Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Tempo

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tempo Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Tempo - 5/7/2009 10:36:45 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
The main problem with stock WiTP is tempo. That is, various aspects of movement, construction, and combat are much too fast (or too intense) or too slow. This thread is intended to gather these issues together and ask how they have been addressed in AE.

Let me give an example. The rate at which the Allies advanced in the South Pacific was absolutely controlled by the rate at which their land based air superiority advanced, and that was limited by the rate of construction of air facilities in unfavourable terrain and unknown geology, jungle clearance, malaria suppression, and build-up of air operations. Naval air in that context had a major advantage--carriers were airbases that could move and generate surges of sorties (about 3x what a land base with the same air group strength could generate day-to-day)--and two disadvantages--carrier air groups were brittle and carrier air operations were unsustainable at the surge rate. Hence, they would suppress the defender for a short time, but eventually the Allies had to get land bases built to maintain that suppression. If the Japanese had land-based air superiority in the area of the new base, they could keep it suppressed indefinitely; so, except for Guadalcanal--where neither side had air superiority--every new base built in the South Pacific was in an existing area of Allied land-based air superiority. The tempo of advance was the tempo of base construction--it took two years to advance, building air bases every 200 or so miles--from Guadalcanal to the eastern tip of New Guinea. In stock, we see bases being built from 0 up to 3 in four or five days, which means the Allies could theoretically do that advance in a month, resulting in factors other than base construction limiting the Allied tempo.

So the question of this thread is what aspects of the stock game engine are unrealistically fast/intense or slow/laid back, and what has been done about them in AE?

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Post #: 1
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 1:43:14 PM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline
Air units operating one plane type one day, and a full operational complement of a different type the next day. Now THAT is a.... errrrrr.... accelerated.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 2
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 1:53:47 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
That's not going to happen any more. 100% certain.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 3
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 2:02:25 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
Harry,

The Allies chose to advance in a deliberate method up the Solomons; they had relatively little assets in play in 1942-43 in the region, so they were cautious in risking them by making sure there was LBA within range to provide some support for the next landing.  Advances in the Central Pacific took assets from the South Pacific theater and vice versa, but the Allied player has the option of ignoring the two-prong advance if he wants and concentrate on either the Central or South Pacific routes, something no one would have considered IRL.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 2:04:56 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14123
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
My own take is once a side gets rolling its still quite fast.

I think thats largely because its possible to over commit and get your AF shredded.

In stock players (especially Japanese) can take 300 - 400 plane losses and recover in a week or two.

It takes longer now so if you overcommit to one operation and get shredded you leave a 'hole' in your air superiority for an inferior enmeny to advance.

Not sure this is making sense.

What I am trying to say is if players play it like stock and fight with 100% of their force for every inch of ground and don't keep operational reserves in theatre - it is possible for an opponent to advance quite quickly after that initial surge force is wrecked because it takes longer to recover

Both sides need to avoid cataclysmic battles from being the norm - getting 70% of your B17 force damaged or losing 80% of all Betties in theatre takes time to recover from - more so than stock.

As a result you need to be dammed sure before you commit.


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 2:28:26 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

What I am trying to say is if players play it like stock and fight with 100% of their force for every inch of ground and don't keep operational reserves in theatre - it is possible for an opponent to advance quite quickly after that initial surge force is wrecked because it takes longer to recover

Both sides need to avoid cataclysmic battles from being the norm - getting 70% of your B17 force damaged or losing 80% of all Betties in theatre takes time to recover from - more so than stock.

As a result you need to be dammed sure before you commit.



Are we less likely to see AARs in which 400 a/c attack bases in general due to this? Perhaps more often so as to make sure that they have air superiority... I dunno, could go either way.

Recon reigns supreme as always though.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 6
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 2:32:47 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10380
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The main problem with stock WiTP is tempo.

...

what has been done about them in AE?


In no particular order - and I'm sure I'm leaving some out ....

01 - Bases are smaller in general, SPS are smaller in general.

02 - Construction takes longer.

03 - Less supply available, especially in first year of war.

04 - Less shipping available, especially in first year of war.

