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

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



Message

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/24/2007 1:57:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin
The map panels may be different, but the map itself could be used and just re-cut to fit the new panel size. I still have the original map I made in Photopaint 11 which is not cut into panels.


The AE map is physically larger, so you would need to increase the size of your map to match the new dimensions (the old map has 20 panels - the AE map has 42).

Andrew



KDonovan -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/24/2007 2:29:51 PM)

will Ocean island (near the gilberts) be added?

also will Nauru and Ocean Island get resource points to simulate their phosphate deposits?



hueglin -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/24/2007 2:56:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin
The map panels may be different, but the map itself could be used and just re-cut to fit the new panel size. I still have the original map I made in Photopaint 11 which is not cut into panels.


The AE map is physically larger, so you would need to increase the size of your map to match the new dimensions (the old map has 20 panels - the AE map has 42).

Andrew




Thanks for the info Andrew. Are the map panels the same size, with just an increase in the number of panels?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/25/2007 5:24:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

will Ocean island (near the gilberts) be added?

also will Nauru and Ocean Island get resource points to simulate their phosphate deposits?


Yes and yes.

Also - due to the removal of supply generation by resource centres, these bases will produce resource points only, not supply points as well.

Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/25/2007 5:25:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin
Are the map panels the same size, with just an increase in the number of panels?


Yes they are the same size.

Andrew



VSWG -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/26/2007 2:04:41 PM)

It would be great in an Allied player could stop production by oil and resource centers. Right now the Japanese player can simply bypass all important oil/resource producing bases in the DEI, knowing that he won't lose any production since it will stockpile.

I'm aware that the ability to destroy production would imbalance the game, but stopping production is another matter IMO.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/26/2007 2:12:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

It would be great in an Allied player could stop production by oil and resource centers. Right now the Japanese player can simply bypass all important oil/resource producing bases in the DEI, knowing that he won't lose any production since it will stockpile.

I'm aware that the ability to destroy production would imbalance the game, but stopping production is another matter IMO.



I definitely agree. But I think that will have to wait for a future update.

Andrew



NormS3 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/28/2007 8:26:40 PM)

How about galapagos islands? They may become important in any of the cut the US off from Australia attempts.



Shark7 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/28/2007 9:34:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

It would be great in an Allied player could stop production by oil and resource centers. Right now the Japanese player can simply bypass all important oil/resource producing bases in the DEI, knowing that he won't lose any production since it will stockpile.

I'm aware that the ability to destroy production would imbalance the game, but stopping production is another matter IMO.



On the other hand, we know what happened. The allies did not know how easily the DEI would fall. Seems to me they would have kept the production up and tried to transport the oil and resource to help their war effort. The trouble is, the AI is horrible at actually moving the resources.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/29/2007 1:00:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

It would be great in an Allied player could stop production by oil and resource centers. Right now the Japanese player can simply bypass all important oil/resource producing bases in the DEI, knowing that he won't lose any production since it will stockpile.

I'm aware that the ability to destroy production would imbalance the game, but stopping production is another matter IMO.



On the other hand, we know what happened. The allies did not know how easily the DEI would fall. Seems to me they would have kept the production up and tried to transport the oil and resource to help their war effort. The trouble is, the AI is horrible at actually moving the resources.



Well, the complaint was based on Japanese Players making use of hindsight..., so why shouldn't the Allied player get the same chance? And the Dutch DID know how defenseless they were, which is why they started wiring everything to blow the moment the war started.

The AI is horrible at almost everything strategic..., that's why so many players move on to PBEM after "learning the ropes".



KDonovan -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/29/2007 1:40:22 AM)

has if the weather model been adjusted?

is it possible for a player to better forecast the weather?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/29/2007 4:23:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

has if the weather model been adjusted?

is it possible for a player to better forecast the weather?


Unfortunately, there are no changes to the weather system. Perhaps there will be time for this later on.

Andrew



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/30/2007 5:08:53 PM)

What about antimony? Up to 90% of antimony production is in China. It is used to alloy with lead. Sure, everyone knows about the sexy stuff like oil, rubber, tin and aluminum but antimony is one of my favorite metals. Sure, it's a bit brittle, but it shouldn't be disrespected. Will this be modeled? [;)]



Sonny II -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/30/2007 5:29:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

What about antimony? Up to 90% of anitmony production is in China. It is used to alloy with lead. Sure, everyone knows about the sexy stuff like oil, rubber, tin and aluminum but antimony is one of my favorite metals. Sure, it's a bit brittle, but it shouldn't be disrespected. Will this be modeled? [;)]


As far as I know there will be no disrespect for antimony in the game.

[:'(]



okami -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/30/2007 6:44:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

What about antimony? Up to 90% of anitmony production is in China. It is used to alloy with lead. Sure, everyone knows about the sexy stuff like oil, rubber, tin and aluminum but antimony is one of my favorite metals. Sure, it's a bit brittle, but it shouldn't be disrespected. Will this be modeled? [;)]


As far as I know there will be no disrespect for antimony in the game.

[:'(]

I thought the Japanese declared war on antimony? Isn't that why they were there in the first place?[:D][:D][:D]



witpqs -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/30/2007 10:54:48 PM)

Actually it's the communists who are antimony. [:'(]



rockmedic109 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 12:45:44 AM)

I went to school with Antimony in 3rd grade.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 5:07:05 AM)

I call upon St. Antimony when I has misplaced my cell phone or car keys.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 5:52:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

How about galapagos islands? They may become important in any of the cut the US off from Australia attempts.


