|
jwilkerson -> RE: New Development for War In The Pacific -- MUST READ (3/4/2006 6:27:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
quote:
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Greetings all,
Some things to keep in mind. Because we don't want to get distracted by launching new initiatives until we've got the 1.8 patch in hand, we will not be focusing on new development activities initially. However, once we have 1.8 released, then we will be interacting with the forum more to determine what is next. As soon as Don and I have taken care of some logistical matters to get us up and running, we will be estimating a timeframe for 1.8 and we will get that to you, I expect that estimate to be done in about a week.
Also, I have gone through ( manually ) the WITP Wish list thread and pulled the data from the first 400 or so items, in that list. There are a number of duplicates, but not too many. But I would say that the wish list is still a useful place to record suggestions.
Thanks for the "greetings" and know that Don and I are excited to be joining the team and for the opportunity to try to take WITP in directions that will be good for all of us.
Joe
[:)]
Sounds like a reasonable starting point. May I ask one thing. If/when you ever get around to playing with WITP II, will you consider making it a PBEM game first and formost. PLEASE! Almost all the "problems" in the current game seem to trace back to the need to make it playable against the computer. I know this is popular with many players, but it seems to have made far to many of the problems unsolvable..., as well as creating such unworkable or totally screwed up sub-systems like the uncontrollable "overland supply movement" system or the "automatic convoy (destruction) system". Please make a game that works..., then if you must, put an AI on some of the scenarios where the scope and the demands on the AI can be limited.
My thoughts on the "AI" have been aired previously, but briefly re-stating. In any piece of real software, we must have a solid "test harness". I view the "AI" ( or perhaps more precisely, the operational and strategic components of the "AI" ) as essential components of the "test harness". Hence we cannot produce a WITP-2 without a test harness ( and thus not without an "AI" ).
This being said, the idea would be to have the "AI" scriptable, so that it can be changed and enhanced by developers and modders alike. But being able to test the software through many days or months or even years of play absolutely requires an AI. Otherwise we would never live long enough to test much of what needs to be tested, manually. And note that we would expect to spend a significant chunk of time of this "test harness" ( a.k.a. "AI" ) as this is really the only way we can adequately test a game of this size ... and to put out a game of this size without adequate testing would not be on our agenda.
Think of the old board games we've played, like original WITP. We know they never tested that baby from 1 Dec 41 through 15 Aug 1945 ... weren't enough years between when they started working on it and when they finished. And this would be true of almost every monster ( board ) game we've ever played. The power of the computer gives us the ability to automate the testing ( in supplement to manual Human testing ) which is a capability we never had with the old board games. So I welcome this new ability to automate much of the testing, because in the old days, the larger games were simply released untested ( at the strategic level ). They had no choice, we do, we should take advantage of the option ( to test at the strategic level ). And in the process of so doing, we will build a scriptable AI, which can be used to play against the computer ( though I would not expect it to be as strong as a human player ! ).
|
|
|
|