05 - load and unloading take longer, especially at smaller ports.

06 - Negative effects of amphibious landing without preparation are more severe.

07 - Refueling and rearming require more port capacity.

08 - Air units cannot instantly refill all their planes.

09 - Ship repairs take longer, more upgrades and conversion available which take longer to take effect.

10 - Overstacking air units at smaller bases has greater negative effects

11 - Japanese resource availability and consumption are both dramatically increased meaning that many times more Japanese shipping must be used to move resources - no more 300 idle AK anti-shipping shortage.

12 - FoW increased - (if FoW is turned on). Can't tell for sure where any planes are, where ships are, where land units are, what bases have been built up. Can't tell for sure what enemy ships have been sunk.

13 - Japanese R&D rationalized (if this toggle is turned on). Ability to switch R&D factories to current real production types is disabled.

14 - Reduction of duplicated and triplicated units in the OOBs.

As I said, I'm sure I'm forgetting some things - but these are a few. But all this being said, the single more important way to reduce tempo in both stock and AE is use of multi-day turns. I switched to 2-day turns a couple of years ago. It took a lot of Nik insistance - and about 400 PBEM turns before I decided I liked it - but now I doubt I would return to 1-day turns - at least for a campaign game. And for AE, to accelerate testing, I've been using 3-day turns - and hecque I may decide I like that even better. The multi-day turns require more planning - you need to really think before you commit. A person "acting" will have some advantage because the other person's ability to "react" will (realistically) be reduced - but if you act at the wrong time and place you could have problems. But gone are the abilities to quickly sail every boat to the threated area - and fly all the planes to a few bases nearby. So for those concerned about tempo - I definitely recommend trying multi-day turns. Maybe try something like a shorter campaign (Guadalcanal) first before deciding you want to commit to a campaign game with it. Most people (as I did) will need a "get used to it" period. Like I said, it took me about 400 PBEM turns to decided I liked the shift to 2-day turns - and probably taking about the same to decide I like 3-day turns. So it might not happen right away. But it will make a big dent in tempo issues.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 7
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 3:01:05 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
I can't wait to see the 'designer's notes' for AE!

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 8
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 3:09:26 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I can't wait to see the 'designer's notes' for AE!



Me either!



(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 9
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 3:22:20 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
Question: How many AE developers does it take to answer a question?


Answer: All of them because, the manual isn't done yet!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 10
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 3:54:14 PM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2215
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline
Thanks jwilkerson for taking the time and breaking down some of the details, it cleared up some questions I had 

_____________________________


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 11
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 4:36:42 PM   
Norm3


Posts: 496
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline
Same here!

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 12
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 7:00:26 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Me either!

Uh ... Don?? ... Were we supposed to make notes??

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 13
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 7:30:15 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Me either!

Uh ... Don?? ... Were we supposed to make notes??


Dog ate mine...


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 14
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 8:10:32 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

What I am trying to say is if players play it like stock and fight with 100% of their force for every inch of ground and don't keep operational reserves in theatre - it is possible for an opponent to advance quite quickly after that initial surge force is wrecked because it takes longer to recover

Both sides need to avoid cataclysmic battles from being the norm - getting 70% of your B17 force damaged or losing 80% of all Betties in theatre takes time to recover from - more so than stock.

As a result you need to be dammed sure before you commit.



Are we less likely to see AARs in which 400 a/c attack bases in general due to this? Perhaps more often so as to make sure that they have air superiority... I dunno, could go either way.

Recon reigns supreme as always though.


I haven't seen a distinct 400-plane air raid in all the test games I've played. EVER. Don't even know if they're possible any more.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 15
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 8:22:25 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10380
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
I haven't seen a distinct 400-plane air raid in all the test games I've played. EVER. Don't even know if they're possible any more.


Actually, IIRC I got you to run some focused tests about a year ago, after our TTMW scenario testing. Like 200-300 4EB versus 100 Tony. And it was those tests and their ultimate results that got me comforable that Ian and Michael had finally addressed the "uber air battle" issue. But other than focused tests by you and Steve and maybe a few others - there haven't been many big air battles. In general air battles tend to be smaller in AE.

