|
Bold Robot posted:It's bad. I just got the game and even after reading for years about how bad it is in GH threads, I'm a little surprised. Everything seems to be buried multiple menus deep. Also the interface is a little laggy. I haven't played too much yet so hopefully I'll get used to it with time. You have to pass the right command line args in to fix the laggy issue. I'm phone posting but I can follow up later with them if no one else gets to it first. Grog games - where undocumented secrets are needed to make a game even functional.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
pthighs posted:You have to pass the right command line args in to fix the laggy issue. I'm phone posting but I can follow up later with them if no one else gets to it first. I tried a few I found online but without much success. It'd be awesome if you could post the ones that work for you when you get a chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
This sort of thing from what folks are saying is inevitable if you're not cheesing the engine. At some point the Allies hit you wtih overwhelming carrier support. At some point they get enough CV's you can have three or four Essexes and you just can't fight your way out. And even if you focus on hitting small and isolated groups of the USN at the point they have ten or twelve active carriers they're going to run into you SOMEWHERE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:I tried a few I found online but without much success. It'd be awesome if you could post the ones that work for you when you get a chance. Here's what I have: -wd -skipVideo -multiaudio -cpu2 -pxf1440 -pyf900 -altFont -dd_sw the pxf and pxy arguments let you specify the size of the window if you don't want full screen. It's nice to play in a large window so you still have access to your desktop for other stuff/pilot training spreadsheets. I believe the dd_sw is the big one for UI lag - it uses software emulation for DirectDraw. I literally can't remember what some of the others are. I think you said you are on a Mac? If so, I have no idea if these will work for you or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Well, poo poo. I just reinstalled the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Was War in the West ever patched up into being a good game or is it still on the list of games not to be LPed after this one? I just have no fun with it. I can barely tolerate WitE and WitW is just an uglier, less fun version of that which fixed the air system by making it work but monotonous in the extreme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
So the DaBabes mod for WitP seems interesting, adding a bunch of boat classes, but it also makes 'improvements' to the way AAA and ASW and other stuff work... does anyone have experience using them? Is it worth bothering with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Isn't ground combat similar, with the Marines and Army getting meaner and meaner and backed up by their horrible death-Shermans? Yes. The "soft attack" and "hard attack" values of Allied squads go up significantly over the course of the war, and OOBs of Allied land units slowly upgrade to get Shermans and lots of Mechanized Support and lots of artillery and lots of anti-air and so on and so forth ... while Japan's does not. Plek posted:So the DaBabes mod for WitP seems interesting, adding a bunch of boat classes, but it also makes 'improvements' to the way AAA and ASW and other stuff work... does anyone have experience using them? Is it worth bothering with? DaBabes tried to "fix" certain issues with WITP that weren't patched by the developers (until very recently) by mucking about with the database: * The Japanese Super-Escorts were nerfed by reducing the number of their depth charge devices, since lots of individual shots artificially (and unrealistically) increased accuracy * Similarly, most bombers had their bombloads consolidated into "sticks of bombs" with the firepower consolidated, but only being a single potential hit, to again nerf the high accuracy of dropping lots of individual bombs and the game calculating for hits separately * I can't remember what they did about AA fire, but I think it was to revise it to be more effective than the original scenario
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers guys.pthighs posted:It's not even bad rng - the Allies have been getting better and better aircraft, and Grey has gradually lost his pool of pre-war super experienced pilots and has mostly the same aircraft as the start of the war. At this point the Allies get a decent advantage in any not totally lopsided carrier matchup. The Japanese don't have a training program they can put their best pilots in? RA Rx fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
I think someone said the Japanese 'training' works is by you switch some experienced pilots into specific squadrons set to 'training' mode for awhile then you send them to china to engage in low threat missions to build up better, then you have to individually track pilots and assign them to groups and sort by who's good at what. It sounds like it takes nearly as much time as playing the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:The Japanese don't have a training program they can put their best pilots in? Late-war Japanese pilots start with something like 30 (out of 100) XP. American pilots start with about 60 XP. You can use the "Training" mission to help them build up more XP past this, but to get them to something approaching parity with the Allies involves using China as a "deep end of the pool" training program by having them do fighter sweeps and bombing runs on Chinese forces, waiting for them to build up XP, then shuffling them off to the South Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
