RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (Full Version)

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



Message

WingCmdr -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/11/2019 3:59:18 PM)

Hey, There's those little vote features down below. Let's give it a whirl?

I think every voter should commit $100 with each vote.




WingCmdr -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/12/2019 3:52:08 AM)

This proves my point. People know what they want, but they won't open their wallet to get it. And these are the people who want this the most.

Sad [>:]



Akos Gergely -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/12/2019 4:22:22 PM)

Yes an update would be very much due and welcome, even at a full price product!

Some ideas up-front:
IMHO as BigB suggest, the area in need of some heavy rework is naval surface combat. As it is there is almost no control over it. At least engagement min/max distance, formation and preferred tactics should be set.

Also finally torpedo defense for major warships should be factored in, torpedo damage is waaay too random as is. Differentiation in cruising speeds would also be nice (though some mods already do that).

Allied player should have some control over the US warship reinf. queue, could be implemented easily and would do away with the stupid respawns.

Graphics are basically fine as it is, but some higher resolution animation should be added in as well as proper multi resolution/multi CPU support etc, so that one does not have to tinker with windows switches.

Also a few more smaller scale scenarios wouldn't hurt...


So I'd keep most of the code as is just add some things that people mostly wish for.



rustysi -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/13/2019 8:20:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have been asked to demonstrate that an update for AE "would generate more money than it costs."
As a preliminary indicator, I am asking for people to indicate interest.

I specifically proposed a very slight update to the game to facilitate a somewhat expanded
version of Andrew Brown's Extended Map System. Apart from adding a few hexes and a few
off map locations on the off map movement track, it would facilitate using seasonal maps
which feature construction (and rarely, deconstruction) throughout the war. The basic
system is working in RHS, but requires manually changing the pwhexe.dat file and some
map art files every season of the war. I want to automate that process.

The new map system shows things like the deconstruction of the East Malaya RR and the
Baikal Amur RR at the end of the first Winter season, as well as many construction projects.
It also shows considerable construction of roads and rail lines throughout the war. And
trails change seasonally where mud, ice or other natural events "erase" or create them.
The construction comes in two flavors - a strictly historical set - and an alternative
history set which includes numbers of actual projects not implemented (or not fully
implemented during WW2). In Australia, for example, narrow gage RR were surveyed, but
not built, in favor of primary roads. [As issued, AE provides neither.] The upgrade
would allow original AE, strictly historical enhanced AE, and alternative history AE
versions of the pwhexe.dat files, which are where this "construction" is coded. All of that
now exists and there is no cost for Matrix to use it.

As well, the ice on the ocean and on rivers and lakes considerably changes navigation on
an annual cycle. Numbers of major river systems have been considerably developed.

The upgrade might be software only to avoid the cost of disks, boxes and physical package
art. The AE editors would permit any mod to use any version including the original files.
One simply selects the right scenario to modify.


TBH. As you've explained it I would not be interested. The game seems as complete as its going to get with the current code. The only thing I would be interested in is a full re-write and we know that's not gonna happen. Besides even then the whole thing could get botched.

I'm one of those guys who considers, 'Watch what you ask for, you just might get it'.



Dili -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 1:04:30 AM)

It seems you want to change only to make possible to make geographic changes. Seems to me that is a very small upgrade. Of course we all have our interests, for me would be 20nm scale option instead of 40nm and LCU consuming fuel based in their AFVs.



dontra85 -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 3:43:56 AM)

Yes but can it also incorporate seasonal weather; monsoons and typoons. Halsey managed to damage a lot of ships going into them not once but twice.



Anachro -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 3:53:18 AM)

If LCU are gonna consume fuel, then airplanes can't run on rice and beans either.



Yaab -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 7:11:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have been asked to demonstrate that an update for AE "would generate more money than it costs."
As a preliminary indicator, I am asking for people to indicate interest.

I specifically proposed a very slight update to the game to facilitate a somewhat expanded
version of Andrew Brown's Extended Map System. Apart from adding a few hexes and a few
off map locations on the off map movement track, it would facilitate using seasonal maps
which feature construction (and rarely, deconstruction) throughout the war. The basic
system is working in RHS, but requires manually changing the pwhexe.dat file and some
map art files every season of the war. I want to automate that process.

