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

[ArizonaTank]

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."

Many of GG's games are monsters.  While these games are not what most players want, clearly there is a market for them.  Some players like myself really enjoy the deep data dives, so I would not call it "chrome".  For me the really long scenarios are journeys, not destinations.  I rarely finish them, but really enjoy the immersive understanding of history that the detail brings to the game experience.  Sure, it's a niche within a niche but I love 'em.  WiTP:AE, WitE, and Eagle Day to the Bombing of the Reich, are some of my favorite computer wargames.

Decades ago, the Avalon Hill General had a short "grog fantasy" tongue-in-cheek article about a boardgame called "IT".  It was WWII, with one counter per man, and one game hour turns.  The game showed up in four moving vans, and had to be played in a warehouse (my memory is a little suspect, but I think I have the details right).  Anyway, GG has almost given me that game, and made it playable....and I love him for it.

But also to your point, I think WiTE particularly would be better with many shorter, more focused scenarios (like the Kharkov 42 scenario), as well as more forcus on mid-late war.  The WiTE game engine supports these pretty well.   Smaller scenarios are not as good in WiTP however.

Still, I'm not completely happy with WiTP:AE, I would also like to see some interface improvements (ship loading as pointed out in earlier posts), but otherwise am pretty happy that these games exist. 

[jomni]

The more details you put in, the more the Grognards will nitpick the game.  The more they will say what's historically accurate or not.  You'll have more variables that influence outcomes the right or wrong way.  I've seen this all over in the WITP / WITE forums and it's a never ending debate.  Patches swing from pleasing one camp of fans to another, sometime breaking gameplay and forcing you to restart a game that will take months / years to finish. :)  It does eventually become stable at one point.

Another argument about claiming historical accuracy is that Japan and Germany will always lose the war.  There are inherent balancing issues in the WW2 setting and may take away the fun for some.

But when a game is presented as abstract and less precise, people only care if the final combat results are plausible instead of looking at every phase of battle and if each weapon / asset is performing as it should be.  And most of all, focus is on gameplay and the fun factor.  Decisive Battles has great balance between abstraction and detail.  It does not claim to be very historical so people do not expect much from it as opposed to the GG games.

[Bismarck]

The more details you put in, the more the Grognards will nitpick the game.  The more they will say what's historically accurate or not.  You'll have more variables that influence outcomes the right or wrong way.  I've seen this all over in the WITP / WITE forums and it's a never ending debate.  Patches swing from pleasing one camp of fans to another, sometime breaking gameplay and forcing you to restart a game that will take months / years to finish. :)  It does eventually become stable at one point.

Another argument about claiming historical accuracy is that Japan and German will always lose the war.  There are inherent balancing issues in the WW2 setting and may take away the fun for some.

But when a game is presented as abstract and less precise, people only care if the final combat results are plausible instead of looking at every phase of battle and if each weapon / asset is performing as it should be.  And most of all, focus is on gameplay and the fun factor.  Decisive Battles has great balance between abstraction and detail.  It claims to be very historical so people do not expect much from it as opposed to the GG games.

Oh, so well put!  +1

[jomni]

Thanks.  Had to edit my post for a few typos. :)

[Nefaro]

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.

I think you narrowed down a big specific of the UI complaints I have - the interface for handling the logistics is poor.  ;)

[Herman Hum]

The more details you put in, the more the Grognards will nitpick the game.  The more they will say what's historically accurate or not.  You'll have more variables that influence outcomes the right or wrong way.  I've seen this all over in the WITP / WITE forums and it's a never ending debate.

Personally, I am fine with all the details.  it's the manner of implementation that kills me.  It's nice to be able to pick the individual soldiers for a million-man army.  It's not so fine if you need 10 million+ clicks to locate and select each and every individual for addition to the army.   I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter.  :(

[Huw the Poo]

I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter.  :(

I haven't played these games, but this sounds absolutely unforgivable to me.

