Nuts and bolts testers? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message


Michael T -> Nuts and bolts testers? (6/15/2019 9:03:06 PM)

The PC wargaming world is full of rubbish that looks pretty and plays crap. I hope the designer spends most of his time perfecting his design. I really don't care if a button has a flag on it or not. Just as long as it works as intended.

Honestly I am little over hearing about how easy the game can be modded. I want to buy a game that works out the box, not how easy it's going for me or others to fix. Is there anyone who is actually spending time "testing" the design? Pushing it's limits? Testing mechanics, balance etc? Be great to hear from those types.

I never use any kind of mod. My interest is in the how the game plays. Not how it looks. I am yet to see a great game that I am put off playing because of how ugly it is. Yet I see multitudes of fabulous looking games that don't work or are just junk. Guess what, no one plays them.

Is there a tester who is perhaps a PBEM player who has some info or screenies that show some interesting situations?

Examples of combat? How leaders might influence a battle? Please, I am so over hearing about nothing but fluff.




Simulacra53 -> RE: Nut and bolts testers? (6/15/2019 9:16:29 PM)

Sorry, I did not want to disturb the thought police.
Guess only one kind of interest is accepted.

Any interest in something other than core gameplay - a given - is beneath a real war-gamer.

+3000 posts or not, it smells here...





Michael T -> RE: Nut and bolts testers? (6/15/2019 10:13:05 PM)

Still waiting for substance. I think for yourself your kin there are plenty of other fluff threads. Stick to those. I really would like just one that has some real meat.




Meteor2 -> RE: Nut and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 7:05:41 AM)

I really hope the best for the release.
I remember, that SC3 was presented by some AAR from an experienced player (HvS?) before it was finalized.
Maybe a similar precedure would have benefits here, too.




Meteor2 -> RE: Nut and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 7:16:12 AM)

... and Michael T's idea has another advantage.
As soon as the mechanics are nearly complete and presentable, these kind of information will increase the
interesst among the player base.




Simulacra53 -> RE: Nut and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 7:35:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Still waiting for substance. I think for yourself your kin there are plenty of other fluff threads. Stick to those. I really would like just one that has some real meat.


Still smells of preconceived judgement.
Why do you assume I am not just as interested in content as you?
Because I talk about something else?

You even tell me to stay out of this thread.

+3000 post has gone to your head, Matrix royalty?
More like a royal ....

As an Australian youíll have plenty of colorful descriptions for what I have in mind.
Iíll stay out of your VIP thread full of heavy content.

Sorry mods, too much horse manure in this thread.




Zovs -> RE: Nut and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 12:08:54 PM)

I agree where the beef?

So far I have not seen any talk about game mechanics or how two fellows are faring in an actual PBEM game.

As far as ďmanureĒ Simulacra you really need to chill, your personal attacks are uncalled for, Michael T just asked a reasonable question for Peteís sake, donít know what your trying to imply with his post count.




pzgndr -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 12:42:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Is there a tester who is perhaps a PBEM player who has some info or screenies that show some interesting situations?


So far I am seeing some nice innovations, filling a niche between SC and WIF. But itís still beta and has some rough edges to smooth out. As a tester under NDA, I must defer to fuzzypup to release details of his in-progress work. But rest assured, itís looking good. ;)




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 1:57:10 PM)

The mechanics I explained on another page. I am pretty sure of it. So you have to look.

But I'll go quickly over them again.

Land units have different attributes which affect where combat is in a variety of ways.
tanks are better at retreating in open terrain poor in rugged areas
artillery fires 1st in a round
There is motorized movement through rugged terrain
Units have operation points that allow them to move and attack several times in a turn
Effectiveness is very important in the game not to over extend or over exhaust your units.
Breakthroughs are possibles like more traditional wargames
You can setup over supply for an offensive
Generals in HQs affect combat, retreats, surrender (a Japanese general basically never surrenders) and the intensity of combat

Air units are similar to land.
They are fairly common within most games with some better at supporting land units close
others are balanced with range
others lean more toward strategic bombing.
You can bomb airfields, units (with interdiction on movement), production, navies.
You can call a massive airstrike in the area from an HQ on land units to save time
You can put them on full support where they fly ground support for land attacks.
Air units have 2 operation points and effectiveness again is important.
You can setup over supply for better operation

Naval is really the most different system
You can put any amount of ships in a port.
ports have defenses so there is some thinking into what you what to put in what size port.
Players can attack port fleets with their fleets.
fleets have 2 operation points for move and attack.
There are carriers and subs which each have a range to attack while surface groups have a range of 1.

