quote:

ORIGINAL: mutterfudder

Editor: Ingame.


I know this can be done.

Sure would help those buggy games more playable.

quote:

Well, an in-game editor probably isn't necessary, but as I've said before I'd really, really like to see a save-game editor, or an output from the game into scenario database files.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

Well, an in-game editor probably isn't necessary, but as I've said before I'd really, really like to see a save-game editor, or an output from the game into scenario database files.

Go Steve Go !!!! [:D][:D][:D]

Thought I was the only voice in the wind on this one.

quote:

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all).

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information. Just too many potential paths to destruction coupled with the one obvious problem, it would be akin to me taking all the PBEM passwords from all the saves sent in a posting them here for all to read. I'm sure that would not make me too popular. [X(]

quote:

And what about the night bombing? do you agree Mr.Frag that there's still something wrong with it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And what about the night bombing? do you agree Mr.Frag that there's still something wrong with it?

Thats one of those tweek and see, tweek and see, tweek and see type issues. There is no right answer to most of those types of issues, one just really has to go with a gut feel on what seems reasonable and what doesn't. It got cut back in 1.4, it will probably get some more trimming in 1.5. Problem with this type of stuff is you have to do it gradually and see what the impacts are ... still have to keep the balance between the sides ... you'd be rather annoyed if suddenly the Nell bombed better then a B-29 due to making LBA less effective yet at the same time you're not going to happy is the Nell can't hit *anything* anymore.

quote:

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information.

quote:

From this statement, you are suggesting that there is more information (data-wise) from
Turn 3 (for example) than that contained in the setup database. True ?

quote:

Does this mean that there are not enough fields in the database to support the splits and this is handled in the code ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Distiller

# How about having avgas for airplane as the third logistics need besides bunker oil for ships and supplies for everybody?
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build new railways, railyards and roads.
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build auxilary airfields.
# The Jap industry should have a central screen with a possibilty to manipulate the industry on a single screen.
# Japs did ops in the Indian Ocean as far as the African coast. Chance to include that?
# The Fleet needs real waypoints. (I know I can do that with the "do not retire" option, but waypoints would be nice.
# Why not let the player decide shich ships to build?
# The whole industry system could be broadend and designed more flexible.
# The wholo complex of hospitals and sick bays is missing. An amphib assault without a hospital ships is four to five times costlier in lives.
# The aircraft database needs some serious workover (ranges, maneuverability of especially U.S. planes are often unrealisticly high)

Later edit:
# What about POW?
# If a unit is undersupplied its strength dwindles away, because troops (or POW) die of starvation.

Still later edit:
# By looking into the editor - is there a built-in hero factor for U.S. planes? Armor, firepower, accuracy, ... Hmmm.
# WHat's the point in not being able to evacuate USAFFE? Second class Americans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all).

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information. Just too many potential paths to destruction coupled with the one obvious problem, it would be akin to me taking all the PBEM passwords from all the saves sent in a posting them here for all to read. I'm sure that would not make me too popular. [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

I don't know if this is in here but I'd like to see a "Date Sunk" or "date Reported Sunk" field in the ship losses box

quote:

ORIGINAL: Distiller

quote:

ORIGINAL: Distiller

# How about having avgas for airplane as the third logistics need besides bunker oil for ships and supplies for everybody?
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build new railways, railyards and roads.
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build auxilary airfields.
# The Jap industry should have a central screen with a possibilty to manipulate the industry on a single screen.
# Japs did ops in the Indian Ocean as far as the African coast. Chance to include that?
# The Fleet needs real waypoints. (I know I can do that with the "do not retire" option, but waypoints would be nice.
# Why not let the player decide shich ships to build?
# The whole industry system could be broadend and designed more flexible.
# The wholo complex of hospitals and sick bays is missing. An amphib assault without a hospital ships is four to five times costlier in lives.
# The aircraft database needs some serious workover (ranges, maneuverability of especially U.S. planes are often unrealisticly high)

Later edit:
# What about POW?
# If a unit is undersupplied its strength dwindles away, because troops (or POW) die of starvation.

Still later edit:
# By looking into the editor - is there a built-in hero factor for U.S. planes? Armor, firepower, accuracy, ... Hmmm.
# WHat's the point in not being able to evacuate USAFFE? Second class Americans?

Couple more Ideas:
# Landbased logistics: steam engines, waggons, trucks (like there are AKs, TKs, APs, only moving on land on pre-defined routs aka railway & roads)
# Engineers should be capable of blowing up on supplies and fuel
# The P-38 arrives a little late?
# CAS (close air support) missions for fighterbombers, instead of the fuzzy "ground attack"

quote:

Frag, just to be clear: I'm not personally advocating an in-game editor, just a save-game one. Difference is subtle, but it's there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

On the all ground units screen, for LCU's outside of bases.

Add Support Needed/Support to the list at the top right.

That way a player won't have to add them up to check support levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
does anybody else think that morale checks for planes should be abolished in some cases, for example when specifically ordered to accomplish a specific mission. I don't mind low morale having an effect on the outcome of the mission, but not-flying at all is insubordination which should result in a visit to the firing-squad. The morale check might stay in place IMO when no target is selected (i.e. commanders decision), then the commander might deem, that a break is o.k. so he orders a no-flight for today. But when I say 'fly' the only answer should be 'Yes, Sir!', not 'ahhh, we don't feel like it today!'
rant off (cost me dearly yesterday)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This morale check is completely off base. We've been calling for its abolishment or replacement with something more workable for some time.