I'm playing the Guadalcanal mission just now - just for giggles - and I created a Transport TF in Brisbane so I could transport some troops (Brisbane has LOADS) to Port Moresby...but when I select my Task Force and select Load Troops, the only units showing are 1 Aussie HQ unit and 3 RAAF units...none of the front line troops are showing.
If all the numbers showing are correct, then I have plenty of space to load troops and supplied on my 5 ship TF (built with xAPs which are civilian converted troop carriers). I docked the task force in case that was the difference, but looking in the manual docking only affects speed of transfer. I also changed the Command for the TF to the same as the land units in case that had an effect - but no joy - they never show up in the list of available units to load.
Any ideas?
I know I can/should ask at Matrix - but I'd rather not if poss
Thanks
:) I commend you for trying, JD!
I have tried to take on this beast of a game countless times now, but I just get stuck fiddling with the UI every single time. It's a bit like CMANO. :)
Good luck!
Been too long since I played to have any ideas... Does AE have the same tutorial to follow in the manual that Vanilla had? Helped me get 'into' the game.
I played Pacific War a great deal, but I just couldn't get into War in the Pacific (maybe if I was retired). Knowing Grigsby's game systems, they probably have to be activated and have enough readiness. Some units are probably held back (player non-usable) for static defense of certain locations.
^ I did think because this is a smaller scenario perhaps I just cannot move them...but a) why have them there and b) why not tell me (in a more obvious way) that they cannot be transported
Well - I have 5 xAP's sitting docked in Brisbane with nothing to do and Port Moresby has some japs heading towards it and I only have 1 unit in the way. I was hoping to bolster them - but it seems I can't :D
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 09, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
^ I did think because this is a smaller scenario perhaps I just cannot move them...but a) why have them there and b) why not tell me (in a more obvious way) that they cannot be transported
Well - I have 5 xAP's sitting docked in Brisbane with nothing to do and Port Moresby has some japs heading towards it and I only have 1 unit in the way. I was hoping to bolster them - but it seems I can't :D
IIRC there are certain troops and planes that cannot be moved - you could try and change the command of the troops - its got nothing to do with the ships - if thats greyed for the troops then theyre Austrailia HQ and wont go anywhere else
^ looks like you could be right. These units are highlighted as "(R)estricted Attached" and the HQ unit that I CAN load is Unrestricted.
Thanks
thats the one - from my playing days it was one of the most asked questions on the forum - there are some in restricted commands that can be changed and then moved, and then there are some that are simply not going anywhere
im glad you jumped in - i hope you enjoy it, although i dont play anymore, its very rewarding when it all makes sense - im hoping to hit that wall with CMANO soon
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 09, 2013, 05:25:35 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 09, 2013, 05:18:46 PM
^ I did think because this is a smaller scenario perhaps I just cannot move them...but a) why have them there and b) why not tell me (in a more obvious way) that they cannot be transported
Well - I have 5 xAP's sitting docked in Brisbane with nothing to do and Port Moresby has some japs heading towards it and I only have 1 unit in the way. I was hoping to bolster them - but it seems I can't :D
IIRC there are certain troops and planes that cannot be moved - you could try and change the command of the troops - its got nothing to do with the ships - if thats greyed for the troops then theyre Austrailia HQ and wont go anywhere else
^this. Oz has lots of troops, but most have a restricted HQ "[R]". Any unit, air or land, with such an HQ can never leave the mainland it's based on. Most restricted HQs are 'permanently' restricted, meaning the units attached can never be reassigned to another HQ (ideally one without any movement restrictions). But some are only 'temporarily' restricted, meaning that if you have enough political points, you can 'buy' them by reassigning them to an unrestricted HQ.
Anyway, lots of tantalizing troops in Oz, Western US, etc, but they're there to defend the homeland (or destined for ETO), and so aren't as useful as they appear...
That's a shame - there are some nice powerful looking units there - and I need the buggers at Port Moresby! ;D
TF mission Types / Troop Status
Transport / Strategic
Amphibious / Combat
Don't forget to reset the troops back to Combat after unloading!
You really should use Amphibious TF missions when moving troops to a forward base, they will unload faster and you won't run into the port/base size restrictions/limitations when unloading.
You may also need to change the troops to an unrestricted command.
Yep, don't forget to change the troop status to Strategic or they're not going anywhere. That confused me for a while I know!
