Suggestions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

norsemanjs -> Suggestions (5/12/2000 6:53:00 AM)

I hope that we can start a list of suggestions under this topic. My suggestion this time is: Reports: This game is huge! So many things happen each and every turn that it gets difficult to keep things in perspective, (Thus part of the challenge of course). However it would be great to be able to get an after action report with damage inflicted on both sides (this offers some FOW fun). Perhaps it could be a file which can be printed or something, you could even set levels of detail to be included. You could include supply status, ship/TF status, Airfield/base/port status, construction/repair status, enemy intelligence estimates of strength/supply status etc., Battle after action reports would really be fun to see. Well, this is my first suggestion, I plan on adding more and I look forward to hearing about everyone elses suggestions.



Kev -> (5/12/2000 9:26:00 AM)

I am wondering if any thought has been given to making War in the Pac a free download, funded by advertising (like the adverts on SP WaW). Matrix has the credibility (having 6000 downloads in 48 hrs of a 310mb program shows that it will work) you could make it a requirement of the game that once a month it downloads an advertising package from your websiite (gives you an ongoing revenue stream and guarantees patches/expansions). It is advertising that targets pretty specifically, if I sold WW2 books, models or videos - I'd give my left nut to put my advertising directly on the desktop of 6000+ people in 2 days with a well demonstrated interest in the subject and the disposable income to own a PC. We get a free game, the advertiser gets precision guided marketing and Matrix get paid by the advertiser - you can give feedback to him by telling him how many downloads of the advert package occured per month. Matrix also save on packaging and distribution.



Major Tom -> (5/12/2000 12:05:00 PM)

A general thing I would like to see are more bases. There were many bases in the old PacWar, but, there was always space for more. Add a few on Borneo, Sumatra, French Indo-China, Chinese mainland, Luzon (North Luzon was omitted, but, played a major role in 1944), Burma, Australia, and some more Islands. Another thing that would be good for an improved PacWar would be the introduction of a possible Red Army attack on Manchuria. This will give the Japanese player incentive to leave good units/aircraft. Another possible addition would be the Red Chines Army. It could be a totally independent organization (ie. always under the control of the AI) which was hostile to both the Japanese and the Chinese Nationalist Army. Also, the Chinese had guerilla operations in Japanese held China. Possibly add this as well. Captured enemy equipment. The Japanese utilized much of the captured allied equipment they got their hands on. They even used 3 Allied Destroyers (USS Stewart, HMS Thracian, RNN Banckert). Enemy units captured might have a certain percentage (very small) of their equipment sent to the capturee's pools (ie. Captured Artillery). This would probably only be useful for applying to the Japanese, as, the Allies tended to have an abundance of equipment to not need captured Japanese (and when they did need it, they were usually the ones surrendering anyway!) There is also the possibility of adding the Indian National Army and the Burmese National Army. When large Indian/Burmese formations were captured many were inlisted by the Japanese into military formations. Although not directly used in combat, they were useful as garrision troops. Then there is Thailand. It had a fairly large Army by 1941, and was coerced by the Japanese to declare war on the Allies. One Division was even sent into Burma. Possibly add Thailand to the Japanese side (ie. along with the IJN and IJA). They would probably be much like the Indian/Dutch/Philippine formations, having a maximum experience through training being 25. Wether. I am unsure if this is being included. Many ships (2 of the Farragut Class) were lost in typhoons. This could affect air operations as well. In Burma, military operations could only take place during a few months of the year due to the monsoon. In the old PacWar you could be on the offensive in Burma all year round, which, in reality you could not. It is only a slight detail, but, one worthy of considering.



A_Master -> (5/16/2000 3:05:00 AM)

In the original PW, you could see the results of each battle, including air battles and facility damage. Unfortunately the after battle report only gave you "carrier" or "battleship" sunk and not actual ship. It was accurate on type. Intelligence estimates of strength/supply status etc., were included in the original and should be maintained. The suggestion on using capture equipment sounds plausible, but more interesting would be the capture of supplies. This would depend on commander rating at the base. If unable to destroy supplies, then the enemy could capture a varying level of supplies and fuel. Ships should accrue damage while at sea. A number of WW2 naval games accurately portrayed this. Smaller ships would receive higher levels of damage depending on weather. There should be a max depending on ship size.



Major Tom -> (5/16/2000 3:27:00 AM)

Another possibility could be random disasters. The Mutsu just blew up in Tokyo Harbour in 1943. Although they were NOT common, disasters such as this did happen. I think that the best possible improvement to Pacwar, and indeed any game, would be the inclusion of a VERY intelligent AI. Reacting to unexpected moves, ie. a human player NOT following the historical paths (ignoring the Solomans and focusing on the Central Pacific, or New Guinea and Australia). The ability to react to a human opponent is important. My understanding of what they plan for battles is to have a VCR replay device. Where, in the turn following you can review the battle as if it was happening that moment. I too would like a more detailed description of lost vessels, and indeed lost units. I think it would be a good idea to have a shiproster, as navies historically did. You would see a list of completed ships, and their status (operational, location, sunk, damaged, etc...) There should be a way to SPIKE things, like Coastal Defence guns, Airfields, Ports, factories, Resources, etc... Rarely were bases left (some early war exceptions) in pristine condition, ready to be used by the enemy. This should be done on the commander's initiative, with, weaker commanders allowing the enemy to capture things in tact. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 05-15-2000).]



