List of settings and gamey

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

gmtello
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 4:53 pm

List of settings and gamey

Post by gmtello »

Could someone tell me where is the list of settings and things u should not do in this game. Gamey things that should be avoided
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

That's a large can of worms you are opening [X(]

Different types of players consider different things as being gamey. In the extreme, certain AFBs consider the slightest ahistorical advantage given to JFBs as being gamey - and vice versa. Some players go "anything the game engine allows is ok", other restrain themselves with self-imposed house rules. Maybe we can come up with a list of "issues" or "disputed topics" - but up to you to decide if you want to consider each item as being gamey or not. In PBEM, such topics should be discussed beforehand with the opponent.

For a start:

- using full-speed off-map movement
- skipping models in plane R&D instead of researching each model one after another
- carrying fuel in AK types
- first turn "deep invasions"
- 4E low level naval attacks
- using gaggles of single-ship TFs instead of grouping in one TF
- use of non-militarized ships as pickets
- submarine-launched "invasions" for recon purposes

EDIT:

- resizing carrier and float-plane air groups
- "sprinkling" small numbers of paratroopers (a single planeload for example) to capture undefended bases in the rear or to block retreat paths for much larger enemy units (as opposed to dropping the entire unit)
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by Chickenboy »

The most common HRs that come to mind involve use of / movement of restricted HQ units outside of their theaters. Even though it's possible to rail move vast quantities of Manchuko Japanese troops to central China, for example, most PBEM games that I am familiar with require one to "pay" political points to switch the HQ to an unrestricted command.
Image
rms1pa
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:32 am

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by rms1pa »

aaaaand carrier hunting on the first couple turns.
sending the manchuco garrison straight to chunking.
city bombing in/from china.

good luck there is more ,depends on the individuals.

rms/pa
there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

That's a large can of worms you are opening [X(]

Different types of players consider different things as being gamey. In the extreme, certain AFBs consider the slightest ahistorical advantage given to JFBs as being gamey - and vice versa. Some players go "anything the game engine allows is ok", other restrain themselves with self-imposed house rules. Maybe we can come up with a list of "issues" or "disputed topics" - but up to you to decide if you want to consider each item as being gamey or not. In PBEM, such topics should be discussed beforehand with the opponent.

For a start:

- using full-speed off-map movement
- skipping models in plane R&D instead of researching each model one after another
- carrying fuel in AK types
- first turn "deep invasions"
- 4E low level naval attacks In my last PBM we did not use this rule and we both found no problem. With the changes in flak effectiveness low flying 4EB get hit very hard by shipboard flak; there is the "opportunity cost" (credit to Moose) that the Allied player pays for not using 4EB for better purposes; 'hard target vs soft target' lightly armed ships IRL got hit from low level by 4EB quite a bit. I was the Allied player and I did self-limit USA 4EB to high level except sometimes on port strikes. USN, USMC(?), and various squadrons of anti-ship radar equipped British, et al 4EB were intended to make low level attacks. All house rules are "YMMV" and very individual to the players in each PBM. I feel this one is best without a hard house rule but with a "light touch".
- using gaggles of single-ship TFs instead of grouping in one TF The intent is right but a hard rule here is wrong, it is situation dependent. Use IRL as a guide. Using single-ship TF to game targeting routines definitely wrong unless the players agree to it ahead of time.
- use of non-militarized ships as pickets
- submarine-launched "invasions" for recon purposes AFAIK game code was changed to only allow certain unit types to load aboard subs in combat mode (From my notes: Symbol 19 = commando, can land in combat mode from subs). IMO those units should be allowed to recon by invasion, but as with all HR YMMV.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

The most common HRs that come to mind involve use of / movement of restricted HQ units outside of their theaters. Even though it's possible to rail move vast quantities of Manchuko Japanese troops to central China, for example, most PBEM games that I am familiar with require one to "pay" political points to switch the HQ to an unrestricted command.
+1. And with restricted units in India.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

aaaaand carrier hunting on the first couple turns. Personally I think "no carrier hunting" on turn 1 is good enough. The Allied player also has hindsight and knows the war/game is starting and so has 1 naval movement phase (Dec 7 only has 1) to get moving. If the Allied player gets caught after that too bad. Of course the turn 1 restriction must be an honest one, meaning it includes the Japan player not positioning forces in a ring around the know position of Allied carriers!
sending the manchuco garrison straight to chunking.
city bombing in/from china.

good luck there is more ,depends on the individuals.

rms/pa
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by BBfanboy »