I was thinking;
JD, you and I seem to have run into the same problems withAE before and now that you are taking another good look I kinda feel obligated to do so as well. :)
Perhaps it boosts morale if we know there another person out there struggling with it too! :)
The hard part for me is keeping track of which sighting report or what attack happened where? After the phases play out I have had a shitload of attack animations but I find it hard to assess what just happened, where did it happen and what are the consequences.
The animations are played so quickly.
How do you solve this?
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 02:02:44 AM
The animations are played so quickly.
How do you solve this?
The animations can be slowed down. It is a game setting I cannot remember which one, but you can slow them down in the scenario selection launcher.
^What he said.
Oh - good...two people trying to work stuff out. Maybe between us we can have out own "The Thread"? (take us a while to get there though) ;D
As default (I haven't touched any options) the combat animations play out down the bottom right hand side and then there's a report that shows. The Coast Watcher sightings are the things that surprise me - they are fast, but as HH said, you can slow them down in the options somewhere.
I'm only playing the Guadalcanal scenario - so it's much easier I guess to see the combat because it's only happening in a few places and I know the names (Lunga for example). I would think I would struggle knowing where all the combat took place in a campaign.
If the game doesn't have a "Show Me" (which I haven't seen) much like CMANO then it needs one. :D
Well the slower animations are just a partial fix.
Especially in a campaign you get so many of these animations that I wonder wether it is a good idea to make them slower. :S
I once read something about a combat logger tool or such. It creates a logfile with everything the game has thrown at you in the preceding round. Perhaps that is worth looking up?
I quite agree that the flood of information is often overwhelming so much so that I turn off all the animations and only play the game according to the final combat reports.
I have not tried the 3rd-party combat logger tool. The only problem with playing the game solely via text reports is that some information only appears in the animations! This means that I sometimes have to go back and re-run the turn just to see something that I needed to know. I have not played in awhile, but things like lines of retreat for enemy forces are not found in any combat results report. :(
It amazes me you have played anything other than H3, Herman! ;)
And seeing you have even tackled 'THE beast' makes you jump up a few notches on my respect ladder, haha! :)
BTW JD, which version are you using?
When I played I just clicked thru the animations..... most of what you need is in the combat report and the ops report
You should be aware of most combat as you will have planned for it to happen
And I couldn't play this game without a pass and paper next to the keyboard
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 04:47:52 AM
BTW JD, which version are you using?
Vanilla..as in updated but un-modded.
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 10, 2013, 05:33:04 AM
When I played I just clicked thru the animations..... most of what you need is in the combat report and the ops report
You should be aware of most combat as you will have planned for it to happen
And I couldn't play this game without a pass and paper next to the keyboard
LOL! Yes pen and paper is indeed a must-have! :)
Quote from: JudgeDreddVanilla..as in updated but un-modded.
Yes me too. But seeing the latest beta dating from this last november I think we might expect a new official patch still.
The latest official one dates from 2009 as far as I can see?
Anyway, I have found the tool I was referring to earlier: Combat Reporter (https://sites.google.com/site/witpaecombatreporter/)
It's a nifty little program you run alongside AE. It keeps scanning for new logs and then presents that information in a 'Windows Explorer' style layout. I haven't used it yet, but it does seem like it could be very useful. Especially when running the campaign.
I am going to restart my scenario play endeavor after lunch. I'll report my questions, etc.
Been fooling around with the game for the better part of the day and one thing keep giving me problems;
the ability to get the information I want quickly.
It's hard to keep track of which damage was dealt where, how many units are still where, etc...
I can only think you would need to keep track of these things manually on paper or am I missing something?
There was a program that someone made for the first one, that kept track of all your Damage and such.. think it was called WITP Tracker.. not sure if they made an upgraded version for AE.. but it was pretty cool.. You could see which ships you needed to get to port quickly!
I think I have seen the name of that utility over at the AE forums as well... thanks for the heads up!
Here ya go!
https://sites.google.com/site/witptracker/ (https://sites.google.com/site/witptracker/)
Thanks! Still, I think its pretty annoying that you need to resort to external programs to get some sorted info.
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 03:53:55 PM
Thanks! Still, I think its pretty annoying that you need to resort to external programs to get some sorted info.