The new map system shows things like the deconstruction of the East Malaya RR and the
Baikal Amur RR at the end of the first Winter season, as well as many construction projects.
It also shows considerable construction of roads and rail lines throughout the war. And
trails change seasonally where mud, ice or other natural events "erase" or create them.
The construction comes in two flavors - a strictly historical set - and an alternative
history set which includes numbers of actual projects not implemented (or not fully
implemented during WW2). In Australia, for example, narrow gage RR were surveyed, but
not built, in favor of primary roads. [As issued, AE provides neither.] The upgrade
would allow original AE, strictly historical enhanced AE, and alternative history AE
versions of the pwhexe.dat files, which are where this "construction" is coded. All of that
now exists and there is no cost for Matrix to use it.

As well, the ice on the ocean and on rivers and lakes considerably changes navigation on
an annual cycle. Numbers of major river systems have been considerably developed.

The upgrade might be software only to avoid the cost of disks, boxes and physical package
art. The AE editors would permit any mod to use any version including the original files.
One simply selects the right scenario to modify.


Yes and no.

YES to seasonal maps.

NO to construction maps as they are now. Consider what happens if the Japanese player captures Ledo and holds it for i.e. a year. Per your proposition, the construction of the Ledo Road would still take place, which makes no sense. The construction should either stop ( the code checks if the Allies own the Ledo hex) or revert ( Japs destroying the existing Ledo Road). If you implement hex ownership check, then construction maps will make sense, and I am in.



Dili -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 1:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

If LCU are gonna consume fuel, then airplanes can't run on rice and beans either.


Agreed.



Korvar -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 2:07:41 PM)

Changing the maps or other major components in any substantive way is an example of what NOT to focus on - that's make-a-wish, Christmas List stuff that makes any updates improbable. You'd have to raise at least tens of thousands of "squiggly L's" (GBP [:D]) to have Slitherine/Matrix seriously consider doing that. The complications are already appearing, and we've barely discussed it.

I believe the focus should be on removing code roadblocks to further 3rd party development. We would be paying for someone to access the source code to which we don't have access, so don't have them work on anything which we can do ourselves. Have them focus on extending access to the internals of the game (not including the 'secret sauce' stuff) so that the community can run with it to create new scenarios, mods, 3rd party tools/utilities, etc. That's how to get the 'most bang for our buck'.

Determining what roadblocks to remove would take a 'Pow-Wow' between community authors/creators and any developer(s) assigned to the project. The community authors/creators could give an idea of what the biggest pain points are for creating a scenario, for instance, and the developer(s) could give an idea of what was technically feasible. Some 'low hanging fruit' could then be determined, and the scope of work set by the quantity of funds we are able to raise.



Big B -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 2:40:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Korvar

Changing the maps or other major components in any substantive way is an example of what NOT to focus on - that's make-a-wish, Christmas List stuff that makes any updates improbable. You'd have to raise at least tens of thousands of "squiggly L's" (GBP [:D]) to have Slitherine/Matrix seriously consider doing that. The complications are already appearing, and we've barely discussed it.

I believe the focus should be on removing code roadblocks to further 3rd party development. We would be paying for someone to access the source code to which we don't have access, so don't have them work on anything which we can do ourselves. Have them focus on extending access to the internals of the game (not including the 'secret sauce' stuff) so that the community can run with it to create new scenarios, mods, 3rd party tools/utilities, etc. That's how to get the 'most bang for our buck'.

Determining what roadblocks to remove would take a 'Pow-Wow' between community authors/creators and any developer(s) assigned to the project. The community authors/creators could give an idea of what the biggest pain points are for creating a scenario, for instance, and the developer(s) could give an idea of what was technically feasible. Some 'low hanging fruit' could then be determined, and the scope of work set by the quantity of funds we are able to raise.



+1



Yaab -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 2:51:29 PM)

Since we have no access to the code, I am all for changes that update pwhexe and map. New roads, broken roads (Northern Australia), new rivers, straites, trails, icepacks, seasonal maps - these can be added without ruining the game. Adding new locations though would mean adding VPs for the new bases, so mods would be more appropriate here. Construction maps, as I said earlier, are a mixed bag, and they would also need VP changes like more VPs for taking/holding Ledo.



Akos Gergely -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/14/2019 2:56:00 PM)

While I agree overall, if you think about it it's not impossible to get a few tens of thousands of USD (if not GBP) together.

I don't know how many copies of the original WitP-AE sold, but considering a pretty pessimistic 500 copies with a price of 50 bucks you are already into a few tens of thousands territory....so it's definitely not in the unrealistic category IMHO.