Not putting large aircraft on vessels that could not accommodate them IRL. Example - Jake FPs on the I-boats that carried Glens, or a squadron of 27 Corsairs/Hellcats on a CVE that IRL could only carry 30 Wildcats (18 Corsairs/Hellcats would be OK in my estimate).
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by Lokasenna »

It's a game, not a simulation. Everything is gamey.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Not putting... a squadron of 27 Corsairs/Hellcats on a CVE that IRL could only carry 30 Wildcats (18 Corsairs/Hellcats would be OK in my estimate).
I would only be comfortable with that after some real confirmation.
gmtello
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 4:53 pm

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by gmtello »

My opponent has brought many Indian units to Sumatra and Burma while i keep manchukuo Harrison in 12000 when required is 8000
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by spence »

My opponent has brought many Indian units to Sumatra and Burma while i keep manchukuo Harrison in 12000 when required is 8000

There's a number of Brigades which enter the game assigned to Burma Command and destined to Rangoon. There's also a number of units which enter early that are headed to Singapore (actually arriving there IRL) but since your planes probably make reinforcing Singapore difficult (at least) they end up going to Sumatra (Palembang?).
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by spence »

It's a game, not a simulation. Everything is gamey.

+1

If you're looking for a simulation you should adhere to the following house rules which restrict the IJ Player, among which are:

1) search carefully for the dullest tools in the shed to assign as the captains of all units you intend to use for ASW/convoy escorts until about 1/45 and not put more than 5 ships in any convoy until about 6/44. Never train any air unit in ASW until 1/45 or so.

2) No IJN fighter unit can ever escort IJA bombers. No IJA fighter can ever escort IJN bombers.





User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Checking the thread on my cellphone, which renders the left side with the personal info too small to be read without resizing - and just from reading the post I knew it must be Spence [;)]
Ian R
Posts: 3426
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by Ian R »

- submarine-launched "invasions" for recon purposes

Given that this now requires a commando squad (query paras? - I think I've loaded some of the 6th Rangers on the Argonaut for one of these) and one of the 3 available SSTs, and happened at places like Makin, can't see the need for this on the Allied side. Not sure about the IJ side - do they get a lot of SSTs in balanced scenarios?

(It was, of course, different in the vanilla game where you could load a division's worth of combat squads into multiple subs and it rapidly became very silly. I remember reading a post from Don Bowen on the subject of why that was changed).
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

-All house rules are "YMMV" and very individual to the players in each PBM.
+1
Pax
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by Chris21wen »

Some like to restrict the height of F/FBs to one altitude level above that of their best performance. Is this still relevant?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Some like to restrict the height of F/FBs to one altitude level above that of their best performance. Is this still relevant?
No. Two points. First, I hate that HR because it makes it far more likely I will accidentally break the HR and if I agree to an HR I want to obey it. Second, it's just wrong. The way to look at air to air combat is that the altitude is a metaphor; NOT there there are really squadrons at those altitudes. It's the relative altitudes that matter. As many players have pointed out there are defensive counters to high sweeps. Effectiveness of those measures varies with the planes involved, the pilots, and other factors. Sometimes one player has a great advantage and at other times the other player has a great advantage. That is reflective of reality.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Some like to restrict the height of F/FBs to one altitude level above that of their best performance. Is this still relevant?
No. Two points. First, I hate that HR because it makes it far more likely I will accidentally break the HR and if I agree to an HR I want to obey it. Second, it's just wrong. The way to look at air to air combat is that the altitude is a metaphor; NOT there there are really squadrons at those altitudes. It's the relative altitudes that matter. As many players have pointed out there are defensive counters to high sweeps. Effectiveness of those measures varies with the planes involved, the pilots, and other factors. Sometimes one player has a great advantage and at other times the other player has a great advantage. That is reflective of reality.

Except it's not wrong. It was passed down as a HR implemented and used by the game programmers themselves, who were fully aware of the realism limitations of the very engine that they programmed. The Elf suggested this very workaround to the unfortunate devolution of stratospheric sweeps. He was well aware the effects of altitude on that initial bounce and speed in combat.

Altitude is only a metaphor if it's not hard capped. When it is, then it ceases to be a metaphor and becomes a numerical / mathematical problem.

Yes, there have been some creative workarounds since then. But the HR, on stock games, is still a needful to limit stratospheric sweeps. This is 'ground truth' until a developer chimes in to counter his previous stance on this issue.
Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: List of settings and gamey

Post by witpqs »

No, some planes could fight higher than others and that leads to advantages and disadvantages coming and going.
Post Reply

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