So I didn't mention this in my list above - but mitigation of the "uber air battle" problem is also of huge (indirect) assistance in reducing tempo issues.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 8:38:58 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I still have that spreadsheet. Maximum strength was 144 USAAF bombers + 72 fighters against 144 fighters. That's the closest I've ever come.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 17
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 9:07:00 PM   
fabertong


Posts: 4533
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The main problem with stock WiTP is tempo.

...

what has been done about them in AE?


In no particular order - and I'm sure I'm leaving some out ....

01 - Bases are smaller in general, SPS are smaller in general.

02 - Construction takes longer.

03 - Less supply available, especially in first year of war.

04 - Less shipping available, especially in first year of war.

05 - load and unloading take longer, especially at smaller ports.

06 - Negative effects of amphibious landing without preparation are more severe.

07 - Refueling and rearming require more port capacity.

08 - Air units cannot instantly refill all their planes.

09 - Ship repairs take longer, more upgrades and conversion available which take longer to take effect.

10 - Overstacking air units at smaller bases has greater negative effects

11 - Japanese resource availability and consumption are both dramatically increased meaning that many times more Japanese shipping must be used to move resources - no more 300 idle AK anti-shipping shortage.

12 - FoW increased - (if FoW is turned on). Can't tell for sure where any planes are, where ships are, where land units are, what bases have been built up. Can't tell for sure what enemy ships have been sunk.

13 - Japanese R&D rationalized (if this toggle is turned on). Ability to switch R&D factories to current real production types is disabled.

14 - Reduction of duplicated and triplicated units in the OOBs.

As I said, I'm sure I'm forgetting some things - but these are a few. But all this being said, the single more important way to reduce tempo in both stock and AE is use of multi-day turns. I switched to 2-day turns a couple of years ago. It took a lot of Nik insistance - and about 400 PBEM turns before I decided I liked it - but now I doubt I would return to 1-day turns - at least for a campaign game. And for AE, to accelerate testing, I've been using 3-day turns - and hecque I may decide I like that even better. The multi-day turns require more planning - you need to really think before you commit. A person "acting" will have some advantage because the other person's ability to "react" will (realistically) be reduced - but if you act at the wrong time and place you could have problems. But gone are the abilities to quickly sail every boat to the threated area - and fly all the planes to a few bases nearby. So for those concerned about tempo - I definitely recommend trying multi-day turns. Maybe try something like a shorter campaign (Guadalcanal) first before deciding you want to commit to a campaign game with it. Most people (as I did) will need a "get used to it" period. Like I said, it took me about 400 PBEM turns to decided I liked the shift to 2-day turns - and probably taking about the same to decide I like 3-day turns. So it might not happen right away. But it will make a big dent in tempo issues.



#12 is the exciting thing.......as stock doesn't really have any FOW........

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 18
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 9:41:38 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
That's certainly an important thing. I'm currently running a summer '43 game, where Allied bombers are attacking my air bases in Burma... It's refreshingly different to not see the little airfield symbol next to enemy bases with aircraft unless you recon them.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 19
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 9:59:37 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2559
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's certainly an important thing. I'm currently running a summer '43 game, where Allied bombers are attacking my air bases in Burma... It's refreshingly different to not see the little airfield symbol next to enemy bases with aircraft unless you recon them.


I do hope that means that the Allies have more than two recon sqds. available for the whole Pacific Theater of Operations for 1942 outside of the Dutch units in the DEI..

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 10:15:18 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
There's about 13 of them, as far as a cursory count tells me. I'd guess there's roughly 50 or so Allied recon units in the entire OOB.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 21
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 10:23:17 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1166
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


...But all this being said, the single more important way to reduce tempo in both stock and AE is use of multi-day turns. I switched to 2-day turns a couple of years ago. It took a lot of Nik insistance - and about 400 PBEM turns before I decided I liked it - but now I doubt I would return to 1-day turns - at least for a campaign game...



I really like the feel of 2-day turns. More planning and less risk taking.