pthighs posted:Here's what I have: -wd -skipVideo -multiaudio -cpu2 -pxf1440 -pyf900 -altFont -dd_sw Thanks, this is super helpful. I'm trying to get it running on both my Mac and my PC (would rather play on the former but the latter is a fallback option), so I'll try these on both and see if it helps on either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
I used to use some third party mod or program for this game that alerted me when supplies were low in bases and things like that. Does that ring any bells? I desperately need that again
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:I used to use some third party mod or program for this game that alerted me when supplies were low in bases and things like that. Does that ring any bells? https://sites.google.com/site/witptracker/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
The most helpful thing I've done to play this game is to turn off all the message log stuff and animations and whatnot, hit the End Turn button, get up for like 10 minutes or look at other poo poo for a while, then look at Combat Reporter to see what happened. Maybe it isn't for everyone but it is nice to have a list up of everything that occurred in a turn while your turn is active, so you can do poo poo like ground that air squadron that got the poo poo kicked out of them last turn instead of forgetting about it. https://sites.google.com/site/witpaecombatreporter/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
So UI is so good in this game that you need separate excel sheets just to track what happened and where are supplies missing. I really wonder how this game would sell if it wasn't based on historical setting...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
I was under impression that "Distant Worlds" is similarly obfuscated, and it looks to do ok. (I don't own either and base my opinion on hearsay).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
alex314 posted:I was under impression that "Distant Worlds" is similarly obfuscated, and it looks to do ok. (I don't own either and base my opinion on hearsay). I don't think Distant Worlds is as bad since the things you automate can be handled by the AI and not completely bone you nearly as much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah Distant Worlds has semi-competent automation, enough to make it vaguely playable at least. This is just.... lol, why would anyone pay more than like $5 for this game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah Distant Worlds has semi-competent automation, enough to make it vaguely playable at least. This is just.... lol, why would anyone pay more than like $5 for this game? Having to control individual pilots is a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Given that there is almost no way to lose the war as the Allies, I wonder if you could instead add a failure mode of "getting your rear end fired". Purposefully retreating from Singapore, taking too many losses etc could make the military lose faith in your ability to command and reassign you. Keep up public morale by launching raids and taking back territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Given that there is almost no way to lose the war as the Allies, I wonder if you could instead add a failure mode of "getting your rear end fired". Also the flipside of that where you play as the Japanese PM and the IJA and/or IJN will assassinate you if you're not being sufficiently enthusiastic about genocide and diving head first into unwinnable military confrontations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
alex314 posted:I was under impression that "Distant Worlds" is similarly obfuscated, and it looks to do ok. (I don't own either and base my opinion on hearsay). I haven't played WitP or WitE, but Distant Worlds is not bad at all to play. The economy makes no sense at all, and the fun 'dark age' start involves bribing an unending line of pirates for years at a time, but other than that it's pretty fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 23:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
And you can nuke planets accidentally
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
I thought about playing WitP until I read that a single turn could take up to 2 hours. bunnyofdoom posted:And you can nuke planets accidentally 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Psshh. Who would ever do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
   I think it's time to give up on this experiment.   We hit them again. To the north you can see I've re-tasked the forces that were supposed to help at Jaluit to Kwajalien. They should help defend the place and help get the airfields expanded to accommodate the sudden influx of planes.  The steady drip of bombs is going to be useful.   I'm reinforcing Guadalcanal, and a smaller carrier catches and sinks one of the ships doing so.   Every day without reports of a sunken carrier is a good day.  Today is a good day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
So we probably took down 2 fleet carriers right? We haven't seen them since?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
