Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (Full Version)

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



Message

fbs -> Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/11/2009 5:23:18 AM)

This, exactly as is, should be "Ensign's Edition".

Then, when Windows 9 launches, with 256-bit computers running the latest x986, there should be a "Lt Commander's Edition".

You got the drift. By the time we have quantum computers with Windows XXXP, 50 feet monitors and 1 Quantuza-byte of RAM, then you can have the "Admiral's Edition" -- the version that has the name, stats, picture and fingerprints of every single soldier in the front, you have to include "today's grub recipe" on your daily orders, and the game of course includes the effects of Moon's gravity on the each shell's trajectory(**) [:D][:D]


Cheers [:D]
fbs

(**) and of course someone will come saying: "this thing is broken!! the Moon will vary AT MOST 0.0003-inches in tha shell target, and it is changing 0.0005 inches!!
[sm=terms.gif][sm=terms.gif]"



scott64 -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/11/2009 6:27:56 AM)

[sm=crazy.gif][sm=00001746.gif]



Czert -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 6:38:58 AM)

bah, you can allways have generals edition for version with better land combat (no more battlestar tactic), generals staff edition (better graphic and mayn more), CIC (comander in chief) edition for best-in-every -aspeck verson.



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 12:30:58 PM)

No, it should have been named "War in the Pacific, JFB Edition"

Yeah, I'm serious. Someone talk me down form this ledge, I'm on the verge of deleting this mess from my hard drive. If the development team had been upfront with the JFB bias their design had I could accept that. Wouldn't have been my cup of tea, so I wouldn't have shelled out for the game. I'm actually suprised the Japanese don't get nukes in 1943.

<sigh>

-CJ



Halsey -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 2:19:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

No, it should have been named "War in the Pacific, JFB Edition"

Yeah, I'm serious. Someone talk me down form this ledge, I'm on the verge of deleting this mess from my hard drive. If the development team had been upfront with the JFB bias their design had I could accept that. Wouldn't have been my cup of tea, so I wouldn't have shelled out for the game. I'm actually suprised the Japanese don't get nukes in 1943.

<sigh>

-CJ


I would really love to comment on this.

Mike Scholl could probably be more eloquent that I could.[;)]

Some of the added Allied handicaps were added at the last minute before release.



Mynok -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 2:22:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

No, it should have been named "War in the Pacific, JFB Edition"

Yeah, I'm serious. Someone talk me down form this ledge, I'm on the verge of deleting this mess from my hard drive. If the development team had been upfront with the JFB bias their design had I could accept that. Wouldn't have been my cup of tea, so I wouldn't have shelled out for the game. I'm actually suprised the Japanese don't get nukes in 1943.

<sigh>

-CJ


Uh...have you ever actually played the Japanese side? If not, you don't know what you're talking about.



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 3:02:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Uh...have you ever actually played the Japanese side? If not, you don't know what you're talking about.


Umm...how so? Why don't you go read the "Naval Gun" thread in the mod forum. JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

But go ahead, throw smokescreens.

-CJ



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 3:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Some of the added Allied handicaps were added at the last minute before release.


Nice. How many fricken "Allied handicaps" are there?

This is NOT how you balance a historical simulation. Imagine Jane's F-15, if we gave the Iraqis Tie Fighters to make it more "fair". LOL...

-CJ



Nikademus -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 3:13:00 PM)

Have you played the Japanese side?



Mynok -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 3:21:03 PM)


And why do you assume there are no Japanese handicaps?



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 4:47:34 PM)

Fine...lets get all the "handicaps" out in the open. Let the users decide.

Any devs care to share this list?

-CJ



witpqs -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 5:56:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".



I presume that was simply a poor choice of words on his part.

