RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Bane -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 12:16:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Even those that have 1280x1024 as their base resolution can still run a 1024x768 game just fine and you can usually set (either through the monitor or the display card) whether you want them to scale/stretch lower resolutions or not, so you don't even have to put up with any distortion if you don't want to.


Mahalos for the reply!

Question here - We'll have the ability to run it in window mode as another option?

Really good stuff guys!! [:)]




pad152 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 12:45:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
jwilkerson - I'm a long time player from day one and would suggest you get a hold of War Plan Orange, you will be shocked by the Fog of War compared to WITP!



I can speak for Jwilkerson here..., he is a long-time player of WPO as well as WITP.


And the WPO fog of war can't be compared with the WitP fog of war...
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
jwilkerson - I'm a long time player from day one and would suggest you get a hold of War Plan Orange, you will be shocked by the Fog of War compared to WITP!




I can speak for Jwilkerson here..., he is a long-time player of WPO as well as WITP.



And the WPO fog of war can't be compared with the WitP fog of war...


Your right about that, in WPO you can't see anything until you run into it, and in WITP you can't even hide a sub!

All I'm saying is the spotting is way overboard for WWII (times x for allies) and air recon of land units is not working right!




Woos -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 1:06:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman
Also, will there be sorting options in the databases like 'show only bombers' or 'show only british planes' like there are in lists in other parts of the game?


Do you mean something like this?
[image]local://upfiles/16906/9C708BB45DC94C9F888EB031A9B00215.gif[/image]

That problem with that is that several aircrafts are used by more than one nation so it is difficult to store it with the aircraft. I calculated back from the airgroups but then you get problems with upgrades, .... .

BTW before anyone gets the wrong impression, the above is of course from WitP 1.8 with a plain old BigB scenario.





jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 1:16:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bane


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Even those that have 1280x1024 as their base resolution can still run a 1024x768 game just fine and you can usually set (either through the monitor or the display card) whether you want them to scale/stretch lower resolutions or not, so you don't even have to put up with any distortion if you don't want to.


Mahalos for the reply!

Question here - We'll have the ability to run it in window mode as another option?

Really good stuff guys!! [:)]




I run my monitor normally as 1920x1200 and WITP looks better on widescreen because the hexes are by default "squeezed" in the horizontal dimension!

Windows mode has existed from day one ... just run exe with -w parameter!






jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 1:38:38 AM)

Well I wanted to post the roles and responsibilities for the project so the forum will have visibility to who has been doing what. People have been arriving and departing off the project for well over a year now so a list like this is only a snap shot - and it is certain to change again before we are through, but here it is as it is now. Of course some folks do many things and I'm not going to make this a 50 page document, but these are the primary roles these people have at this time.

Air Team
Ian Kibler(TheElf) - Team Lead, air art
Thomas Eliot (TimTom) - OOB Research
Steve Sanchez(ChezDaJez) - OOB Research, Testing
Brian Wischer (BigB) - OOB Research, Testing
Nikademus - Aircraft data
Harvey Denison (Denisonh) - Testing
Michael McFarland - Programming
Cathartes - Air Art

Naval Team
Joe Wilkerson - Acting Naval Team Lead, IJN surface combatants
JWE - Merchant and Auxiliaries
Justin Prince(Tankerace) - OOB Research
Kristian Fischer - IJN Carriers and submarines
Mike Kraemer - Testing
Don Bowen - Programming
wdolson - Programming


Ground Team
Andy McPhie - Team Lead, OOB research, AI
Kereguelen - OOB Research
Joel Szabat(Blackhorse) - OOB Research, AI
BadNews - OOB Research
Forest Webb - Research and Testing
James Armstrong(BigJ62) - Programming

Map Team
Andrew Brown - Team Lead, Map Development
Bob Trapasso - Testing

Beta Team
Bill Olson (wdolson) - Team Lead
Mike Scholl - Tester
Brady - Tester
Admiral DadMan - Tester
VSWG - Tester
drw61 - Tester
Kid - Tester
Enforcer - Tester
Halsey - Tester
Joe C (Sonny II) - Tester
Rob Carpenter - Tester

Ship Art
John Eldredge(JWE)
Kelley LaBelle (TOMLABEL)
Brian Wisher (BigB)

Reporting
Markus Baumeister(WOOS)

Manual Editor
TREESPIDER
SKYROS

Scenarios
S001 - Master Campaign Scenario - AE Team
S002 - Alternate Master Campaign Scenario - AndyMac
S003 - GuadMod - Nikademus
S004 - Aleutians - Kristian
S005 - August Storm - Kereguelen
S006 - Coral Sea - Kristian

Assistance and Advice
Chris Richards(Drongo)


Project Management
Joe Wilkerson - Project Lead







Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 1:39:29 AM)

Something I never understood is why a plane like the Corsare would get such a high manouver rating when it was such a pig, my favorate quote about it's handeling came from a F4U piolet who said:

"It handeled like a hog on ice."