I thought last we saw all three were still afloat and not-on-fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I thought last we saw all three were still afloat and not-on-fire. It's possible the scoring board had a large point jump that didn't show up on the sunk list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:So we probably took down 2 fleet carriers right? We haven't seen them since? Radio Tokyo is reporting 5 fleet carriers, 3 battleships, and 12 cruisers along with at least 30 transports and escorts sunk. Banzai.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
So final totals for this engagement are at least two lost CVE's/CVL's, one CV.. And a lot of planes and pilots for the Battle off Jaluit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Given that there is almost no way to lose the war as the Allies, I wonder if you could instead add a failure mode of "getting your rear end fired". On the one hand, that's basically what the autovictory trigger in WITP is: if the Japanese player has 4x more points than the Allied player in 1943, or (less likely) 3x more points in 1944, then the game ends immediately with the assumption that either Japan has done so much better than the historical outcome that the game ends on a practical win, or that the Allies are somehow forced to the peace table. On the other hand, there is a trend in Grigsby's designs (and in a lot of wargames in general) to insufficiently explore the political dimension of a game, since it's possible to evacuate Singapore, Manila, and the DEI as hard and fast as possible and turtle-up in India, Australia/Port Moresby, Hawaii until you get a crushing advantage in assets, and then strike back no sooner than that. It would even be more advantageous in points since you're denying points to the Japanese player in terms of planes/units/ships destroyed. While there's some opportunity for the Japanese player to try and win an autovictory as the Allied player engages in this "Brave Sir Robin" strategy, the fact that the Allied player can even try it at all represents a large ahistorical hole in the simulation. One idea I've had before was simply restraining the scope of the map: on Dec 7 1941, it only covers as far west as Pearl, as far south as Jakarta, and as far east as the Strait of Malacca. The Allied player can't retreat farther than that, and the Japanese player can't skip ahead either. At certain dates or at certain milestones of Japanese performance, the map would expand, so that you can't dick around with Aden and the West Coast until 1944 or something. Not only would this help rein in ahistorical retreats, but it'd also reduce the number of units you'd have to click-through and manage (at least for the Allies).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:So final totals for this engagement are at least two lost CVE's/CVL's, one CV.. And a lot of planes and pilots for the Battle off Jaluit. Two CVs. Hiyo went down on the first day, then Kaga on the second.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
It sort of just depends on what you want to simulate, slightly more informed by hindsight / efficient supreme military command is just as gay black Hitler as slightly more efficient / functional political leadership. Either way you're optimizing use of a set of resources handed to you by GM fiat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
How did some of those guns and vehicles in the ship reinforcing Guadalcanal only get disabled?? And yes, Grey is down 2 CVs, 1 CVL and 2 CVEs, all from the Kiddo Butai - only the Junyo still lives. A couple of KB carriers also took some damage, but they'll be fine. Plus the IJN also lost a couple of CLs. Both sides lost a lot of naval aviators, but more of them and more elite on the Japanese side, and the Americans can replace them at double the XP of Japanese trainees. The three Essexes were all on fire after taking a torp and some bombs each, but when they were spotted again they had put out the fires, although their capacity to send out planes had fallen to that of a CVL combined. They're undoubtedly on the way home for some moderate repairs. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
IIRC, squads and devices that are shown as disabled/destroyed in attacking a ship are only who was directly and immediately hurt/killed by the impacts of the torpedoes/bombs/shells/etc. If the ship sinks off-screen in a later phase, everyone left is destroyed.
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:IIRC, squads that are shown as disabled/destroyed in attacking a ship are only who was directly and immediately hurt/killed by the impacts of the torpedos/bombs/shells/etc. If the ship sinks off-screen in a later phase, everyone left is destroyed. Not quite. If the ship is operating in a TF, and other ships in the TF have spare cargo space, some units can be recovered as they're fished out of the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Happy Pearl Harbour day, thread. Here's to another year of burnt virtual ships and drowned pixelmen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Not quite. If the ship is operating in a TF, and other ships in the TF have spare cargo space, some units can be recovered as they're fished out of the ocean. "Sorry Johnny, the bunks are full." "..." "The ice cream machine is working hard enough as it is!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:11
|
|