Getting a game engine to behave like a 'simulation' to the degree that it provides reasonably accurate results versus real life does require balancing. To achieve this, statistics/characteristics that are fed into the engine (range, penetration, etc.) are not the same as real life. Why? Because the game's computer code with data is not the same as the real universe's laws of physics with uncountable numbers of various particles large and small. You have to 'tweak' the input you give the game engine (in this case device characteristics, etc.) until you are getting 'realistic' results.

This also applies on scales larger than just single battles - we are looking at multiple theaters of action with many campaigns, strategies, battles, and so on.



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 8:03:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".



I presume that was simply a poor choice of words on his part.

Getting a game engine to behave like a 'simulation' to the degree that it provides reasonably accurate results versus real life does require balancing. To achieve this, statistics/characteristics that are fed into the engine (range, penetration, etc.) are not the same as real life. Why? Because the game's computer code with data is not the same as the real universe's laws of physics with uncountable numbers of various particles large and small. You have to 'tweak' the input you give the game engine (in this case device characteristics, etc.) until you are getting 'realistic' results.

This also applies on scales larger than just single battles - we are looking at multiple theaters of action with many campaigns, strategies, battles, and so on.


I totally get the need to compromise...I'd had to design around some whoppers in my day. Poor choice or words or not, what was said plus bits and pieces from other threads (including this one) lead me to believe AE has a definate ahistorical slant for the sake of "gameplay". I would like to know these gameplay changes, so that I can either try to overcome them using the editor, or give up on AE as a historical simulation. Is that too much to ask?

-CJ



Nikademus -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 8:27:17 PM)

have you played the Japanese side?



Chickenboy -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 8:56:30 PM)

CJ,

I think an intuitive place to start is to look at documentation on the first public patch. In the "read me" section of that are a list of fixes and changes implemented because of OOB, bug issues or in the name of gameplay or playability. That will give you a list of the issues the Devs thought important enough to address with code changes.

Hope this helps.



CJ Martin -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 10:58:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

have you played the Japanese side?


Nik, I'm trying real hard not to pick a fight with you, as I respect your work.

To answer your question, I have in WitP, haven't in AE yet. Not sure I want to.

I'm guessing you are coming from the "Japan has no chance to win, so we made some changes to make it more playable" angle. If so, I profoundly disagree with that approach. It is a dead end that kills your credibility with some (read: the hard core crowd). Maybe you don't care about that, and that's cool...just be upfront about it. You can't have things both ways. Either the game is as realisitc as the engine will allow or it is not. If changes have been made in the name of "gameplay", then you are off the realistic trail.

I designed the Gulf War campaign for Jane's F-15. I took a lot of heat because I insisted the player start on the ground. In real life, the Strike Eagle were far behind the lines. Our map was full scale, so that meant a long flight out, hit the tanker (maybe more than once), hit the target, and get home. Yeah, we had time compression...but the engine could only speed up so much, as we had a LOT of AI running and of course this was 1996 - PC's were a pale shadow of today. "Gameplay" would have me either move the starting base, compress the map, or start in the air. I fought that battle and won. And I'm damn proud of that simulation. One small example.

Here's another, same game. On historical, the Iraqi AF is pretty much a pushover. Still, the depth of systems and the challenge of A/G made that acceptable to us. We added "harder" modes with much more aggressive A/A AI - but it was clear to the player they were departing reality. We gave them that choice. AE does not. We also created a much more balanced (in terms of A/A vs A/G) campaign, set in the future vs. Iran...clearly that was not historical, but it was a fun what if.

One of the reasons I play historical game is to learn as well as be entertained. The hard core games I designed were along those lines. You could learn a lot about the limitations of A/A radar in real life running F-15, F/A-18 or the Falcon series (the later I had nothing to do with, but I knew some of those folks and they did great work). We pushed the bar. We had no wish 'em dead weapons. Yeah, we had easier modes, but on realistic, you had to know your stuff to win. ANd to me, that was/is cool.

I play other games to escape reality. Different experience, different gameplay expectations.

So which is AE? Hard core historical simulation or a balanced strategic fantasy game based on history?