The Galapagos Islands are not included. Probably the only thing on my current map that won't be on the AE map.

Andrew

PS: We thought long and hard about tracking Antimony production but reluctantly decided against it.



Sonny II -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 1:11:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


...............................


PS: We thought long and hard about tracking Antimony production but reluctantly decided against it.


But not in a disrespectful way!




Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 1:34:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I was looking at the screen shots that Matrix posted up for the AE edition.

I have a question on a symbol I see:

What is that little square I see in the upper left corner of the Shanghai hex? (It also appears in Canton, Pescadores, and the southern base in Okinawa.)

I assumed it was a "mines present" symbol, but I don't see one in Hong Kong, which aught to be mined (although if the screen shot was done by a player logged in as the "Japanese player", it may be missing due to FOW...).


Finally checked this - yes that is a mine symbol, and is absent in HK for the reason you guessed at.

Andrew



Shark7 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 9:21:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I was looking at the screen shots that Matrix posted up for the AE edition.

I have a question on a symbol I see:

What is that little square I see in the upper left corner of the Shanghai hex? (It also appears in Canton, Pescadores, and the southern base in Okinawa.)

I assumed it was a "mines present" symbol, but I don't see one in Hong Kong, which aught to be mined (although if the screen shot was done by a player logged in as the "Japanese player", it may be missing due to FOW...).


Finally checked this - yes that is a mine symbol, and is absent in HK for the reason you guessed at.

Andrew


Well the FOW always lifts and shows me that they are there when I find them the hard way. The last time it only cost me a couple of AKs. Nasty devices. [X(]

Which brings up a good question, is the mine warfare model going to be changed any in AE?



mlees -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (12/31/2007 9:29:02 PM)

I believe Terminus (or maybe jwilkerson) said somewhere that they will look at the mine warfare aspect, with the overall net effect of reducing the over-abundance of mines in the game. (Probably by making the requirements for reloading minelayers more stringent.)



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/1/2008 4:31:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Which brings up a good question, is the mine warfare model going to be changed any in AE?


Best to ask the naval guys that question.

Andrew



NormS3 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/3/2008 6:32:47 PM)

Andrew,

Sorry to bother you again. Do you mean that galapagos islands would not be show up as artwork on the map, or not as a base.

Sorry I was not specific in my initial question.

Thanks again



Dukemourn -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/3/2008 9:27:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

It would be great in an Allied player could stop production by oil and resource centers. Right now the Japanese player can simply bypass all important oil/resource producing bases in the DEI, knowing that he won't lose any production since it will stockpile.

I'm aware that the ability to destroy production would imbalance the game, but stopping production is another matter IMO.



I definitely agree. But I think that will have to wait for a future update.

Andrew

Andrew, I've thought of three ways you might improve this without a lot of programming.
 
1st Method: Have a Storage Limit.  If oil stored at a DEI Base is greater than 1 months production then  [Oil stored = Oil stored - 1 days production].
                 If the Dutch couldn't ship the oil out of a base then I doubt if they would keep producing it and storing it.
 
2nd method: Storage Destruction.  Currently engineers destroy some percentage of production capacity if they are present when the base is lost.  Why not have them destroy some percentage of the oil stored also?
 
3rd Method:  Production stoppage if within Japanese Normal bombing range.  If the Japanese take over a base within normal bombing range of a DEI oil production base then that DEI Base would automatically stop production using the same routine as the 1st method above.  [Oil stored = Oil stored - 1 days production].
 
I know these ideas may be OTS but if you implement one then I'd have my teeny little mark on the greatest game ever made.
 
 
 
 
 



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/4/2008 3:10:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Andrew,

Sorry to bother you again. Do you mean that galapagos islands would not be show up as artwork on the map, or not as a base.

Sorry I was not specific in my initial question.

Thanks again


No worries. The Galapagos Islands are not included as either artwork or base. Since off-map movement is Allied only, there is no need to represent the role of the Galapagos as a cover for the Pacific approaches to Panama.

Andrew



Mike Solli -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/4/2008 6:01:44 PM)

I was just discussing something in another thread and came up with another question concerning Japanese production.  Currently squads, weapons and vehicles are all produced with combinations of manpower, armament and vehicle points while the Allies get production rates of all their stuff.  It seems that if the Japanese have sufficient points in the pool, they can pretty much produce whatever they need, based on the whims of the AI, of course.  Sounds kind of unfair.  Is there going to be any change to this facet of production?

(OMG, I'm a JFB and I'm asking this question! [X(])



Mike Solli -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/4/2008 6:09:00 PM)

Will the pilot training program require fuel (actually supply in the game)?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (1/4/2008 11:34:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I was just discussing something in another thread and came up with another question concerning Japanese production. Currently squads, weapons and vehicles are all produced with combinations of manpower, armament and vehicle points while the Allies get production rates of all their stuff. It seems that if the Japanese have sufficient points in the pool, they can pretty much produce whatever they need, based on the whims of the AI, of course. Sounds kind of unfair. Is there going to be any change to this facet of production?

(OMG, I'm a JFB and I'm asking this question! [X(])


It would be too big a change to provide full Allied production (or equivalent to the Japanese at least - even the Japanese do not have complete control over their production). But I don't think that the Allied player should necessarily have as much control as the Japanese player anyway. What I would like to see though is more reactive allied production - meaning that if there are deficiencies in some areas the Allied production would compensate for it. But that would be for a future game.

The other thing that we should pay attention to is that the Japanese production rates are realistic.

Andrew



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375