War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition...what's stopping you?

[Zulu1966]

Like most of Grigsby's games - the moddeling is nyper detailed - but he just doesnt know how to build the program around it to support it.

Maybe he should just design the game mechanics and then let someone else design the UI to actually help players get the information they need in the manner they need it.

Yes - I wish he would. Someone like the decisive campaigns guy. One of the things he added in the case blue game was to print the locations of all higher headquarters units onto the strategic map - simple but helps no end in situational awareness and something I have wanted in the Panzer campaign games for years. Also his OB stuff is brilliant. This little stuff makes such a difference to how nice these things are to play. So say for example - in the Panzer campaigns games - have a treeview on the left side like the Panther games one - then finding units in your OOB is much easier and situational awareness vastly improved.

[JudgeDredd]

In answer to the topic question - it's still £40  ;)

besides - whilst I love the idea of super detailed games, I seldom get into them and if I do, it's often short lived....I wish I had the dedication and tenacity to keep with them though - because the detailed does interest me

[ArizonaTank]

If you can find a good PBEM opponent who doesn't bail, disappear or slow in returning game turns (not easy to find), the game can be rather fun.  I played one guy for about a year and a half.  Mostly doing one turn every day.  Sometimes 3 or 4 on the weekend. 

Really puts you in the boots of the real commanders.  You quickly see that the Pacific War was just as much about logistics as it was about combat.   

[JasonPratt]

whats stopping me???

not being retired mostly.

;D

Only Gundams are good enough to play that game. I own a copy as an indulgence, to say I have one. Proud to have it. Will probably never get around to playing it.

[MengJiao]

If you can find a good PBEM opponent who doesn't bail, disappear or slow in returning game turns (not easy to find), the game can be rather fun.  I played one guy for about a year and a half.  Mostly doing one turn every day.  Sometimes 3 or 4 on the weekend. 

Really puts you in the boots of the real commanders.  You quickly see that the Pacific War was just as much about logistics as it was about combat.   

I played it mostly PBEM for a couple of years.  I'd played all of its predecessors so it didn't seem particularly daunting.

Why did I stop?  I think I just spent enough time on it.  It does take a lot of time.  Pretty rewarding though.  At least for me.

As a gaming experience it is kind of different.  Good, but not easy to describe.  Somewhere in the midst of playing it, I remembered
why I preferred games about smaller wars.  Now I'm playing Fall of the Samurai and can even spell Samurai.

[Slick Wilhelm]

I bought it during last year's Matrix Games' holiday sale. I will eventually get around to playing it. Having been a total "Uncommon Valor" fanatic back in the day, it shouldn't be too hard to jump in and play.

[Anguille]

I still have a life...no seriously, i'd love it but i still have too many games i want to play before...maybe in 10 years.

[Nefaro]

Like most of Grigsby's games - the moddeling is nyper detailed - but he just doesnt know how to build the program around it to support it.

Maybe he should just design the game mechanics and then let someone else design the UI to actually help players get the information they need in the manner they need it.

Yes - I wish he would. Someone like the decisive campaigns guy. One of the things he added in the case blue game was to print the locations of all higher headquarters units onto the strategic map - simple but helps no end in situational awareness and something I have wanted in the Panzer campaign games for years. Also his OB stuff is brilliant. This little stuff makes such a difference to how nice these things are to play. So say for example - in the Panzer campaigns games - have a treeview on the left side like the Panther games one - then finding units in your OOB is much easier and situational awareness vastly improved.

I tend to summarize UI nightmares, such as the WitP example, as fighting the interface instead of playing the damn game!

The interface is almost always the first thing I notice about a game.  And if it's not easy-to-use, intuitive, and informative then it will stain the rest of the game no matter how good it is.  :-\

[Staggerwing]

I have the original flava which I bought off of Eddie Steryx recently. I have yet to play it. Why would I want to get the AE version? Are there any particular features that make it easier to play? Harder? I'd love to play a game such as WITP if I could play an Allied power such as the DEI, Australia, NZ, Great Britain only while the AI handles the USA and it's massive logistical universe. It would make for an interesting game if it included some uncertainly in the inter-Allied cohesiveness and back room wheeling and dealing as far as things like ABDA style mixed TFs and such.

[jomni]

I have the original flava which I bought off of Eddie Steryx recently. I have yet to play it. Why would I want to get the AE version? Are there any particular features that make it easier to play? Harder? I'd love to play a game such as WITP if I could play an Allied power such as the DEI, Australia, NZ, Great Britain only while the AI handles the USA and it's massive logistical universe. It would make for an interesting game if it included some uncertainly in the inter-Allied cohesiveness and back room wheeling and dealing as far as things like ABDA style mixed TFs and such.

AE has more bells and whistles and micromanaging stuff which leads to more historical outcomes and tougher AI.  Sure, they did fix some legacy stuff in the original WITP but the additional layer of detail just makes it (unnecessarily) complicated for some.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I had the original as well.  I struggled with the interface for quite some time before I felt comfortable with it (still managed to screw up loading/unloading stuff with regularity though) and I played through the grand campaign once as the Japanese.   It took about 4 months playing 1-2 hours almost daily and I ended up losing. I am firmly convinced that the game cheats in regards to the spotting rules.  I'd regularly miss spotting Allied surface ships around Rabaul yet they'd always find me despite the fact that I had more experienced units with better spotting chances.

It's not a game.  It feels too much like work.

[Zulu1966]

The one other thing with the game however  which for some reason really bugs me - is that you cannot specify how much supplies or fuel to load on a transport - so it will carry on loading till you tell it to stop and thats the only way you can say how much goes where. Not massive - but I really just hate it. If I want to get say 400 supplies to a seaplane based I should be able to say so. In a game where you can define the search arcs of individual seaplanes I dont see why they cant. As I say - not massive in the scheme of things but sometimes there are just little things in a game that bug the hell out of me.

[Bison]

The short answer to this question is...

My brain.

[republic]

I've played the original off and on for years.  What always drive me nuts is the interface.  It makes an incredibly complex game even more complex.

I've always thought there should be some way to blend War in the Pacific with Distant Worlds.  Have that huge map be the Pacific Ocean.

[Bismarck]

What I said about WitE - Don to Danube holds for WitP:

"While no one can fault 2By3's attention to detail or accuracy, one wonders if they've lost sight of what most players want. Even short scenarios have high unit density and require several clicks to make one good move. Is the level of detail necessary or simply chrome? Bugs are still being reported in the base game two years after initial release, perhaps due to complexity. Serious students of the Eastern Front should look at this game but others may be satisfied with a simpler product."