Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 8/16/2001 2:11:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Gee, my last post seems to have suddenly killed all interest in this issue. Sorry, guys, I didn't mean it. I take it back.

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 61
- 8/16/2001 2:33:00 AM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
Byron,
Your point about aircraft variants is well taken, I can't dispute your logic-but I still long for a variant where long range heavy bombers were an option for the Japanese (there was some thought of converting the 4 engine seaplanes to a bomber at some point but lack of supply cancelled it) Imagine a Solomons campaign where land based attacks by heavy bombers on Guadalcanal bottle up the Marines until the Japs get thier division landed-instead of turned back?
I know its not historical- but I kind of disagree that it "only" becomes another wargame if you stray too far from the path of history...I want a wargame that gives me options while the fields of battle may change due to strategic decisions (long range heavy bombers? I may just really go after the Aleuteans to bomb Seattle USA) it's still War in the Pacific? Yup, just the Northern Pacific not South Central Pacific... It is absolutely unhistorical hypothesis to do this, yet could you defend it as the US? Sure but the rest of the war changes as you change to meet this threat, factor in type of weapons produced to fight an Arctic style war instead of fry your ass in the heat war.
I like it from my perspective-however I see your point too and I feel it should be an option, not a rule-so both of us could be happy with the same base game, just options allow us to play it differently.
Just a thought
Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 62
- 8/16/2001 2:40:00 AM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
lol, Byron,
Sorry my lazy ass has been working nightwork so, Ive been lax about my reading,
I saw your post so if you want go to chat- I would find it interesting to exchange the ideas live with you...
and dont take it back! Stand your ground Man!!! VBG Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 63
- 8/16/2001 9:16:00 PM   
Doug Olenick

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: ny
Status: offline
Back again. Was actually in Norfolk, Va. and recevied a great tour of the naval base from a friend who is captain of an USNS oil tanker. Anyway, I read through the recent posts and two points came to mind. First, PacWar does a decent job simulating the delay that takes place when airplane construction is shifted from one type to another. There is a several, at least, turn delay in starting construction. While I'm sure the tooling up process took much longer during the war, simply saying "OK I'm switching from F4Fs to F6Fs so no construction will take place in these factories for 6 weeks." This is arbitrary, but easy enough. I like the idea of a points system to allocate what should be built. This would allow players to replace what they need. You need CVs, knock yourself out. Hate CVls, well then don't build them. Halting production of a fighter line to transfer the build points to shipping or something would be nice. Who needs 2500 P-40s? For the Japanese player this could be somewhat beneficial, but using historical conditions the end result might not matter much. The Japanese just did not have the capacity to build much. think of how few ships were started and completed during the war. Only a few carriers, DDs and CLs. There is very little wiggle room. What would have to be done is have a non-historical game where the Japanese manufacturing capacity was brought up to par with the US. This could be very fun. Imagine an air battle between four US and four IJN air TFs. WOW.

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 64
- 8/16/2001 9:17:00 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Chatting sounds like fun, but I don’t know how. I see the link to “chat” on the top of the screen. How does it work? And can you have a multi-party chat? By the way, I won’t chat with anyone that doesn’t hold the same views I do on everything. Okay, I’ll cave in on the long-ranged bomber thing. I, too, was arguing for being able to change the course of history. Would it be possible to use historical planes or prototypes and simply introduce them earlier with sufficient spending on R&D? For example, I’ve seen somewhere – probably an EAW mod site – a Japanese bomber built late in the war that looked a lot like the B-17. What if you could introduce it earlier? Of course, there would have to be limits. Aircraft were developed incrementally and designed based on the experiences with earlier aircraft. If you didn’t design in some limits, a player would just start spending R&D on F8F’s in 1942. Or maybe you could limit ahistorical production to a class or model that the side didn’t actually have. For example, the Japanese could make one type of four-engined bomber, medium or heavy tank. A side would otherwise be limited to historical aircraft, though he could alter the introduction date. This would allow you have some flexibility while not rendering every model aircraft unrecognizable. Actually, I guess I don’t care so long as the computer doesn’t go too wild on me. I don’t play on-line or do PBEM. As long as I can control my own production and can choose not to build a B-17J and the computer won’t either, it don’t matter to me. Again, I think it’s moot because Gary’s going to be hardwiring so much of the aircraft info.