Land units are about positioning, effectiveness, strategic planning. There is a lot of deeper thinking involved. If you played World in Flames the level of thinking is about there but not as obvious on mistakes or as harsh on them.

Air units are leverage on position.

Naval units are about positioning to make you a player can move and intercept within a single operation point where large naval bases are important. In the European theater it isn't as important as in the Pacific. This will come later. Naval combat has detection levels to whereas the closer you are to your own controlled territory the better chance of finding the enemy. The farther you are the harder. Makes hunting the Bismark the actual challenge it was and running up to Japan from Hawaii to invade it suicidal. Covering the central Mediterranean as Italy incredibly important as is taking Malta. Why? Because Malta allows the Allies a high detection level in the area. Players can reduce port supply with naval and air. Malta again is important in this case.

There are no intricate tactical per battle game mechanics like in other games. Think of chess with poker. World in Flames is the closest game to it. And WiF is the most popular WW2 grand strategy game on paper that has ever exists. But you can learn WarPlan much easier and faster than WiF. The thing that keeps it going is how to approach strategies. Even I don't know all the permutations. As I beta tested I discovered some interesting strategic tactics to use which I never intended to put in.

I hope this answers a fair deal of your questions Micheal T.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 2:31:08 PM)

And yes the scenarios will be balanced to the best of mine and the beta testers ability for A.I. play and human play.

A game of this scale takes a lot of testing to balance properly.




welk -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 6:58:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

But rest assured, itís looking good. ;)


And even more than good ! [:'(] Of course, there are still players who do not believe how the game may be fabulous, but they will quickly change their minds when they will see the AAR made by players after release




welk -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 7:03:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup

The mechanics I explained on another page. I am pretty sure of it. So you have to look.

But I'll go quickly over them again.

Land units have different attributes which affect where combat is in a variety of ways.
tanks are better at retreating in open terrain poor in rugged areas
artillery fires 1st in a round
There is motorized movement through rugged terrain
Units have operation points that allow them to move and attack several times in a turn
Effectiveness is very important in the game not to over extend or over exhaust your units.
Breakthroughs are possibles like more traditional wargames
You can setup over supply for an offensive
Generals in HQs affect combat, retreats, surrender (a Japanese general basically never surrenders) and the intensity of combat

Air units are similar to land.
They are fairly common within most games with some better at supporting land units close
others are balanced with range
others lean more toward strategic bombing.
You can bomb airfields, units (with interdiction on movement), production, navies.
You can call a massive airstrike in the area from an HQ on land units to save time
You can put them on full support where they fly ground support for land attacks.
Air units have 2 operation points and effectiveness again is important.
You can setup over supply for better operation

Naval is really the most different system
You can put any amount of ships in a port.
ports have defenses so there is some thinking into what you what to put in what size port.
Players can attack port fleets with their fleets.
fleets have 2 operation points for move and attack.
There are carriers and subs which each have a range to attack while surface groups have a range of 1.

Land units are about positioning, effectiveness, strategic planning. There is a lot of deeper thinking involved. If you played World in Flames the level of thinking is about there but not as obvious on mistakes or as harsh on them.

Air units are leverage on position.

Naval units are about positioning to make you a player can move and intercept within a single operation point where large naval bases are important. In the European theater it isn't as important as in the Pacific. This will come later. Naval combat has detection levels to whereas the closer you are to your own controlled territory the better chance of finding the enemy. The farther you are the harder. Makes hunting the Bismark the actual challenge it was and running up to Japan from Hawaii to invade it suicidal. Covering the central Mediterranean as Italy incredibly important as is taking Malta. Why? Because Malta allows the Allies a high detection level in the area. Players can reduce port supply with naval and air. Malta again is important in this case.

There are no intricate tactical per battle game mechanics like in other games. Think of chess with poker. World in Flames is the closest game to it. And WiF is the most popular WW2 grand strategy game on paper that has ever exists. But you can learn WarPlan much easier and faster than WiF. The thing that keeps it going is how to approach strategies. Even I don't know all the permutations. As I beta tested I discovered some interesting strategic tactics to use which I never intended to put in.

I hope this answers a fair deal of your questions Micheal T.




You should place this sticky somewhere in head of the forum : you would have not top repeat it for each player who has doubts about quality of WP [8|]




Michael T -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 9:14:25 PM)

Again you miss the point. I asked for examples. The designer has repeatedly posted the same points on how his game is supposed to work. I appreciate that.