On the wish-list thing there can be a pretty easy solution that worked quite well on the Axis & ALlies War at Sea card/miniature game forum for new sets of cards: there was a community voting and the top XYZ number of choices get implemented, pre-screened by some developers (of course there can be impossible to implement features here as well). That way both sides (players and devs) can have their reasonable expectation/delivery items.


That being said I'd be happy with what you say as well.



Big B -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/15/2019 1:14:28 AM)

A Friday evening satirical answer to the question:
"No, I don't want an improved version of the game! I absolutely don't want anymore features or realism!"

That sounded funny to me... who would say the above?



Anachro -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/15/2019 1:52:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
"No, I don't want an improved version of the game! I absolutely don't want anymore features or realism!"

That sounded funny to me... who would say the above?


Well, if I remember correctly based on an interview he gave after completing and releasing WitP...Gary Grigsby.



Moltrey -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/15/2019 11:33:32 PM)


quote:

Well, if I remember correctly based on an interview he gave after completing and releasing WitP...Gary Grigsby.


Hmm. That begs the question, what is the ownership status of the Admiral's Edition anyway?

It still has Gary's name in the subtitle, published by Matrix and produced by the now-defunct Henderson Field Designs. So just who gets to decide what can be done?


As far as scope of a new project, as a newer player I would rely on the more experienced players to suggest if certain areas could use a code "brush up" or polishing.

A couple things that come to mind as a newbie though...
- A borderless window mode would be great.
- The ability to zoom in and out or perhaps a second closer screen view for us with aging eyes? [sm=innocent0009.gif]
- Torpedoes were very expensive; they should be treated that way by the units- make firing at escorts rare!
- Enable more of the unused .SFX "slots" to be used as music files instead of the few we have now.
- Make the date of a save file show up on the load save screen, not just the save game screen.

That's all I can think of for now.



Korvar -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/16/2019 1:29:50 AM)

There are multiple parties with ownership rights in WitP:AE. It is my understanding that this is part of the reason why there will not be a branded sequel to the game (a 'spiritual successor' is in theory possible, but it would be a completely separate endeavor). That said, this is only from what I've been able to glean from the forums over a few years, so take it with a heap of salt.

As for your first request, I've already solved that issue and published both free and paid methods to achieve this: How to Run WitP:AE in Fullscreen Windowed (Borderless Windowed) Mode. It's not as slick as an integrated solution, but I'm doing the best I can 'nibbling at the edges'.

Zoom/scaling is a bit more problematic. The best method, unfortunately, is to spend money and buy a larger monitor and/or to reduce your monitor's screen resolution. There are also utilities such as ZoomIt which you can experiment with.

Adding additional slots for music is a good example of something that might be feasible with a few code tweaks and a small(ish) budget. It might not be the highest priority item, but it's in the ballpark of what might be possible. The same goes for the save file date idea.




Timotheus -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/16/2019 3:18:31 PM)

Make the AI somehow less stupid, YES.

Maps - players can create and mod those in, no need.

The main thing in games like these is the AI, full stop. Majority of people (in all other games, assume that is the case in WITPAE) play solo vs. the AI.

The whole AI scripting thing is horrendous - the AI (well, computer opponent, not AI, but you know) does not "adapt" at all to player actions, and basically follows the script. Which means the scenario creator must predict how a player would act... (game) years in advance. Ugh.



Korvar -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/16/2019 6:59:04 PM)

I agree that an improved AI would be helpful, but I can pretty much guarantee upgrading the internal AI will not happen. That's major rocket surgery, and it would probably be easier in many regards to build a sequel from scratch.

My top wish list item, stretch goal, 'crazy idea', etc. would be to develop an API (application programming interface) - that is, to be able to programmatically read game data as well as issue commands programmatically. Don't get me wrong, it's still a tall order that's unlikely to happen, but it's much more feasible than reinventing the internal AI. The benefit from an API is it would allow external 3rd party "AI" utilizing machine learning techniques to play the game. The game would be played as a 'head-to-head' or perhaps a PBEM game - with one side played by advanced AI.

All that said, even if all those 'stars' lined up, it would still be a long road to get machine learning algorithms trained on the game. It's nice to dream though. [:D]




Dali101 -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/16/2019 9:27:32 PM)

Surely there will be a much better successor to AE with a new code. Dali



Zorch -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/17/2019 1:52:37 AM)

An improved UI would help playability. The player should not have to fight the UI to do what he wants.