_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 65
- 8/17/2001 12:07:00 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1524
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
I'm gonna jump in here one last time, and I know I'm gonna get creamed doing but....
WiTP is meant to put the player in the position of Nimitz or MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the forces in the area. I feel like all this talk of influencing production is great, and very interesting, but off topic. I don't really think its important for the player to influence production so much. A little bit of leeway is ok, but picking new variants of planes and naming new ships? Seems a little over the top to me. If you want variation in gameplay, then use different tactics or strategies when you play. Use your divisions to capture the Aleutians if you want, or whatever. Matrix - Please don't bog the game down with unnecessary production options. Keep the focus on decision making with regards to the war, not manufacturing... Ok, thats it, I'm done posting on this topic... I promise.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 66
- 8/17/2001 5:51:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Matrix: Please ignore Madflava's completely unwarranted and idiotic request that is obviously supported only by those one person. Was that getting creamed enough? I'm just kidding obviously. I've enjoyed your earlier posts. Two comments: 1. I don't think any of us loopy individuals wanting to play with production have suggested that it be mandatory. We, or at least I, have always suggested that this more involved production system be an option. When you start the game, you can choose to have historical production or optional production. Historical production would pump out everything just as it did in the real war, and you'd never have to do the white-collar REMF job of planning production. You'd just get stuff every turn and go kill. But, if you choose the other option, you are given control over production. Again, it is purely an option just like the level of AI ability, fog of war, or a realistic flight model. No one argues whether a game should or should not have fog of war; it is an option that can please both sides - as could this option. 2. This is admittedly a picky point, but it does serve my purposes. Apologies in advance. This game does NOT place you in the position of Halsey and MacArthur. Both were concerned with strategies in their particular theatre of operations and did not concern themselves with whether the U.S.S. Benson was in Task Force 1 or Task Force 52. Similarly, they were also concerned about mundane issues that neither one of us would consider remotely interesting. And, to an extent, they were worried about supply and replacement, which play into the production system. My point is that the game allows you to micro-manage the battles to a degree that neither they nor their commanders several levels down the chain of command would be concerned. Likewise, the game thankfully relieves us of worrying about mundane issues that they had to. So what this game is is a game that recreates the Pacific war, covering half the globe for a period of five years. It allows you to make decisions that would be made at levels from the President and the War Department all the way down to a Division commander and allows you to change the course of history as you see fit. Combat is simulated as are the important elements of a real war that affect combat like supply. You would agree, I'm sure, that supply, while an inherent part of this game, isn't strictly a part of combat; it is a rear echelon thing. But you wouldn't want a wargame without it. Some of us simply want to stretch the scope of the game a bit to include other aspects that ultimately affect combat, such as what types of combat materiel we get and when. If you were really in the role of MacArthur, you would be relegated certain army units and would have no say as to when or where the carriers were used or whether the next invasion was Tarawa or the Marshalls. Furthermore, many of your strategic objectives would be forced down your throat. No, this game allows you to a go the next higher command, i.e., the War Department and President. And, just as they had the ability of deciding whether Halsey or MacArthur got priority of materiel and what grand strategic plan was employed, they also had the authority to alter production. So we're not that far off base in our request. This game encompasses half of the globe and half of the world's population (at least) over a period of four or five years. There may even be political rules for determining when Japan attacks the U.S. and when the USSR enters the war. With a game of that scale, I don't think you can say that controlling production is not in keeping with the purposes of the game. In any event, I don't think you would deny us our alternative production system if it were an OPTION that you would not have to exercise, would you? At least if it did not significantly delay the release date? So please don't urge Matrix to ignore us because you think it's an us versus you scenario. It's not. It could be an us AND you scenario with both of us happy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 67
- 8/17/2001 6:00:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Oh, and Madman: You're obviously welcome to keep posting here. Personally, I think 1) we're kicking this thing to death, and 2) Matrix isn't listening. But this seems to be the only active thread going. If you can get another thread going, that would be great. Got any ideas? How about:
Geopolitical rules: can Japan attack the Indies without attacking the U.S.? When does USSR enter the war? Should there be a chance that England surrenders to Germany? Strategies for the Japanese? Seemed like focusing on India worked well in WiP. Should that be a viable alternative? Would invading the Aleutians do anything? Is it possible for Japan to support and win a land campaign in Alaska/Canada? Could the Japanese mount an effective sub campaign? (Oops, that would require alternative production) Could they capture Hawaii? (Boy, that would be ugly for the U.S.)

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 68
- 8/17/2001 6:05:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Where'd Warpup go to, anyway? He started this thread, and all the trouble is his fault! Here boy! {WHistle, whistle) Warpup!? Where are you, boy? Here boy! Come here, pup!