However, what I am asking for is examples of play.
So some screenies of a battle of encirclement in Russia perhaps, some combat results showing losses for each side, participating units, how leaders influenced the fight, how supply influenced the fight and so on. Frankly I am a little surprised I have to spell this out.

How about a naval battle? What happened when the Italian Fleet got bombed in port by the British CV's?

Is there anyone testing this stuff?

Maybe there is lots of work still to do on these things?

But all that I am hearing so far from testers that are posting is 'hey the game is great, only thing we need to do is mod the graphics'

So that implies the types of examples I am seeking should be readily available.

And I guess here we come to the crux of the matter. What is the point of this forum? If the testers and designer can't or won't showcase and provide examples of how the game works, which directly feeds interest and question raising for the potential buyers, what is it's purpose?










welk -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 9:46:42 PM)

You miss also a more important point : in a life, each one has to take risks. I suggest you to take the very high and very dangerous risk [:D] to buy Warplan without to be sure it's a great game. If you does not love the game, I promise you to ask Fuzzy to give me his credit card to refund your precious money. Be happy ^^[sm=happy0005.gif]




welk -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 9:48:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Is there anyone testing this stuff?




No anyone. We have not time to do that : we just play it [:'(]




Michael T -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 10:17:40 PM)

@note to matrix, you need to improve your beta tester vetting process.




Zovs -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/16/2019 11:59:59 PM)

I guess what I was expecting as far as AAR's go from the beta tests was something like:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4578976

Or:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4539294

Or:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4529711

Or:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4413713

Each has some good and insightful commentary and are filled with screen shots. (da meat)




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 2:19:29 AM)

The testers and I are hard at work stress testing the A.I. and looking for bugs. When this testing slows down something should be out by myself or one of the testers.




welk -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 6:43:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

@note to matrix, you need to improve your beta tester vetting process.

Hahaha[:D] I totally agree with that: it's a scandal, Mr Matrix, you missed again the point : you have immediatly to dismiss these incompetent and lazy testers. [sm=happy0029.gif]




Michael T -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 8:38:50 AM)

Blocked activated. I don't have to see your crap anymore.




welk -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 8:46:33 AM)

Relax, dear friend[:'(] Clenching is a bad thing for your health. We are here to play, not to be vindictive[sm=00000947.gif][sm=happy0005.gif]




juntoalmar -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 8:48:41 AM)

"You can put any amount of ships in a port."

In MWiF there is major ports (with unlimited number of ships in it) and minor ports (with limits), which makes sense to me.

I don't know if it makes sense that the whole US Navy could fit in a small port as Kuching (Malaysia) or a tiny island in the Pacific.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 12:03:01 PM)

Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it. Players won't do it because a small port can't repair and is incredibly vulnerable to being attacked. If the US wanted they could park their fleet around any port, though unwise. There is no need to implement a feature players have to think about when naturally they aren't going to be foolish enough to do it.

Large ports repair and protect against sub/surface attack. Small ports do not.




juntoalmar -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 12:13:43 PM)

That "it's allowed in the game" and that "it's smart for a player to do" are different things.

My point is if it makes sense as part of the rules. If the result is dumb or are master play is irrelevant.




stormbringer3 -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 2:24:58 PM)

What kind of stacking is allowed at sea? I have played games in the past that allowed unlimited stacking at sea. All I had to do was stack the German Fleet in one hex, the AI would attack it piecemeal, and in a short period of time the Germans had complete sea supremacy.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/17/2019 5:45:45 PM)

9 naval groups per fleet with a maximum of 3 carrier groups.

I did some analysis on fleet combat and organization with these amounts sounding about correct with a little more room.

The A.I. will make intelligent decisions on whether to intercept or not based on the following criteria
The ratio of its side's total naval strength vs the strength of the side of the enemy.
The air cover of the area
The recon level of the area

They also will send a fleet of sufficient size not to go in 1 by 1 killing themselves.




Tamas -> RE: Nuts and bolts testers? (6/18/2019 12:57:24 PM)

I would like to make two points:

1. The beta testers are not allowed to share the kind of information you are looking for, mainly on account of things still being worked at.

2. Michael T is perfectly entitled to be concerned about the game's features, even entitled to have largely negative feelings toward it. But the hostile posting style he has shown here is insulting to the whole Matrix community. As a result, I am locking this thread. Michael T, consider this a warning.

If any of you have other questions regarding the naval system or anything else, you are welcome to open new threads for them, but preferably not in Michael T's style.

Thank you.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.203125E-02