I'm wondering if this is one of those epiphany moments and highlights the difference between those that do and don't enjoy the game - my answer would be to constantly cycle through your combat tfs and cross reference these with the combat reports - it will tell you what action took place where and what damage was dealt, split off the damaged ships and escort them to a repair port - this kind of micro management down to the captain of the ship is what kept me at it for 6 six years - I loved it.
I may posit that if you don't want to sit with a pad and pen, spread sheet and develop a photographic memory then WitP may not actually be for you
I would run consecutive turns and still forget what I did the immediate turn before the current one. :(
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 10, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 03:53:55 PM
Thanks! Still, I think its pretty annoying that you need to resort to external programs to get some sorted info.
I may posit that if you don't want to sit with a pad and pen, spread sheet and develop a photographic memory then WitP may not actually be for you
You may very well be right about that... As cool as I find the concept of the game, I did not have even 1 minute of fun playing it this past day.
Yeah - I think the information is there - it's just not that handy.
It does make me wonder - why create a program that's difficult to use. I'm not talking about micro-management here - just making you work for info. For example...and just a wee example...one of the tasks is to get more points than the enemy. And one way you do that is to go after bases. A base has a value to the Japs and a value to the US. Now - why on earth would the developer of a game that had that mechanic NOT put in place a hotkey that allowed you to turn on and turn off those values?
Sure - it would make the map busy - hence being allowed to switch it on and off. (If that is in there, then I apologise - but I've been looking for ages and can't see the option)
I design interfaces for databases. I create programs with Windows front ends to allow people to see and manipulate data in databases - that's my job. I regard myself as a good programmer, but I also regard myself as an excellent creator of interfaces. My users don't notice my interface - because they don't have to. It's not meant to fight them and it's not meant to be obtuse - it's meant to be transparent.
I think GG is a fantastic creator of games - he's just not very good at interfaces.
I did manage to get a couple of Aussie units transferred to another command that I could transport (after switching them to Strategic - thx for that tip)...however, whilst they both had a load value of 3500, they didn't seem to want to load onto my xAPs (each with a load capability of 4600)
I'm sticking with this though - at least for the time being ;D
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 10, 2013, 04:39:31 PM
Yeah - I think the information is there - it's just not that handy.
It does make me wonder - why create a program that's difficult to use. I'm not talking about micro-management here - just making you work for info. For example...and just a wee example...one of the tasks is to get more points than the enemy. And one way you do that is to go after bases. A base has a value to the Japs and a value to the US. Now - why on earth would the developer of a game that had that mechanic NOT put in place a hotkey that allowed you to turn on and turn off those values?
Sure - it would make the map busy - hence being allowed to switch it on and off. (If that is in there, then I apologise - but I've been looking for ages and can't see the option)
I design interfaces for databases. I create programs with Windows front ends to allow people to see and manipulate data in databases - that's my job. I regard myself as a good programmer, but I also regard myself as an excellent creator of interfaces. My users don't notice my interface - because they don't have to. It's not meant to fight them and it's not meant to be obtuse - it's meant to be transparent.
I think GG is a fantastic creator of games - he's just not very good at interfaces.
I did manage to get a couple of Aussie units transferred to another command that I could transport (after switching them to Strategic - thx for that tip)...however, whilst they both had a load value of 3500, they didn't seem to want to load onto my xAPs (each with a load capability of 4600).
I'm sticking with this though - at least for the time being ;D
WITP AE was created from WITP which was created from Uncommon Valor, many, many things were added to WITP/AE. The screens are done pixie by pixie, just changing the placement of text and/or button is a nightmare. Speed, memory requirements don't allow the use of standard development tools like MS Visual studio or others standard tools, they just don't work for game development.
Don't use AP's for transport missions, save them for Amphibious missions, you next problem will be with unloading troops assigned to a transport mission at a small ports, it will take forever. Many of the WITP AE players have been playing the game from the days of Uncommon Valor and don't even notice the arcane rules or interface issues. When transporting troops you also need room for food, ammo, etc. so you also need more transport capacity than just the troops. Just like in a real war, logistics is half the battle, and logistics is half the game in WITP/AE. Why do you think the US has 300 bases all over the world?
^
Beat me to it - youvgot guns and butter to fit on the ships too JD - and FWIW I never changed the stance of my troops - when they get off again they will need changing back and it takes a few days
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 10, 2013, 04:39:31 PM
Yeah - I think the information is there - it's just not that handy.