WingCmdr -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/17/2019 1:58:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timotheus

Make the AI somehow less stupid, YES.

Maps - players can create and mod those in, no need.

The main thing in games like these is the AI, full stop. Majority of people (in all other games, assume that is the case in WITPAE) play solo vs. the AI.

The whole AI scripting thing is horrendous - the AI (well, computer opponent, not AI, but you know) does not "adapt" at all to player actions, and basically follows the script. Which means the scenario creator must predict how a player would act... (game) years in advance. Ugh.


I am reading a lot of indirect game bashing by persons who, it seems, have not logged a lot of flight time.

1. The game is a better two player than one player
2. Try one of the AnyMac Scenario's. I recommend #104
3. Why don't you jump in on the IJ side for a couple of days a month?
You can easily switch any game to H ot H (Head to Head)
It's your game, is that gamey? You should play against the AI in AGEOD games.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3088504



Moltrey -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/18/2019 12:08:29 AM)

I would have loved seeing an update for the manual that Alfred was spearheading a year or two ago.
Too bad it died for whatever reasons.

I am compiling a three-ring binder of AE knowledge base "stuff". It has almost filled up a 1.5" binder. It's kinda like herding cats... unfortunately.



scout1 -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/18/2019 1:20:00 AM)

why not



rustysi -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/18/2019 9:21:28 PM)

quote:

I am compiling a three-ring binder of AE knowledge base "stuff".


Only one????[:D]



el cid again -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/19/2019 11:32:49 AM)

I have transmitted a request to the Matrix principle via a programmer who knows him
well. I listed a number of options for consideration.



mind_messing -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/19/2019 1:10:34 PM)

If AE is to be getting an update, then the original direction proposed by El Cid is the wrong one IMO.

Investing time and effort into changing an already workable map for minimum strategic impact (Baikal Amur and Australia?) is a waste of effort.

Instead, I would strongly agitate for quality of life improvements:

1. Hyperlinks in Ops and Intel reports
- If a plane from 1st Sentai crashed, clicking this line in the ops report should jump me to the 1st Sentai.
- If I get a sig int hit for hex 101,81, then clicking that line of text should take me to hex 101,81.

2. Detailed combat reports
- Currently the combat summaries are very reductionist and it requires watching dilligently through replays to understand what exactly generates the results shown in the combat summary.
- It would be helpful to have the option to open a seperate detailed report which covers tactical events (X squadron jumps Y squadron, Z squadron gets lost ect).

3. TF/ship management QoL improvements
- Ability to select ships of same class & speed
- Multiselection of ships on TF management screen.

4. Pilot/Air management QoL improvements.
- Ability to automate pilot training by setting skill/EXP thresholds.
- Ability to save preferences for air operations to copy to other groups (CAP, ASW ect).

Basically, save a half hour on every turn.



HansBolter -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/19/2019 5:03:18 PM)

I would personally like to see the red headed bastard step child of the game engine, ie..land warfare, get a complete make-over.

Why can't I click on an LCU device and get the stats for it the same way I can get the stats for devices on ships and planes?

The ship interface tells me the range and penetration factor if its guns.

The plane interface tells me all of the performance stats of the air frame and its weapons.

The LCU interface tells me NOTHING about the performance values of the devices that make up that unit.

This is my single biggest pet peeve about this great game.

Too much design emphasis was placed on air and naval and not nearly enough on land.

I want the LCU device text to be YELLOW!!!!



Zorch -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/19/2019 5:32:07 PM)

Usability improvements sound like the One Big Thing of Next Gen AE. Map/graphics are low priority. Game enhancements are in between.



Moltrey -> RE: Is anyone interested in an update for AE? (6/19/2019 8:53:14 PM)

My earlier pontificating aside:

There are some good points here and I think, much to recommend a focus on User Interface (UI) and Quality of Life (QOL) improvements. Here we are in Year Ten of the WITP:AE lifecycle- perhaps enabling the players (current and prospective) to make the best use of their time in WITP would be the best choice. I would personally welcome any streamlining of tasks required in AE as well as dissemination of useful information. It may prove useful to also include any "low-hanging fruit" improvements to compatibility with Windows 10, graphics cards, etc. if any still exist.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.611328