About the only manuaver it can exicute is to run away.




Apollo11 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:11:26 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well I wanted to post the roles and responsibilities for the project so the forum will have visibility to who has been doing what. People have been arriving and departing off the project for well over a year now so a list like this is only a snap shot - and it is certain to change again before we are through, but here it is as it is now. Of course some folks do many things and I'm not going to make this a 50 page document, but these are the primary roles these people have at this time.

Air Team
Ian Kibler(TheElf) - Team Lead
Thomas Eliot (TimTom) - OOB Research
Steve Sanchez(ChezDaJez) - OOB Research, Testing
Mike Kraemer - Testing
Michael McFarland - Programming

Naval Team
Kristian Fischer(Terminus) - Team Lead
Justin Prince(Tankerace) - OOB Research
John Eldredge(JWE) - OOB Research
Bruce Powers - Testing
Don Bowen - Programming

Ground Team
Andy McPhie - Team Lead
Kereguelen - OOB Research
Joel Szabat(Blackhorse) - OOB Research
BadNews - OOB Research
Mike Scholl - Testing
Joe Chandler(SonnyII) - Testing
James Armstrong(BigJ62) - Programming

Map Team
Andrew Brown - Team Lead, Map Development
Bob Trapasso - Testing

Ship Art
John Eldredge(JWE)
Kelly LaBelle (TOMLABEL)
Brian Wisher (BigB)

Reporting
Markus Baumeister(WOOS)

Assistance and Advice
Steve Dyer (Nikademus)
Forest Webb (TreeSpider)
Chris Richards(Drongo)

Project Management
Joe Wilkerson - Project Lead and other tasks that needed doing
Kristian Fischer - Deputy Project Lead


Nice list - thanks for info!

BTW, when you guys need more testing power (and you will need it - that's sure thing) - you know where to look... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"




pad152 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:15:11 AM)

No one is assigned to the AI?




el cid again -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:15:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Something I never understood is why a plane like the Corsare would get such a high manouver rating when it was such a pig, my favorate quote about it's handeling came from a F4U piolet who said:

"It handeled like a hog on ice."

About the only manuaver it can exicute is to run away.


The problem arises because "maneuverability" in WITP is mislabled - or not quite mislabled but a composite of different kinds of maneuverability. The ability to move, climb, turn and dive are all forms of maneuverability. Further, these values are DIFFERENT for the SAME plane at different altitudes. But we must combine all into one. So a plane with great speed and ROC looks "maneuverable" even if it turns awfully. A change in the form of giving us more fields for maneuverability - splitting horizontal and vertical - and at several altitudes - is the best solution - but probably too complex to fully implement at this time.




jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:18:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

No one is assigned to the AI?



The "AI" is mostly being handled by the land team, though the air team will be involved once they get their OOB done. Can't start fixing the AI until the OOBs are done.





Erik Rutins -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:25:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
No one is assigned to the AI?


The AI touches everything, so basically everyone has some role in how it pans out - you don't see anyone assigned specifically to PBEM either... [;)]




witpqs -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:32:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: thinz2
My machine has an Intel Core 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13 Ghz. I noticed in MS Flight Simulator X that the software in configuring itself tended to underrate the processing capacity of dual CPUs because of their lower clock speeds.
So would my system be considered optimal for AE?


Absolutely - the "GHz" rating is really somewhat misleading, but there are few better methods out there. I think it's probably fair to say that when we say 2GHz, we mean "2GHz back from when the first processors hit 2GHz". That means a new dual core like the 6400 is probably more equivalent to 4-5GHz in those terms.

Regards,

- Erik



Does this mean that AE will be compiled to take advantage of multiple cores?


In case you guys missed this query...




Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 2:35:38 AM)

CC, but wouldent Just Climb and spead be suficient to express the diferance in manuaverabality? to say compare a Oscar and a P-38, Clearly the Oscare is a far more nimble plane, and the P-38 much faster and depending on the alt could out climb it, it would seam at a glance that to state that the P-38 was more manuaverable as well would be over statating the isue of it's comparative uberness, but I never fully understood how this all worked out in WiTP, I know when Nickademus worked his magic with the AtoA model he seamed to come a long way given the limited variables he could tweak, considering the team at hand I suspect good things will come from this in the end.




Erik Rutins -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 4:05:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Does this mean that AE will be compiled to take advantage of multiple cores?

In case you guys missed this query...


Not that I'm aware of, but the fact remains that a 6400 at 2GHz is quite a bit faster than an old Athlon XP at 2GHz.

Regards,

- Erik




el cid again -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 1:34:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

CC, but wouldent Just Climb and spead be suficient to express the diferance in manuaverabality? to say compare a Oscar and a P-38, Clearly the Oscare is a far more nimble plane, and the P-38 much faster and depending on the alt could out climb it, it would seam at a glance that to state that the P-38 was more manuaverable as well would be over statating the isue of it's comparative uberness, but I never fully understood how this all worked out in WiTP, I know when Nickademus worked his magic with the AtoA model he seamed to come a long way given the limited variables he could tweak, considering the team at hand I suspect good things will come from this in the end.



Well - the RHS team managed to achieve some success in the air model. A lot of effort went into figuring out how to have relative performance between different plane types properly rated. One problem is that you need to consider the combined set of fields defining an aircraft to assess its quality: Oscar is weak in protection (there isn't any for the I) and firepower (the Ia had two .30s, the Ib had 1 .30 and 1 .50, and the Ic had two .50s - not a lot of firepower in an age when standard fighters had four .50s or eight .30s). Yet "the Oscar was almost as great a technical suprise as the Zero" - and the surprise was mostly maneuverability - also tactics (the IJN turning in maneuver was adoped by JAAF).

It would be far better if horizontal maneuverability was separated from vertical. And altitude matters a big deal. So the ability to rate at 5000 feet, 15000 feet and 25000 feet (say) might be really useful.

Most planes are awful above 30,000 feet, many awful much lower. Just because the plane can get there does not mean it can maneuver, that its guns won't freeze up, etc. There is room for considerable more sophistication in the system addressing these matters. But ANY improvements are welcome - and we should look at what we get in that light. WITP II will no doubt do even better than AE.




jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 4:23:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

CC, but wouldent Just Climb and spead be suficient to express the diferance in manuaverabality? to say compare a Oscar and a P-38, Clearly the Oscare is a far more nimble plane, and the P-38 much faster and depending on the alt could out climb it, it would seam at a glance that to state that the P-38 was more manuaverable as well would be over statating the isue of it's comparative uberness, but I never fully understood how this all worked out in WiTP, I know when Nickademus worked his magic with the AtoA model he seamed to come a long way given the limited variables he could tweak, considering the team at hand I suspect good things will come from this in the end.



Well - the RHS team managed to achieve some success in the air model. A lot of effort went into figuring out how to have relative performance between different plane types properly rated. One problem is that you need to consider the combined set of fields defining an aircraft to assess its quality: Oscar is weak in protection (there isn't any for the I) and firepower (the Ia had two .30s, the Ib had 1 .30 and 1 .50, and the Ic had two .50s - not a lot of firepower in an age when standard fighters had four .50s or eight .30s). Yet "the Oscar was almost as great a technical suprise as the Zero" - and the surprise was mostly maneuverability - also tactics (the IJN turning in maneuver was adoped by JAAF).

It would be far better if horizontal maneuverability was separated from vertical. And altitude matters a big deal. So the ability to rate at 5000 feet, 15000 feet and 25000 feet (say) might be really useful.

Most planes are awful above 30,000 feet, many awful much lower. Just because the plane can get there does not mean it can maneuver, that its guns won't freeze up, etc. There is room for considerable more sophistication in the system addressing these matters. But ANY improvements are welcome - and we should look at what we get in that light. WITP II will no doubt do even better than AE.


Manueverability has been substantially reworked - and altitude bands added - check over on the air thread for more details!




donkey_roxor -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 5:49:09 PM)

This is not really a question, but more of a comment -

Sardaukar asked a question on page 3 of this thread asking if the AI will be user-modifiable in any way. I realize that the answer to that is "work on AI will happen after most of the other stuff is done, and we're trying our best," but I'd like to cast my vote in favor of user-moddable AI scripting. Look at all the neat things modders have done with the original WiTP - imagine if the same modders could also script AI behavior. How cool would it be to have the Japanese AI launch an attack on Pearl Harbor or northern Australia? Now think about how cool it would be if AI scripts could be transferred between players, maybe with some type of encryption - like PBEM, except not quite...