[DicedT]

I'm in a PBEM of WITP:AE (Toonces, if you're up for a game, let me know).

For me, games are all about immersiveness, and for all justifiable complaints about Gary Grigsby's lack of post-1985 programming skills, his games immerse me in a way that no other designer has. It's not that I love detail and micromanagement. It's more that I feel like I'm getting something for my efforts that I wouldn't get with a simpler game.

Here's my poor attempt to explain my feelings in Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/5895917/the-immense-pleasure-of-huge-war-games

Michael

[Arctic Blast]

I just have no interest in devoting the time in to something that comically over sized and complicated. Seriously, this looks like less recreational and more occupational. I don't want a second job.  :D

[Nefaro]

I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter.  :(

I haven't played these games, but this sounds absolutely unforgivable to me.

Oh yes indeed.

Imagine, if you will, a window full of settings for each unit/base/whatevah which consist almost wholly of number values.  And the only way you can change them is by repeatedly clicking on the up or down arrow button to adjust it one numeric unit at a time.   Need to move that air patrol's default altitude up a few thousand feet or unload some fuel off a tanker??  Click click click clickity click on the arrow button.  Then move on to the next setting.  There are LOTS of arrow buttons, too.  :o

The detail is excellent.  The UI not so.   :'(

[Huw the Poo]

Eurgh.  Well, that answers OP's question as far as I'm concerned then!

[Toonces]

Funny enough, my original point (poorly made perhaps) is that the price of AE is about half of what it was when it came out I think.  Didn't it originally retail for about $100?  It's only $52 now and I think that if you are moderately interested in the Pacific theater you should give this a serious look.  Yes it's hard and complex and takes a long time, but it's still the best treatment of the theater IMHO.

I mean, there are other Pacific War games out there, but I always feel like if I'm not playing WitP then I'm shortchanging myself.

At any rate, it's an exceptionally good deal at the $50 price point is what I was orginally getting at.

[Bismarck]

At any rate, it's an exceptionally good deal at the $50 price point is what I was orginally getting at.

Only if you're willing to put up with the UI.  One can get the fine War Plan Pacific for $39.95 this month.

[Yskonyn]

I am still struggling with it. Bigtime.
While I do find the manual extremely interesting with its big size, I find it hard to read it, because (at least the first part of it) it only describes what a button does in a technical sense. Clicking button A does A.
It doesn't really help much in terms of tactics or operational execution of a plan.
The game also lacks a tutorial (which oddly enough is referenced in the manual as being there). This has placed the barrier quite high for people jumping into the game without any experience with GG's other offerings, like myself.

Every time I start WitP;AE I feel like I need to watch some serious Pacific documentaries and read some operational books about the theatre first, before I have a clue what do start doing.

I would love a more guided approach into the game, either by a player or a written/video tutorial.
There are some older video tutorials out there, but they -again- explain only what does what, not how to conduct operations or execute plans.

Still, I am determined to get it going some day.

[spelk]

If the AE version of WiTP had received the UI love that WiTE has, then I'd be a happier bunny playing it. WiTE isn't a shining example of how to do things, but, it does have several layers of information, that if you want you can drill down into, but if you dont' or you don't have the time to, you don't have to. Therefore, the player has a choice as to how "deep" or "groggy" he wants to go into it.

Simply put the effort into updating the title, if it's as big a fish as its name and price implies, then surely it deserves some UI attention to bring it up to speed with the modern way. I'm surprised the AE update did so very little in terms of UI, it seems to have been more endless content tweaks and corrections than anything else.

Either do good abstraction (like Unity of Command, Decisive Campaigns), or do layered management of information that is in the players control (like WiTE, or Command Ops:BftB) - but above all, common to both, do usable/friendly UI - study a bit of applications programming and ergonomics, thats it... most coded on a shoestring indie titles come up with half decent UI's for doing simple selection/value setting tasks and actions. Wrestling with an interface is not part of the enjoyment of a game, no matter how painful it is, it doesn't make it more of a badge of honour to wear! :)