warplan vs warplan pacific

Warplan is a World War 2 simulation engine. It is a balance of realism and playability incorporating the best from 50 years of World War 2 board wargaming.

Moderator: AlvaroSousa

Post Reply
boldairade
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:07 pm

warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by boldairade »

any idea what the relative popularity of these two titles are?

i was wondering if one or the other has a big edge.

which one is inspiring more MP games?
User avatar
stjeand
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Location: Aurora, NC

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by stjeand »

Warplan Europe I believe is currently more popular.
I enjoy it a lot more.

I am trying to enjoy the Pacific but it is boring in comparison and has some issues to work out.

Sadly I think the Pacific needs more interaction with Europe to work better at the strategic level it is at.
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 10213
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by AlvaroSousa »

Europe is more exciting for sure.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
User avatar
sveint
Posts: 3667
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Glorious Europe

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by sveint »

I think Pacific needs an earlier start. In Europe we can do different things. Playing the Pacific is like starting in Summer 41 in Europe.
canuckgamer
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:20 am

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by canuckgamer »

My friend and I are currently playing a PBEM game of War Plan Europe. Our intention along with another friend is to purchase War Plan Pacific once we finish this PBEM game. If WP Pacific is boring, what are the positives that make it still worth buying?
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 10213
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by AlvaroSousa »

Boring is a matter of opinion. It is a better version of the WP engine.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
User avatar
ncc1701e
Posts: 7918
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:50 pm
Location: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by ncc1701e »

WPP is not boring, it is different. If you like land warfare, this is more WPE. WPP will have more naval actions.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
User avatar
MagicMissile
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:18 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by MagicMissile »

I dont think the WPP is boring either. I havent played PBEM in the game yet but I will. I really enjoy the Lightfoot vs Stjeand AAR in the WPP forum.

I think:

1) More thought was put into the land combat system since WPE is mostly landbased so in WP2 maybe the naval combat engine can be developed somehow a bit more. I guess land and Naval battles are very different in nature. A land based battle can last for weeks and months whereas a naval battle is over often in a matter of hours and even minutes. Maybe difficult to create exciting naval action on the strategic level. I think for example World in flames kind of have the same problem.

2) At least for me as an European the war in Europe and especially the Epic scale of the fighting on the eastern front is the war that matters. So maybe it is just that the War in Europe interests people more than the War in the Pacific.

/MM

User avatar
stjeand
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Location: Aurora, NC

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by stjeand »

Let me try to explain this better.

The game "feels" boring...not that it is boring.

There seems to be a lot more downtime and things that need to be worked out.

For example...

India is far to easy for the Japanese to take. It should be impossible but it is not. In the game MagicMissle is discussing I played only to focus on India leaving everything else pretty much to its own devices. Why? Wanted to prove something with Lightfoot.
NOW I played it poorly so India did not fall...but now I know how to take it out much more quickly next time.

And what is missing is small naval battles. Both sides run around with massive CV fleets to try to catch the other.
With the ability of the fleets to move so far they are able to jump around quickly so there is no need to split them up.
Having small fleets is dangerous with that ability and they will die quickly only to never be able to be replaced due to time and costs.

I have pondered halving all the movement, PP, oil and such in the game and switching to weekly moves to see if that does anything.
With the navies only able to move shorter distances they will need to be spread out rather than a massive fleet sitting in Rabaul able to cover most of the South Pacific.
That will be another phase of my pet project if I feel up to it and find some others wanting to test that.

I think some small changes here or there will make it play out a bit better.
User avatar
ncc1701e
Posts: 7918
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:50 pm
Location: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by ncc1701e »

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

1) More thought was put into the land combat system since WPE is mostly landbased so in WP2 maybe the naval combat engine can be developed somehow a bit more. I guess land and Naval battles are very different in nature. A land based battle can last for weeks and months whereas a naval battle is over often in a matter of hours and even minutes. Maybe difficult to create exciting naval action on the strategic level. I think for example World in flames kind of have the same problem.

Perhaps an automatic retreat of engaging fleets (on both sides) must be implemented, So that each fleet is lasting longer.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 4474
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Let me try to explain this better.

The game "feels" boring...not that it is boring.

There seems to be a lot more downtime and things that need to be worked out.

For example...

India is far to easy for the Japanese to take. It should be impossible but it is not. In the game MagicMissle is discussing I played only to focus on India leaving everything else pretty much to its own devices. Why? Wanted to prove something with Lightfoot.
NOW I played it poorly so India did not fall...but now I know how to take it out much more quickly next time.

And what is missing is small naval battles. Both sides run around with massive CV fleets to try to catch the other.
With the ability of the fleets to move so far they are able to jump around quickly so there is no need to split them up.
Having small fleets is dangerous with that ability and they will die quickly only to never be able to be replaced due to time and costs.

I have pondered halving all the movement, PP, oil and such in the game and switching to weekly moves to see if that does anything.
With the navies only able to move shorter distances they will need to be spread out rather than a massive fleet sitting in Rabaul able to cover most of the South Pacific.
That will be another phase of my pet project if I feel up to it and find some others wanting to test that.

I think some small changes here or there will make it play out a bit better.

Are there scout planes and detection levels in WPP like WITPAE? Smaller fleets should be harder to detect...
Image
User avatar
stjeand
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Location: Aurora, NC

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by stjeand »

I believe smaller are harder...but there are no "scout" planes...that is all automated so that you don't have to micromanage.
canuckgamer
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:20 am

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by canuckgamer »

stjeand, your comment about both sides running around with massive CV fleets brings back bad memories of how a number of board games I've played on the war in the Pacific were played. Games like USN from SPI, Asia Engulfed, and Pacific Victory from Columbia Games. Both sides did exactly what you said so there weren't smaller carriers battles like the Coral Sea or actually much in the way of naval engagements at all until the "big one". If this is an issue with War Plan Pacific it is my opinion that the lack of FOW is the cause.
User avatar
stjeand
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Location: Aurora, NC

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by stjeand »

There is a FOW...you can't see the enemy fleets unless your recon finds them...which is rare early on, unless they sail near your territory.

I created a mod to test switching the max CVs in a fleet from 6 to 4...so that the US can actually "fight" and the Japanese CVs have to split up a bit.
Just have to test if that hampers the Japanese too much so that they are not able to do anything. One bad battle...an early Midway...and they are doomed.
Now that does mean that the Japanese have 2 max CV fleets...though 2 of those CVs are CVLs...but it requires quite a few tests.
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 10213
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: warplan vs warplan pacific

Post by AlvaroSousa »

I thought about linking the CV tech to the # of CVs you can operate in a fleet.

39 = 1
40 = 2
41 = 3
42 = 4
43 = 5
44 = 6
45 = 7 (US did have a 7 CV + 8 CVL fleet in the Philippine Sea battle if I remember. Japan had 9 CV/CVLs
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
Post Reply

Return to “WarPlan”