norsemanjs -> (5/16/2000 6:23:00 AM)

Good Ideas: I like the thoughts about demolition of bases and infrastructure, however it should result in damage only. Things like runways and ports were usually intact, damage was done to things like generators, communication equipment, repair facilities, dockyard cranes, etc. Capture of supplies (expendables) should also show some reduction in quantity (usefulness) simply because things like ammunition and spare parts simply weren't compatable. Foodstuffs, medical supplies, etc. would have some usefulness if they had not been destroyed. Another thing to keep in mind, it's easy to blow up an ammo dump but try blowing up a warehouse of rice. It can be damaged or burned but it's a little bit more involved. Anyway what I'm getting at is supply points should take an automatic reduction simply because it's not of any use to the opposing force any further reduction due to demolition would take effect from there. I'm all for after action battle reports, I'd love to see a spreadsheet style file or word document that can be printed out. If we could go for a spreadsheet style, we could easily incorporate status info, as suggested above. I think that the fog of war usually did keep things like exact names of lost and damage ships under wraps, but for the fun of gaming it would be nice to see exactly which ships you are up against. It would be nice to have this a toggle on or off in the setup. Keep up the interesting dialog, it's fun just talking about the possibilities.



Major Tom -> (5/16/2000 8:28:00 AM)

Actually, I would like a better FOW concerning enemy casualties. It is fine to know exactly what friendly ship, or how many friendly aircraft were shot down in an engagement or, as a total. But, I think it would be a good idea to have exact numbers of enemy ships sunk a secret. Did that Shokaku class CV sink or is it just heavily damaged? Being aware of how many of what type of enemy vessel sunk really allows the player a lot of unrealistic leeway. They know how many enemy vessels are left by using pure mathematics. If the IJN had this many carriers at this time, and there are 3 listed as sunk then I can aford to be pretty reckless. Also, when air-combat is being resolved, you should not get complete knowledge of enemy casualties. Possibly have a modifyer randomly changing what the game states to you the enemy casualties actualy are. Example, a FG shoots down 8 enemy bombers out of 36, but, the modifyer states that they shot down 11 or 6 or any other random number within reason (even though the game will calculate an actual loss of 8). Even when LCU's are engaged the old PacWar gave off too much info. Possibly, as combat goes on (drags on) you gain more and more info on your opponent like, Unit name, Unit Experience, Unit Readiness, Unit Squads, Unit Guns, Unit AFV, etc... The experience of your units and commanders could either excell or deminish the rate of recon. To go on with the LCU issue, I think that bombardments of bases give off WAY too much info. Unless there are actual spotters on the ground you should have absolutely no idea at the damage you inflicted, if any, if there are even enemies on the island! The Damage should be shown to the defender, but, not the bombarder. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 05-15-2000).]



norsemanjs -> (5/18/2000 5:58:00 AM)

I've been reading various posts talking about pilot experience/training and supply lines a facilities ability to handle supplies. How do these tie together? Well, what if bases had the ability to build installations like training centers, or warehouses or ship handling facilities, Dry Docks, things like that. I know this would be a significant departure from our much beloved classic. However, it is not without some consideration. Some of these facilities could be pretty costly to maintain, to make it difficult to drastically change history. But this would allow you to do things like improve the Japanese pilot training program, or more closely reflect the port facilities of some of the remote pacific islands. Hey, at least you'd have something for all those rear area engineers to do. Norseman



Dunedain -> (5/18/2000 2:31:00 PM)

KEV: I have to strongly disagree with you on that idea of a free game with advertisements. I *HATE* having advertisements in any game I'm playing (with all due respect to SPWAW). It just destroys the fun and immersion for me. When I play a game I don't want to be seeing ads for stuff like some billboard. I want to see nothing but the wonderful game I'm playing and be totally absorbed by it. Note to Matrix Games: I will GLADLY pay you any reasonable amount you ask for this War in the Pacific game. You guys are going to make a fantastic game and you deserve to get paid for it. All I ask is that the game be top-notch and come with a great manual. I'm more than willing to pay for such a game, but please, please, please (did I mention, please? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]) don't put any advertising in the game at all. That would ruin the whole game for me (and I suspect many others). The game could be sold directly through your web site, with a CD and manual being mailed out to all who order it. This would be very efficient and keep costs way down. This is the system being used by Big Time Software and looks to be working great for them. Thanks for taking the time to listen to a fan. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



kfbaker -> (5/18/2000 4:11:00 PM)

While it was great to get world at war for free, I do not beleive that it is fair or practical to expect matrix to release the other product like this and will only result in the demise of the company which has come to repressent true computer wargaming today. Since SPWAW is advertising other matrix games and due to complication this is the only way to recover some of their cost by selling future products it is clearly unbeleivable to then expect them to give those product away free as well. Over the last few years with the general demise of SSI, MAtrix games repressent the main shining light and hope for wargames and as such we all have to accept they have to make a living, and be successfull or we will have nothing.



