give odds and losses estiminates before any combat. And mostly it is right....a bit boring perhaps...[:)]

Btw: I do not have this gut feeling in this game, so I am perhaps an average or below commander now. Made huge blunders eg. in China, wrote some of them in the AAR forum....

OTH in TOAW or Steel Panthers which I played more and also made some scens or OOBs for them I believe I am an adequate or above average commander in these games, because I have a certain 7th sense in these. I didnt use the combat planning in TOAW in my last game (Russian full campaign as Axis) but could judge beforehand what would likely happen...

As Lokasenna said, should I really be forced to use a third party tool or pen and paper to keep track of losses for individual units? What happens when you've large scale combat with multiple units.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm a fairly big fan of AGEOD games. They're not perfect, but one area where I think they do excel in is having a great UI.

I like the notion of my trait system as it would lead to a bit more involvement in the leader selection process. If an unknown Colonel suddenly becomes an expert in amphibious operations, you're invested to see him do well and see if he can get promoted. If a General commanding a corp resorts to alcoholism under the pressure, then you're invested to remove him from command.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

BTW: This "uncertainty" is no general trademark of GG games, I remember well the old (first) War In Russia game had all the details you want. It had 3 levels of details, the highest on will show you any single unit. Every action it does, eg. "anti tank fire from 10. Div destroyed 5 T34 from enemy 15. Tk reg". Or "bombardement of 15. art killed 2 squads from enemy 12. Div". However this is insane it takes ages when you want to review all that, so in the end I would play at the 2nd lowest level of detail which only gives overall figures of any stack involved but not for single units. One turn with many combats would take too long simply with highest detail level.

I do not know how things are with 2 by 3 newer Eastfront and Westfront games, but guess similar.

See, that's called choice.

It's nice when players who want to choose to see more detail can do so, an those that don't want to see more detail can choose that too!

And BTW2:
Sometimes changing leaders is unrealistic anyway, for sure for the complete Axis side. As for Japan refer to this docu here from 31:00 to 33:00. The complete series is quite good imo.

Yamashita getting thrown back to Manchuria is just one example I can thing of from the top of my head.

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Sure, but in a real battle, you get the losses of your own side presented in a nice table, with the number of losses taken by each unit. It would be nice to have that sort of information in the actual combat report, rather than having to resort to tracker.

Why tracker ? Dont you check your units after combat ? There is the info you want..10. Div is reduced to 50%. Apparently this was the unit that spearheaded the attack and suffered most consequently....


You need to develope the traits that actual good commanders have. Apart from inspiring / put trust to your men, which would be the most important ?? 1. Luck and 2. A certain gut feeling or 7th sense if you will. Try to play TOAW it has the tools you want. Eg. the combat planning dialogue, it will give odds and losses estiminates before any combat. And mostly it is right....a bit boring perhaps...[:)]

Btw: I do not have this gut feeling in this game, so I am perhaps an average or below commander now. Made huge blunders eg. in China, wrote some of them in the AAR forum....

OTH in TOAW or Steel Panthers which I played more and also made some scens or OOBs for them I believe I am an adequate or above average commander in these games, because I have a certain 7th sense in these. I didnt use the combat planning in TOAW in my last game (Russian full campaign as Axis) but could judge beforehand what would likely happen...

As Lokasenna said, should I really be forced to use a third party tool or pen and paper to keep track of losses for individual units? What happens when you've large scale combat with multiple units.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm a fairly big fan of AGEOD games. They're not perfect, but one area where I think they do excel in is having a great UI.

I like the notion of my trait system as it would lead to a bit more involvement in the leader selection process. If an unknown Colonel suddenly becomes an expert in amphibious operations, you're invested to see him do well and see if he can get promoted. If a General commanding a corp resorts to alcoholism under the pressure, then you're invested to remove him from command.

Actually, I said to use Tracker [:)]. It's prettier than an in-game interface for that stuff anyway.

I just want to see adjusted AV for each unit in the combat report. Yes, you can see that (to an extent) in the pre-combat battle screen if you have animations on.... if all of your units fit there. But then you have to make a note of it all the time.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by geofflambert »

Let's all take a test. Do you let the opening credits historical film clips run 'til they're done? If you do, you might as well take up smoking cigarettes, they won't shorten your life as much. [:'(]

User avatar
Sheytan
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:53 pm

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Sheytan »

I do, it adds immersion for me.
ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Let's all take a test. Do you let the opening credits historical film clips run 'til they're done? If you do, you might as well take up smoking cigarettes, they won't shorten your life as much. [:'(]
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

Post by Alpha77 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As Lokasenna said, should I really be forced to use a third party tool or pen and paper to keep track of losses for individual units? What happens when you've large scale combat with multiple units.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm a fairly big fan of AGEOD games. They're not perfect, but one area where I think they do excel in is having a great UI.

I like the notion of my trait system as it would lead to a bit more involvement in the leader selection process. If an unknown Colonel suddenly becomes an expert in amphibious operations, you're invested to see him do well and see if he can get promoted. If a General commanding a corp resorts to alcoholism under the pressure, then you're invested to remove him from command.

Actually I agree with most what you say, I just do not care so much about it. Lets face it this game already takes huge amounts of time to play proper. If all the details would be viewed that you want it would be just over my head a bit. Even if I like complex stuff of course. In one case however even me capitulated, this was with "12 o´clock high" and setting up Allied raids from mid 42 on.[8|] One turn could take 2-4 hours.

Also I like the bit of roleplaying with the leaders you mean. But in this one there are just to many to keep track off, esp.on the IJ side (as I cannot remember their names anyway).

In "smaller" games this would work well. Eg. Steel Panthers has also leaders and units have mor & exp. In AACW on the rebels side it would frustrating to have Lee killed early on. About the alcoholic thing, wasnt Grant a drinker ? And did not Lincoln say "I do not care what he drinks - he fights" (or to that effect) [;)]


EDIT: re 12 o´clock high, read this review, very much spot on:
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/12-oclo ... 0-2542303/
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”