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 69
- 8/17/2001 8:17:00 AM   
Greg Wilmoth

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/18/2001
From: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by byron:
For example, I’ve seen somewhere – probably an EAW mod site – a Japanese bomber built late in the war that looked a lot like the B-17. What if you could introduce it earlier? Of course, there would have to be limits. Aircraft were developed incrementally and designed based on the experiences with earlier aircraft. If you didn’t design in some limits, a player would just start spending R&D on F8F’s in 1942.

I think the airplane your talking about is the Nakajima G8N Renzan (Mountain Range), Allied code name Rita. According to R.J. Francillon's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War," the specification for this four-engined bomber was issued in Sep 43. The first of four prototypes was completed in Oct 44. One of them survived the war and was brought to the US afterwards for evaluation. Then there was the Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku (Mount Fuji). Again according to Francillon, this 6-engined monster was the result of design studies in 1943 for a bomber capable of hitting the US from bases in Japan. The line drawing in the book looks like a B-29 scaled up to the size of a B-36. Heavy bombers were a road-not-taken by all the major powers except the US and Britain. but it was an option. Even the Soviets had the Petlyakov Pe-8 (aka ANT-42, TB-7), and the Italians the Piagio P.108b, both produced in small numbers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 70
- 8/17/2001 10:25:00 AM   
Warpup

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Roseburg, Oregon, USA
Status: offline
Whoof!!! Whoof!!! Warpup just droping in to say hi! I've been buried in Napoleonics and boardgame stuff for the last month. Just bought "For the People" and "Paths of Glory" from GMT, but haven't had time to read all the rules yet as a friend had talked me into working on a Napoleonic game concept. Think we've been beaten to the punch by a couple of other games that will be going into production soon. My original post was partly a joke, because of the other thread titled "Production, a Simple Approach", which, of course, didn't propase anything simple at all. I still think that the easiest way to allow variety in the production system is a simple device, such as a slider, which would prioritize both research and resource allocation. I think the individual weapons produced should probably not be within the player's control. The various areas of warmaking priorities could be broken down into perhaps 7 or 8 different categories, including: 1. Naval surface battle units
2. Naval air combat units
3. Naval commerce/transport protecting units
4. Naval commerce/transport attacking units
5. Amphibious landing units
6. Army LCU
7. Stategic air units
8. Tactical air units Hmmmm, maybe that should be expanded to 10 or 12. My point, which was probably made be somebody else in one of the pages before this one (I've only read the last page), is that the program can generate resulting research, production capacity, and units in accordance with the priorities picked. Now, back to the Europa Universalis Forums and Consim World Discussion Board...

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 71
- 8/17/2001 11:02:00 AM   
Warpup

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Roseburg, Oregon, USA
Status: offline
Croaker's Matrix. Sounds cool. If the production priority categories were matrixed with the available resources, then you could look a something like a chessboard of boxes showing the levels of things like aluminum or rubber or fabric going into the units. Resources WERE, after all, what the Japanese were fighting for. So why not make it a central tenet of the game??? Games like Civilization and Imperium and Masters of Orion and the like all had a certain level of popularity because of the resource acquisition and management systems. Putting that together with military units that actually fight like something from history would be a big plus, definately a leap ahead of the abstact and strange combat units of the above mentioned games. I think the data is available. And I think Grigsby and partners have it already. Setting the production priorities to "historical" need be no more complicated that the click of the mouse. A few major systems could be subject to a pop up box that asks if you want to produce a major project such as Midway class cruisers or B-29 bombers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 72
- 8/18/2001 4:34:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Hey, Warpup! Where do you live? I've got a friend in Albuquerque that has two 8' foot cabinets stuffed with every Napoleonics game ever made. I'm sure he'd love an opponent. You play Europa Universalis? What do you think?

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 73
- 8/18/2001 11:29:00 AM   
Warpup

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Roseburg, Oregon, USA
Status: offline
I live in Roseburg, Oregon. I haven't really played EU beyond a few absorbing hours with the tutorial. The game is supposed to come into it's own with the grand campaign. The best way to get a feel for the game is to go to the forum site and start reading what the players have to say. I can't remember what it is, maybe www.europa-universalis.com The best comment I read was from one guy who said Europa Universalis got him off internet porn!!! Now that's impressive!!! Be aware that EU2 is in the works, however. It's likely to be an improvement.

_____________________________


(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 74
- 4/28/2002 10:24:24 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Now that everyone is folding their UV tents and tramping over to WitP, I see some issues being raised that have been previously discussed at length. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I've moved some posts on WitP production up to the present so that people will have the benefit of these earlier discussions.

Hope nobody minds!

(in reply to Warpup)
Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.445