felicity
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 339
More ad hominem impressive.
Someone has a different opinions than me so he must be dellusional. It gets old Mefi. You keep on insisting that anyone don't like WITP's trivial management has fundamental misconception. Who are you to say operational wargame should be like? Serious, just look around you can find similar criticisms from veterans within wargaming community. I have played my fair shared of operational wargames, I got WITP when it was released, loved it, then hated it, when I realized the complexity is only a disguise to the suckiness of the game. I know the complexity may seem appealing at first, but eventually the novelty wears off and you'll be forced to look at its ugly face.
Strawman. I said most of your time is spent doing clerk works, menial tasks, trivial managment. Clunky interface only makes it worse.
Go read some AARs and l2p.
Yes yes they are not operational because you said so. Go on. WITP is 4X operational level. It tries to excel at both but not surprisingly, end up being mediocre at both. It reminds me of The Spore enthuaists: I can oversee evolutions and conquest the galaxy! It's teh best shit EVAR!
First, it is ultimately a strategy game, not historical simulation. I criticise its strategic elements, not simulation. It's fine if WITP can fulfill your geek needs, but not everyone is looking for that. Game balance is important, what's the fun in playing a strategy game when you know no matter how well you do you simply cannot win? WITP tries to solve this by having objectives for each side to reach. Japan in the later stage is impossible to win the war, but if the player meets the objectives set by the campaign, he wins the campaign. The impossibility of throughout play testing makes this game badly balanced for PvP.
Another reason you shouldn't mix 4X with operational level details. You got a shitty AI, and you find PBEM impractical because it takes month to begin a campaign, finding a partner who will fit your time schedule is a challenge in itself, and then chance are your game will be terminated just when it gets interesting (read: past the initial logistics nightmare) because one of you can't keep up the scheduel anymore, or some weird bugs ruin your game (not sure now, but it had 10x more bugs than Troika-wares). Decisive battles series's AI is ok, there are a lot of maths in calculating the odds, which the AI shines at. WITP's AI is so slow that I don't see how you can complain about CoA.
GarfunkeL:
You CAN auto supply, but given the retarded AI, leaving tasks to AI really isn't feasible in WITP. If you play Japan you have very limited amount of transports, a Japan player will want to save their larger transports for specific operation. Small transports unload faster but AI don't include it in its equation. Against human if he figures you use auto supply he will place sub patrols around the default routes and hunt your cargo. Losing even a few supply transports is a big blow to Japan. Besides, what's the point to have this level of details if you just leave them to AI? They're supposed to be the charm of WITP.
To which I said, operational/strategic level games of depth should be about this. You have a fundamental misconception of what this level of wargame is about.
Someone has a different opinions than me so he must be dellusional. It gets old Mefi. You keep on insisting that anyone don't like WITP's trivial management has fundamental misconception. Who are you to say operational wargame should be like? Serious, just look around you can find similar criticisms from veterans within wargaming community. I have played my fair shared of operational wargames, I got WITP when it was released, loved it, then hated it, when I realized the complexity is only a disguise to the suckiness of the game. I know the complexity may seem appealing at first, but eventually the novelty wears off and you'll be forced to look at its ugly face.
Address your inability to use the interface? Why? As I said, if one foul up with the interface screws up your operation, then your operation is obviously dubiously planned to start with.
Strawman. I said most of your time is spent doing clerk works, menial tasks, trivial managment. Clunky interface only makes it worse.
Actually. 1% of my time is taken making a plan. Any dick can make a plan. Bullshits. Bullshits.
Go read some AARs and l2p.
Decisive Battles aren't strategic/operational level games - they are straight operational level and exceptionally similar to HPS' games in scale and 'depth'. Their logistic rules are close to retardedness too. But don't let that get in your way when making false comparisons.
Yes yes they are not operational because you said so. Go on. WITP is 4X operational level. It tries to excel at both but not surprisingly, end up being mediocre at both. It reminds me of The Spore enthuaists: I can oversee evolutions and conquest the galaxy! It's teh best shit EVAR!
What has balance got to do with a historical based war game? Are you sure you've played one? The 'balance' in a historical war game is always going to be wonky, because it's very rare for both sides to be perfectly equal. Want balance, play a game with a points-to-buy system for a battle or something. That's why there is a points based system to reward better than historical performance with most decent operational and strategic level games.
I'll let you into a secret - for the first two years, Japan will be on the attack, for the rest of the war, Japan will be on the defensive.
First, it is ultimately a strategy game, not historical simulation. I criticise its strategic elements, not simulation. It's fine if WITP can fulfill your geek needs, but not everyone is looking for that. Game balance is important, what's the fun in playing a strategy game when you know no matter how well you do you simply cannot win? WITP tries to solve this by having objectives for each side to reach. Japan in the later stage is impossible to win the war, but if the player meets the objectives set by the campaign, he wins the campaign. The impossibility of throughout play testing makes this game badly balanced for PvP.
The AI is poor. That's a reflection of the complexity of the game. No more, no less. I've yet to find any decent AI for an operational level game and above. The best AI in a wargame is probably that for Conquest of the Aegean which is so processor intensive it struggles above corps sized units and is only that effective because of the AI controlling the orders issued by the player and the orders being done in real-time (advantage for the AI). Hopefully, the AI in AE will be an improvement and it can now be modded and scripted.
Another reason you shouldn't mix 4X with operational level details. You got a shitty AI, and you find PBEM impractical because it takes month to begin a campaign, finding a partner who will fit your time schedule is a challenge in itself, and then chance are your game will be terminated just when it gets interesting (read: past the initial logistics nightmare) because one of you can't keep up the scheduel anymore, or some weird bugs ruin your game (not sure now, but it had 10x more bugs than Troika-wares). Decisive battles series's AI is ok, there are a lot of maths in calculating the odds, which the AI shines at. WITP's AI is so slow that I don't see how you can complain about CoA.
GarfunkeL:
You CAN auto supply, but given the retarded AI, leaving tasks to AI really isn't feasible in WITP. If you play Japan you have very limited amount of transports, a Japan player will want to save their larger transports for specific operation. Small transports unload faster but AI don't include it in its equation. Against human if he figures you use auto supply he will place sub patrols around the default routes and hunt your cargo. Losing even a few supply transports is a big blow to Japan. Besides, what's the point to have this level of details if you just leave them to AI? They're supposed to be the charm of WITP.