-CJ





Mynok -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 11:02:21 PM)


There is no such thing as a historical simulation. Not one that also purports to be a game. There's your problem.

This is a game. It is historically based, but it may not satisfy your 'hard-core' requirements in that regard. It lies somewhere between your false dichotomy of 'hard core simulation' vs 'fantasy game'. There are lots of other permutations which fill neither of those bills.

Feel free to delete this fantasy game if you don't like it.



JWE -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 11:27:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
Umm...how so? Why don't you go read the "Naval Gun" thread in the mod forum. JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

But go ahead, throw smokescreens.

-CJ

Uh. No he didn't. In fact he went out of his way to make sure you understood that nothing was tweaked since back in the UV days. The comment refered to the original design, years ago. Please do not put false words in my mouth. It annoys.

If you don't want to purchase the game, that's fine. I bid you goodbye and wish you a good voyage wherever you go.



mjk428 -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/16/2009 11:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


There is no such thing as a historical simulation. Not one that also purports to be a game. There's your problem.

This is a game. It is historically based, but it may not satisfy your 'hard-core' requirements in that regard. It lies somewhere between your false dichotomy of 'hard core simulation' vs 'fantasy game'. There are lots of other permutations which fill neither of those bills.

Feel free to delete this fantasy game if you don't like it.



False advertising from the latest Matrix game:

quote:

Gary Grigsby’s Eagle Day to Bombing of the Reich is a detailed simulation of the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany in World War II. Combining both classic titles Battle of Britain and Twelve O'clock High into a single game package, this in depth air war simulation includes all the appeal of the original two titles with a huge list of new features and improvements.





Ayradon -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 12:38:38 AM)

I don't post often. More of a lurker to find the answers to my questions but I had to comment on this bubbling feud.

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

The truth of the matter is that you can only make a game with historical units. War is by no means predetermined. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to these games but the truth is that the actual battles fought during any war could have and would have had different outcomes if only one small thing was different.

If you want a historical simulation what is the point of playing any game. The object of these games is to change history not force it upon the person playing it. What would be the point of playing any nation in any era if what happened in RL was forced upon the player.

Watch the History Channel if you want a historical outcome because that is the only place where you are going to find reality.



rhohltjr -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 12:48:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Some of the added Allied handicaps were added at the last minute before release.


Nice. How many fricken "Allied handicaps" are there?

This is NOT how you balance a historical simulation. Imagine Jane's F-15, if we gave the Iraqis Tie Fighters to make it more "fair". LOL...

-CJ


My moneys on the F-15s in the atmosphere. A tie fighter dosen't look like it would have any lift in an atmospheric flight. [8D]



Mynok -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 12:58:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ayradon

I don't post often. More of a lurker to find the answers to my questions but I had to comment on this bubbling feud.

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

The truth of the matter is that you can only make a game with historical units. War is by no means predetermined. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to these games but the truth is that the actual battles fought during any war could have and would have had different outcomes if only one small thing was different.

If you want a historical simulation what is the point of playing any game. The object of these games is to change history not force it upon the person playing it. What would be the point of playing any nation in any era if what happened in RL was forced upon the player.

Watch the History Channel if you want a historical outcome because that is the only place where you are going to find reality.


I agree 100%. The devs have done a tremendous job trying to make a game that is as historically-based as possible while still allowing some freedom to make differing choices by the players. This makes for a fun game. They have also tried to make an AI that provides a challenge to those who prefer that mode of play. Sort of like hitting bullseyes in opposite directions with one shot IMO, but they've done it.

Once they get some of the anomalies addressed, this is going to be fun for everyone, no matter what their mode of play.



Feinder -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 1:03:21 AM)

[sm=00000613.gif]

-F-



Bradley7735 -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 1:24:09 AM)

Ok, I feel a little bad about starting the whole gun penetration issue. I realized that the only time I post on here is if I find something in the game that I don't like, or that I think is wrong. The only two things I've noticed as being an issue is the Aussie CA's vs Mogami, and the large US BB TF vs a small Japanese BB TF.