< Message edited by Wirraway_Ace -- 5/7/2009 10:45:17 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 22
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 10:29:28 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Same here...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 23
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 10:53:23 PM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4394
Joined: 9/5/2001
Status: offline
I tried it once and didn't like 2 day turns. I guess I will have to try it again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 24
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 11:10:57 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
I'm becoming a convert to the multi-day turn myself...

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 25
RE: Tempo - 5/7/2009 11:54:16 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10380
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
I've never tried 3-day turns in stock (PBEM anyway) 2-day yes - a lot - but not three day. One critical enabler for 3-day turns in AE is the waypoint system - without this - the 3-day turn becomes much less attractive.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 26
RE: Tempo - 5/8/2009 1:53:59 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3670
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
The reason I will never play multi-day turns is because of the CV engagement problem. If a surprise engagement occurs on day one that hammers your group, your CV task force will blindly continue along its plot on day two to be finished off instead of retiring. An even worse case issue would be spotting an enemy CV force on the first day with a large convoy loaded to the gills with troops that you would then normally move away in an attempt to avoid it, but instead you steam on ahead into deaths door when no sane commander would have done so.

If there was some kind of interrupt that broke into a multi-day turn to prevent this, then I'd play multi-day turns all day long. But CVs and loaded transport groups are simply too valuable and the inadvertent loss due to them mindlessly plodding along a pre-determined plot even in the face of danger is too much of a game breaker to allow me to bring myself to commit to such a game.

Besides I find one day turn games move along just fine if I have an opponent that can do 2 or more turns a day.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 5/8/2009 1:54:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 27
RE: Tempo - 5/8/2009 3:03:52 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10380
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
The multi-day turns may not be for everyone. I was proposing them for those who were concerned about tempo.

That being said - the reason I finally decided I liked 2-day turns in stock, was because of the way CV engagements work. Now I can "zoom" my CV group in to a battle - have them fight - and then "zoom" away.

The one battle in particular that got me to love it - I was the Japanese, the action was in the Solomons. Nik's carriers were somewhere just South of Gili-gili. My carriers were just NE of Shortlands. I home ported myself at Shortlands and then plotted a high speed run down to the East end of the Louisades with "retire" set. My carriers ran down to the target hex on day one - fought and won and carrier battle - then returned to Shortlands where I had some fuel waiting - the carriers refueled and by the time I got control back - the carriers were topped off and ready for another mission. That sold me!

In one day turns in stock - I usually plotted my carriers for "patrol" orders when they were fighting - to get them to stay in the hex I plotted during the battle day. But in multi-day turns I aways use retire orders - then I will run away almost no matter what. So plot where you want to go - fight your battle then run away. The 2-day turn offers this "symmetry" - and in stock it works well - at leasts for me.

But, if aspects other than tempo are more important to you - then keep enjoying the 1-day turns! I think the vast majority of players prefer 1-day turns - and I'm ok with that. Just let me enjoy my 2-day turns!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 28
RE: Tempo - 5/8/2009 3:43:06 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 22623
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Well gee Joe, you keep asking us permission for you to enjoy things! Of course you'll always get it.



BTW, you could always give 'retire' orders in one day turns.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 29
RE: Tempo - 5/8/2009 5:57:27 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3670
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Just let me enjoy my 2-day turns!


I was merely discussing my reasons for not doing multi-day turns, not criticizing your choice to play them. I would find it interesting to know if many engagements as I've described have occurred in your games though. And if so, have you simply accepted them as part of the cost paid for increasing the games tempo?

I can see my concerns being less of an issue playing as Japan than as the allies though. The problem with the allies is transit distances. So for instance if I'm relocating carriers to OZ or NZ from the west coast after upgrades, it's impossible to do the move/retire pattern you describe.

And if KB suddenly appears along your route, then you're going to continue plodding along until sunk. With interior lines, transit distances for Japan are far less and they are seldom put in a position where a surprise CV task force might appear along their route of travel. So overall these kinds of risks are probably more of a concern to an allied player due to the vast distances he has to traverse exposed in open water far outside the detection ranges of land based air search planes.

Jim



< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 5/8/2009 5:58:16 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tempo Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172