It does make me wonder - why create a program that's difficult to use. I'm not talking about micro-management here - just making you work for info. For example...and just a wee example...one of the tasks is to get more points than the enemy. And one way you do that is to go after bases. A base has a value to the Japs and a value to the US. Now - why on earth would the developer of a game that had that mechanic NOT put in place a hotkey that allowed you to turn on and turn off those values?
Sure - it would make the map busy - hence being allowed to switch it on and off. (If that is in there, then I apologise - but I've been looking for ages and can't see the option)
I design interfaces for databases. I create programs with Windows front ends to allow people to see and manipulate data in databases - that's my job. I regard myself as a good programmer, but I also regard myself as an excellent creator of interfaces. My users don't notice my interface - because they don't have to. It's not meant to fight them and it's not meant to be obtuse - it's meant to be transparent.
I think GG is a fantastic creator of games - he's just not very good at interfaces.
I did manage to get a couple of Aussie units transferred to another command that I could transport (after switching them to Strategic - thx for that tip)...however, whilst they both had a load value of 3500, they didn't seem to want to load onto my xAPs (each with a load capability of 4600)
I'm sticking with this though - at least for the time being ;D
It takes a while (three days I think) for troops to get in and out of different modes. So you can switch to Strategic on day x and on day x+3 they actually are available to load.
Fair point Sgt Rock.
And thanks for the other tips peeps. I am skimming the manual at various sections (no point in me reading it - I have quite a bad short term memory and so there's no benefit to me reading a manual)
I will say again though - regarding the interface - when the turn is over - there's no processing power going on. No resources are going to be eaten up displaying information to the user. So my dismay with the game (and GG's games in general) is not just the lack of information - but the difficulty in finding it.
So I'm not stuck on WitP:AE I'll give you another example - GG:WaW (World at War). I remember having it and wanting to move a naval unit to a sea region. The message I got was "Cannot Move There". Now - this is precisely the kind of "interface" thing I'm talking about. Gary knows I can't move there. The game knows why I can't move there. I now know why I can't move there. But Gary and the game are the only ones who know WHY I can't move there.
So if Gary knows and the game knows, why not tell the user why? Nope. You've got to wade through the manual to find out why.
That's what I'm talking about from an interface perspective along with layout. Having to go elsewhere to find out what you want to know.
But - I take the point it was built on an old codebase.
Just thinking about how I'm going to win (by collecting points from bases) makes my head shiver because the only way to find that information out is to click on each one. My lack of understanding of the game may be showing here - because it might be in the campaign you don't have the ability to pick and choose what you go after. It could be that those big bases are few and far between and you have to hop through various other little atolls in order to springboard to them...I don't know
But as a gamer - it makes total sense to me that a gamer would want to see that information at the drop of a hat!
But he's not the only one to do it. CMANO suffers from interface issues also - and that's brand spanking new. I hate all those platform rings and wonder why the hell I can't turn specific ones on and foff. For example I want to see the bingo fuel range for my aircraft. Nope. I want to turn off all rings and just see anti air defense rings for my pickets ships - one at a time - nope.
The whole wargaming genre suffers from great code bases and bad interfaces.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 11, 2013, 03:04:56 AM
The whole wargaming genre suffers from great code bases and bad interfaces.
They almost need a two part process: one group to design the engine and another to create the UI to accommodate the folks the way they want to play it.
Yes fair points and exactly my trouble with playing these games.
Still, I am going to keep at it and try to become a functional player in AE. I shelled out serious cash on it so it deserves some additional effort to get it in my head.
Because I certainly can see how this game is super rewarding if you actually know whats going on.
Especially against a human player!
Judge. You will like World in Flames it is very transparent and will tell you what you can and cannot do. It will hold your hand through every phase with very clear options and forms.
**I am not for turning** ;D
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 11, 2013, 03:17:35 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 11, 2013, 03:04:56 AM
The whole wargaming genre suffers from great code bases and bad interfaces.
They almost need a two part process: one group to design the engine and another to create the UI to accommodate the folks the way they want to play it.
Already Done
War in the East has the best interface of any Gary's games, his games are no longer a one man operation.
I've tried WitE and, while better than WitP, it is still an exercise in chasing mouse-clicks all around the screen.
The few hotkey commands will bring up information windows but, as far as I can remember, not a single executable command can be issued via hotkey (just like WitP). :(
So I fired this up to continue my Guadalcanal scenario - and I see some bases with a Red and a Yellow exclamation mark.