Anyway, just some thoughts.




jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 6:58:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: donkey_roxor

This is not really a question, but more of a comment -

Sardaukar asked a question on page 3 of this thread asking if the AI will be user-modifiable in any way. I realize that the answer to that is "work on AI will happen after most of the other stuff is done, and we're trying our best," but I'd like to cast my vote in favor of user-moddable AI scripting. Look at all the neat things modders have done with the original WiTP - imagine if the same modders could also script AI behavior. How cool would it be to have the Japanese AI launch an attack on Pearl Harbor or northern Australia? Now think about how cool it would be if AI scripts could be transferred between players, maybe with some type of encryption - like PBEM, except not quite...

Anyway, just some thoughts.


Adding a true scripting engine - remotely like TAOW - is definitely a WITP_II list item and not an "AE" item. But agree it would certainly be cool! [:)]




Shark7 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 8:50:43 PM)

Didn't see this addressed anywhere else so I'll ask here.

The stock game left out Thailand when historically they did fight on the side of Japan early in the war. Will AE add the Thai OOB as a Japanese ally?




jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 9:59:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Didn't see this addressed anywhere else so I'll ask here.

The stock game left out Thailand when historically they did fight on the side of Japan early in the war. Will AE add the Thai OOB as a Japanese ally?


Kereguelen can give more details over on the land thread, but yes I think there will be a Thai OOB, it has certainly been discussed a number of times.





Kereguelen -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 10:07:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Didn't see this addressed anywhere else so I'll ask here.

The stock game left out Thailand when historically they did fight on the side of Japan early in the war. Will AE add the Thai OOB as a Japanese ally?


Kereguelen can give more details over on the land thread, but yes I think there will be a Thai OOB, it has certainly been discussed a number of times.




Yup, Royal Thai Army is in.




Nikademus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 10:26:03 PM)

will we be able to bring onto thy opponents.....a shrubbery?




witpqs -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 10:28:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

will we be able to bring onto thy opponents.....a shrubbery?


There is no cannibalism in the Royal Navy! Maybe in WITP-2?




Buck Beach -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 10:36:00 PM)

I'm not sure I truly understand the full concept of AI scripting? What does it include? I am only looking for a very brief explanation.




Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 10:50:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I'm not sure I truly understand the full concept of AI scripting? What does it include? I am only looking for a very brief explanation.


Basically, it's about letting the scenario creator define in great detail what the AI must do, i.e. the script it has to follow. TOAW is famous for having a very fine scripting engine; WitP not so much...




jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 11:01:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I'm not sure I truly understand the full concept of AI scripting? What does it include? I am only looking for a very brief explanation.


First a couple of examples.

(1) TAOW - in this game (and I'll admit I haven't coded up a full blown "event script" for TOAW in some years .. but way back when I spent far more hours "building" TAOW games than I did playing them!!!) the scenario builder has a reasonably useful "event scripting" language with which to build in some AI. Triggers can be set and event chains launched from such triggers. Supply levels can be changed, reinforcements can be triggered, weather can be changed, intel levels can be changed. And then from a campaign perspective, multiple objective paths can be created and units/organizations can be assigned to these objective paths. If you build the scenario, you will be able to beat it (if it can be beaten) because you know the options, but it can provide an interesting a variable puzzle for others.

(2) EU2/HOI2/Victoria - I've only played around extensively with the HOI(1) capabilities. Here you can define whole nations and all the related attributes. In these "paradox" games, the game creators themselves use the scripting engine to define the games. The scripting engine is not a "bolt on". So you have the same powers that the game designers have. The "scale" of HOI is a bit too macro for my tastes, hence I don't have nearly as many hours investeed there as I do with the TAOW engine, but both serve as examples of "AI Scripting" at least at some level.

What are some of the attributes of AI scripting?
(actually I will answer more closely to what would I like to see in an AI Scripting engine)

(a) Well an AI scripting engine may or may not be "exposed" i.e. available to modders. This is more of a business decision than a technical decision.