So, despite my two threads on issues I want to see changed, I want to say that this game rocks. I'm not sure you can find a subject that has more details to it than the Pacific war. The people who made and continue to make this game have done a phenominal job. Thank you.



Nikademus -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 2:25:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
To answer your question, I have in WitP, haven't in AE yet. Not sure I want to.

I'm guessing you are coming from the "Japan has no chance to win, so we made some changes to make it more playable" angle.



Nope. I was coming from the "I'm trying to give this guy the benefit of a doubt approach" given that you've managed to irritate at least one developer so far and bore another. So....as another developer, i was curious as to why you seem to think there are anti-Allied biases built into the game. Hence, the repeated question, "have you played Japan yet in AE?".

Thx for finally answering. I figured you hadn't but again....that benefit of a doubt thingy. I now suggest that before you start ringing the firebell any further and making accusations and demands towards the AE team, that you first play the Japan side before you start condeming the game as an Allied fanboy fantasy. Delete or play the game...or design your own wargame since you say your a developer. It's your choice. All i have to say on this.



TOMLABEL -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 3:43:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ayradon

I don't post often. More of a lurker to find the answers to my questions but I had to comment on this bubbling feud.

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

The truth of the matter is that you can only make a game with historical units. War is by no means predetermined. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to these games but the truth is that the actual battles fought during any war could have and would have had different outcomes if only one small thing was different.

If you want a historical simulation what is the point of playing any game. The object of these games is to change history not force it upon the person playing it. What would be the point of playing any nation in any era if what happened in RL was forced upon the player.

Watch the History Channel if you want a historical outcome because that is the only place where you are going to find reality.



Well....WELCOME ABOARD!!!![:)]

Glad to have your thoughts and input! In my opinion, the more thoughts we have posted here the better! I hope this won't be your last!![&o]



V22 Osprey -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 4:22:36 AM)

Currently playing the Grand Campaign.....Lost a lot of land, hopefully the enterprise can save midway....anyway I love this game.I think that this is game is very well done, but I won't be convinced that you can actually do *anything* in this game until I see some kind of invasion of the Japanese Home Islands or American West Coast.I would be happy just being able to take Pearl Harbor as the Japs.



sfbaytf -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 4:31:19 AM)

For whatever its worth when playing against a competent PBEM Japanese opponent-and my opponent is quite good, you should forget about a Midway moment. A human opponent isn't going to make the same mistakes as Yamamoto did and the allieds you won't have the advantage of reading the enemies plans like what happened in real life when the US Navy broke the Japanese codes.

Take your carriers and hide till 43. I'm sure there are some players who are good enough to take on Japan with American carriers in 42, but I'm not one of them.

Its easy to beat up on the AI. Against a good PBEM opponent its a different story. In 42 the allieds do possess many other advantages besides carriers...



stuman -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 8:16:58 AM)

I have many wise things I could say that would settle this debate to the complete satisfaction of one and all. But it is late, so I will try to remember to explain all tomorrow.



bklooste -> RE: Name "Admiral's Edition" reveals lack of long-term planning (10/17/2009 12:39:47 PM)

quote:

so? Why don't you go read the "Naval Gun" thread in the mod forum. JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".


Read it again its like 1-2% on penetration ... big deal ie prob 0.1% impact as you penetrate most things anyway and you wont penetrate BBs. Most of these were just favorable roundings 237 to 240 and for the US 242 to 240.

Note the US gets a few massive bonuses
- Non Barbette Turreted 5"/38 like on all the carriers had about half the fire rate but in the game they get full fire rate ( this is like 2* the AA value on US CVs)
- US gets like ~10-20% bonus with its guns early in the war because it uses the late war fire control bonus on accuracy on the 5"/38 at the start ..See the accuracy threads.

Ben



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.421875