I cannot find anywhere in the manual what those represent. I've read the BASES section and searched the manual for "yellow" - all instances found did not relate to the exclamation marks.
Looking at the bases showing the exclamation marks, all I can deduce is
- Yellow Exclamation Mark - Supply excess (more supplies present than required)
- Red Exclamation Mark - Supply deficiency (less supplies present than required)
Can anyone clarify?
And WTH is this not in the manual? And
if it is, why does "exclamation" and "yellow" bring up NO results and no results pertaining to the object?
Red is definitely right, yellow I can't remember.... check the base and its size if it's a size 3 base with 100k tons of supplies it's probably right
From the interface addendum doc:
6.2 Yellow Exclamation Point - This will appear when a base is below 2X needed supply, but above the bare minimum supply needed.
6.3 Red Exclamation Point - The base either had a partisan attack due to low garrison, or the supply level is below the required level and is reaching a critical situation.
I wouldn't have thought to look there, but I found a post on the matrix site referencing it for a similar question.
These Red/Yellow functions aren't mentioned in the manual because they were added as a result of patches.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 10, 2013, 06:20:42 PM
Fair point Sgt Rock.
And thanks for the other tips peeps. I am skimming the manual at various sections (no point in me reading it - I have quite a bad short term memory and so there's no benefit to me reading a manual)
I wrote the manual to the original...don't bother! LOL - unless you miss the days of Avalon Hill legal manuals. I don't even remember any specifics from it, only that it was a BEAST to put together. Uncommon Valor was a bit better and was indeed the basis for WitP.
I wish when games are updated they would update the manual
Thanks guys.
I have the original WITP but have yet to install it. Does the Admiral's Ed. make it easier or harder to play?
(Why do I have the feeling the answer is 'both'... ???)
Both :P
Just kidding - I wouldn't know. A proper grog would have to tell you
I think it makes it much harder, personally. The only thing I really like better about AE, and it's a big thing, is the ability to set waypoints for your task forces. It was one of the most frustrating missing features from vanilla, where you wanted to get from point A to point B, but stay out of range of some enemy outpost that you had to detour around.
AE is a monument to micro management. The level of detail is way too into the weeds IMO.
But, I have been thinking of firing it back up. 8)
I am still at it as well... aren't we all a bunch of masochists?!
enjoying it?
Enjoying.. I am not sure, but it does still intrigue me.
I should enjoy the game for its setting and its ability to tinker with details, but I am not there yet...
It's like trying to write an entire dictionary using one mouse-click / letter. :(
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 15, 2013, 06:44:51 PM
It's like trying to write an entire dictionary using one mouse-click / letter. :(
how so?
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 15, 2013, 06:44:51 PM
It's like trying to write an entire dictionary using one mouse-click / letter. :(
You know, that's not a bad analogy at all.
I can't really explain it, UCG, but trust me, it's fairly accurate.
lol, i spent 6 years playing it, and nothing else and i never really thought i was fighting the UI
what did eventually stop me from playing was a load of experienced guys, just experience, not actual engine writing knowledge, just a long time with the game, trying to explain things they couldnt - why did my 92 Zeros just get killed by 16 P40s and a load of tosh about boom and zoom, turn angles, height, optimum height and noone really knew why - im too OCD for 'its just one of those things' i need to know why it happened so i can make sure it doesnt happen again and noone could really answer it - and with that, i wasnt investing any more time in a PBEM that lasts 3 years for the big attack, the one great turn to end all turns not going right, because 'its one of those things' and then engine crapped out
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 15, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 15, 2013, 06:44:51 PM
It's like trying to write an entire dictionary using one mouse-click / letter. :(
how so?
Anyone who tries to for a 100 unit convoy needs about 300 clicks to accomplish this simple task. Each ship selected requires two clicks to add and add about another 100 to sort, filter, change order, re-sort, filter, etc. It's the Game of One Million Clicks. The hotkeys only bring up reports / displays. Not a single hotkey actually issues a solitary order.