(b) One successful type of architecture would have the scripting engine be event based. In this case a full DES (Discrete Event Simulation) model would be preferred. Events in a DES system can create any number and type of other events when they fire. And they can destroy any number and type of other events. DES can be time based, so an event can create a number of other events and add them to the event list in the future. When the time reaches that time scheduled for an event to fire, then event fires. It make take actions, or it may CRUD other events.

(c) Another useful component would be a Petri Net based relationship. Most DES systems I've built in the past were "linear". A PN based system would be "graphical" (in the sense of graph theory not in the sense of pictures). A PN system allows multiple simultaneous asynchronus processes to be acted upon. That is we are now non-linear. Stocastic Petri Nets can add random variables to Petri Net elements to randomize event firings even further. I have used Petri Nets very successfully to simulate operations of semi-conductor manufacturing equipment and thus became aware of the power of this (mathematical) tool for simulating almost any phenomena.

So these would be among the basic elements I would like to see in a "go forward" AI scripting engine. And a further topic would be "extensibility". That being, what does it take to add a new event type? Can this be done without changing the even processing code? And there would certainly have to be some limits here, but at the same time event type extensibility would be another "nice to have" attribute.

So is this in scope for "AE"? Definitely not. But if Joe ever gets to work on "WITP_II" or equivalent, it would be something I would be advocating for.

--- BTW there are some decent books on AI for games --- I haven't yet seen one that mentions Petri Nets though!
:)





Buck Beach -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 11:43:44 PM)

Actually more detail than I needed, but, I somewhat understand whats not going to be done. Now a follow-up question and then I'll shut up. Will the AI scripting in AE have a scripting that triggers basic events like refueling and replenishment when endurance/fuel & supplies are exhausted. If WITP has such scripting, it does not work as you undoubtedly are painfully aware. Sure was hoping AE or the Patch to WITP we were awaiting would have it.




Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 11:53:00 PM)

That's all part of the stuff we're working on; making sure that the AI doesn't sail around until its tanks are empty and it's a thousand miles away from base...




Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 11:53:30 PM)

An Oldie but a goodie....

Early War Allied Suply: Early on in the pacific war for the Allies suply was a bit of a problem, all maner of item, from fighter planes to profolactics were not in great suply, the tean pregancy rate in New Zeland Skyrocketd in early 42 puting a huge burdon on Allied Transports in their atempt to move desperatly neaded maternatly materials to their from the West coast. All punning aside the Allies cup runith over a tad in this area of the game, their is NO suply problem for the Alies early on, their is enough local suply at all the many allied bases to run things just fine and after the first ships arive even as far out as New Zeland and Nouma their set for the rest of the war, with a ton of materail. This large right from the start Allied suply bonious gives the allies to much of an edge, it alows them to be far to agreasive early on. IMO suply for the allies should be scaled up, the west coast and Indian ports should start off low and ramp up to present levals by the end of 42.




Woos -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/9/2007 11:55:32 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I'm not sure I truly understand the full concept of AI scripting? What does it include? I am only looking for a very brief explanation.


To give a more simple explanation than Joe: In general AI scripting is if the designers of a game (or of the AI scripts) fix certain behaviour of the AI. The alternative is a free-planning AI which only decides based on its general algorithms and on what it sees the opponent do. A well-known example for AI-scripting (and "human-scripting" BTW) are the opening libraries of chess. For several moves there is a huge 'script' telling the AI how to react on each move of the opponent. Once out of the book, the AI has to switch to free planning.

Basic problem of AI scripting is that if you know what the script prescribes (either because you wrote it or due to several games against it) you can normally easily beat the AI since you can either make moves throwing it out of script or use the script against the AI (just expand quickly as IJ in WitP and watch the Allies AI try to attack base it is not scripted to give up already with insufficient forces; I think in TOAW it was landing some unit in the back of the enemy and see all units assigned to that city suddenly leave the front leaving gaps).


BTW I'm not an expert in AIs at all but is event scripting still state of the art for AIs? It seems to lack quite some flexibility. E.g. a script for the invasion of the Philipines would have to recognize and act upon several possible moves of the opponent (defend the beaches, fall back immediatly, sent reinforcements by ship (OK not that probable for the philipines) or plane, ....). Doing that all in an event driven script seems to be quite complicated to me.
Maybe for WitP-II one should look at the Robotics people (which I also am not an expert in) which seem to use task- and goal-oriented approaches to solve AI issues in 'games' like Robocup and Robocup@home.




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.703125