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 15, 2013, 07:30:59 PM
lol, i spent 6 years playing it, and nothing else and i never really thought i was fighting the UI
what did eventually stop me from playing was a load of experienced guys, just experience, not actual engine writing knowledge, just a long time with the game, trying to explain things they couldnt - why did my 92 Zeros just get killed by 16 P40s and a load of tosh about boom and zoom, turn angles, height, optimum height and noone really knew why - im too OCD for 'its just one of those things' i need to know why it happened so i can make sure it doesnt happen again and noone could really answer it - and with that, i wasnt investing any more time in a PBEM that lasts 3 years for the big attack, the one great turn to end all turns not going right, because 'its one of those things' and then engine crapped out
Thankfully that kind of thing doesn't bother me...so if I can get over the micro management I will be able to overlook things like that as "oh well"
Try playing as the Japanese and every bomb and torpedo misses at pearl harbor..... nothing sunk.... you're about to get buttf***** by the U.S. for bombing manilla!
oic
That is a bit weird and that would definitely stand out.
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 16, 2013, 03:18:49 AM
Try playing as the Japanese and every bomb and torpedo misses at pearl harbor..... nothing sunk.... you're about to get buttf***** by the U.S. for bombing manilla!
Wow :o, in all my years playing WITP and then WITP AE, I've never seen that! I have seen the Japanese stick around for 3 or 4 day and wipe out almost every ship in Peal Harbor. Each time you start a new game it picks one of several AI scripts, one of them maybe bugged! Beside the official patches, some of the developers released un-officical updates to scenarios and AI scripts, you may want to ask where to find the latest on the Matrix forums.
its cool, im 'retired' now - fortunately my opponent that day gave me a restart - something to do with the KB arriving in the wrong sector and bad weather
Quote from: SgtRock on December 16, 2013, 04:49:00 PM
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 16, 2013, 03:18:49 AM
Try playing as the Japanese and every bomb and torpedo misses at pearl harbor..... nothing sunk.... you're about to get buttf***** by the U.S. for bombing manilla!
Wow :o, in all my years playing WITP and then WITP AE, I've never seen that! I have seen the Japanese stick around for 3 or 4 day and wipe out almost every ship in Peal Harbor. Each time you start a new game it picks one of several AI scripts, one of them maybe bugged! Beside the official patches, some of the developers released un-officical updates to scenarios and AI scripts, you may want to ask where to find the latest on the Matrix forums.
I used to ignore Pearl Harbor and try to kill the USN Carriers and Force Z for a bang-up start. I was so bad as the Japs, but I had a great time playing them. Needless to say, my little Empire used to get wrecked by April 1942 or so. The guy I played already used a Japanese name (even as the Allies) and so I became MengJiao (or MengCiao) -- the more Late-Tang Poet Jap person (and a real loser).
RIMSHOT Ba-dum-tishhh.
Playing Japan in WITP-AE is not for the faint of heart! It always took me 5-7days just to do the first turn, assigning invasion forces/troops, moving engineers to buildup forward bases, then all the re-supply convoys, re-organized production & pilot training. Trying to grab everything everywhere I could before the allied buildup. Early carrier battles favor the Japanese due to poor allied aircraft and lower experience, knocking out 2-3 US carriers can really help Japan last well into early 1944.
The key to playing allies is to hold on to part of Java, if you can get more troops there and then build up an airbase and sub resupply base, allied bombers can then bomb the captured oil/resources and spotting for subs to destroy transports trying to bring resources back to Japan.
There really isn't any other game I've played that let's you fight a war covering over half the world at this level of detail!
So then, is there a Pacific War game out there that doesn't track every boot and shell?
What is the best Pacific War computer game available that's not a monster to try to play?
Good Hunting.
MR
Quote from: SgtRock on December 17, 2013, 03:17:37 PM
Playing Japan in WITP-AE is not for the faint of heart! It always took me 5-7days just to do the first turn, assigning invasion forces/troops, moving engineers to buildup forward bases, then all the re-supply convoys, re-organized production & pilot training. Trying to grab everything everywhere I could before the allied buildup. Early carrier battles favor the Japanese due to poor allied aircraft and lower experience, knocking out 2-3 US carriers can really help Japan last well into early 1944.
The key to playing allies is to hold on to part of Java, if you can get more troops there and then build up an airbase and sub resupply base, allied bombers can then bomb the captured oil/resources and spotting for subs to destroy transports trying to bring resources back to Japan.
There really isn't any other game I've played that let's you fight a war covering over half the world at this level of detail!
It's a fascinating game, but I no longer have time for it.
Mad Russian - Have a look at War Plan Pacific.
There is a demo available here http://www.shrapnelgames.com/KE_Studios/WPP/WPP_page.html
I can't get the demo to install.
Good Hunting.
MR
Quote from: Mad Russian on December 19, 2013, 07:36:04 PM
I can't get the demo to install.
Good Hunting.
MR
You might want to try to re-download it.
Quote from: Mad Russian on December 19, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
So then, is there a Pacific War game out there that doesn't track every boot and shell?
What is the best Pacific War computer game available that's not a monster to try to play?
Good Hunting.
MR
There is also Battlefront's Strategic Command WW2 Pacific Theater (this is a Demo but beware of the DRM) & Matrix games - Storm over the Pacific (demo)
Quote from: SgtRock on December 20, 2013, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Mad Russian on December 19, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
So then, is there a Pacific War game out there that doesn't track every boot and shell?
What is the best Pacific War computer game available that's not a monster to try to play?
Good Hunting.
MR
Which of these do you recommend?
Good Hunting.
MR
There is also Battlefront's Strategic Command WW2 Pacific Theater (this is a Demo but beware of the DRM) & Matrix games - Storm over the Pacific (demo)
Quote from: Mad Russian on December 19, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
So then, is there a Pacific War game out there that doesn't track every boot and shell?
What is the best Pacific War computer game available that's not a monster to try to play?
Good Hunting.
MR
Pacific War has the best level of detail for me.
World in Flames has a PTO scenario.
I don't like the Naval model of Strategic Command (which is important).
Storm Over the Pacific has some rules that I don't agree with.
Thanks. I have several board game versions of the PW. I've played WiF since if first came out but we always play the full game and never just one theater.
At the moment I don't have any Vassal opponents to play those and was thinking I could find a computer PW game that would fix my addiction.
Good Hunting.
MR
The problem is that WitP:AE is the best Pacific wargame. There are others that streamline the experience, but ultimately whenever I've tried a different strategic Pacific game I end up missing the features that WitP:AE has.
It's just so bloody tedius...but when you don't have all those options at your fingertips you start missing them. It's a catch-22 for sure.
Quote from: Toonces on December 23, 2013, 05:22:38 PM
The problem is that WitP:AE is the best Pacific wargame. There are others that streamline the experience, but ultimately whenever I've tried a different strategic Pacific game I end up missing the features that WitP:AE has.
It's just so bloody tedius...but when you don't have all those options at your fingertips you start missing them. It's a catch-22 for sure.
WitP:AE is a very interesting game -- the entire dynamic of the Pacific War is there and you don't get that in the smaller scenarios. However, a good small scenario at least limits some of the time you end up spending in the game. Unless you spend a lot of time making scenarios. Which is what I ended up doing -- so no more WitP:AE for me.
It's kind of funny, with the mods for WITP-AE, no one has created smaller scenarios!
I actually dabbled in the scenario editor for AE once and it is an absolute nightmare...makes DCS's mission editor look spectacular by comparison.
One of the real problems I've run into is that when I play a smaller scenario- and this goes for vanilla and Uncommon Valor too, I always end up wishing the scope was bigger. Like, being able to control the flow of forces into and out of the play area. Once you have the whole strategic game as a possibility, narrowing down the focus for a scenario is a little unsatisfying. Still, I agree that playing a smaller scenario certainly makes the game more manageable.
Quote from: Toonces on December 24, 2013, 02:45:46 PM
I actually dabbled in the scenario editor for AE once and it is an absolute nightmare...makes DCS's mission editor look spectacular by comparison.
One of the real problems I've run into is that when I play a smaller scenario- and this goes for vanilla and Uncommon Valor too, I always end up wishing the scope was bigger. Like, being able to control the flow of forces into and out of the play area. Once you have the whole strategic game as a possibility, narrowing down the focus for a scenario is a little unsatisfying. Still, I agree that playing a smaller scenario certainly makes the game more manageable.
I did eventually enjoy small scenarios (well...like the Guadalcanal scenario or mods of it...not really small except compared to the whole WitPAE) and I had the editor figured out. I think for me the good thing about the "small" scenarios was that it let me gradually get out of playing the game at all.
Somewhat paradoxically, I would absolutely love a game that let you say command a part of a South Pacific campaign and maybe even fly some crucial missions as part of that campaign (or drive a sub or a DD or a PT boat or something). Or even get shot down and try to work your way back to your own side through the islands.