A_Master -> (5/18/2000 11:10:00 PM)

I'll order now if reasonably priced. Also I will volunteer as a play tester when the time comes.



sbond -> (5/19/2000 11:58:00 PM)

I agree Dundain, if you must use the advertisement thing then have a version for us to purchase too without it? And I agree also that they need to make a profit like anyone else, I don't know but something beside's the ad's. I will gladly pay for this game and pay well considering the crap most companies release these days and I buy. but I would deal with the ads too if there was no other way.



Dunedain -> (5/20/2000 2:03:00 AM)

A game of this quality (they have Grigsby himself working on it! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]) deserves to be paid for. And I'm sure vitually every fan will have no problem paying for such a fine product. And by keeping sales direct, costs can be kept very low with max profit for the guys who have earned it. Even if everyone else got the game for free, I will pay for it just to not have any ads in the game. Matrix and the ad people can split my money so all are compensated. That's how strongly I feel about it. When I play a game the last thing I want to see are commercials or ads. A game should be a world unto it's own, something that you can immerse yourself in completely, without any distractions or reminders of the outside world we all know too well. But as I said, a game of this quality will have no problem selling. Wargamers are known for their devotion to the the kind of games they like to play. And War in the Pacific is one that they will be eager to purchase.



Major Tom -> (5/20/2000 3:06:00 AM)

I am trusting in this project enough to actually be willing to purchase the game WITH advertizements! I have been looking for an amendment to the Original PacWar for a few years now, and, to finally get one is worth a few ads. Would these ads be placed at the beginning of the game, while the game is played, or at the end? Talonsoft had ads at the end of the game, and this doesn't bother me too much. It is like going to a Movie and seeing the previews, possibly you might see something REALLY worth wile?



Dunedain -> (5/20/2000 4:56:00 AM)

Well, sometimes game companies will show a quick picture of some of the other games they have worked on after you have exited the game and just before you close the program down fully. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about ads being shown *while* playing the game itself. Those are the sort I think most people would dislike intensely. Once that title screen/intro screen to the game comes up I don't want to see any ads of any sort from that point on, until I'm completely done playing the game. Then, after I've chosen to exit the game and am done playing, if Matrix wants to show a picture of the title screen of SPWAW or some other game of their's and recommend trying it, I have no problem with that at all. I just don't want to see ads of any kind *in* the game. It's like you said, when you go to the movies they will usually show some of the other movies that will be coming out soon before the main feature starts. No problem. But what if they wanted to show you ads while you were watching the movie? The idea of a 2-by-4 comes to mind, hehe. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] It would ruin the whole immersion of the movie to have ads while your watching. Well it's the same with games.



Von Rom -> (5/20/2000 7:23:00 AM)

My suggestions: 1) Have 2 long campaigns (one for US and one for Japan) 2) Have several mini campaigns (maybe also a British one?) with several different starting dates 3) Have a random battle generator as well as a simple to use scenario and campaign maker 4) Have random placement of units so each battle will always be different 5) Maybe have several historical (Midway, Leyte Gulf, Phillipine Sea) and "what-if" (invasion of Australia) stand alone battles included (that might take an hour or two to play) 6) With regard to selling the games: maybe include the game CD with several of the better computer game magazines (such as PC Gamer, Computer Games Magazine, etc). These magazines would distribute the game CD with their magazine and pay Matrix either a percentage of each magazine sold, or just pay them up-front for each CD. Then those who want the game CD will then buy the magazine with the CD in it [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]. Everybody wins - Matrix wouldn't have to worry aabout marketing, distribution or advertising - they could do it from their website, and the magazine would distribute it - the sale of those computer magazines would sky-rocket. Anyway - that's my two cents worth... ------------------ A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...



norsemanjs -> (5/21/2000 9:09:00 AM)

Random battle generator would be a little tricky with a strategic level game. What would be nice is a scenario editor so that we could do some tweaking to the scenarios and campaigns from the developer. Or even make something from scratch. I know this is a lot to ask, but it doesn't hurt to ask. The important thing is to get the game out to us one way or another.



Kev -> (5/21/2000 9:50:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dunedain: [B]Well, sometimes game companies will show a quick picture of some of the other games they have worked on after you have exited the game and just before you close the program down fully. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about ads being shown *while* playing the game itself. Those are the sort I think most people would dislike intensely I meant exactly the same way as done in SPWAW - a small part of the screen reserved for adverts, it is unobtrusive and would allow Matrix to make money on the game for a long time - they deserve to get paid for their work, but I suspect that they can get paid a lot more by advertisers over a 1 or 2 year period than we will pay them up front, they would also have very low expenses by distributing it in exactly the same way as SPWAW (those who said a large free download can't work in the wargaming community are now eating their words). Advantages, We get a quality free product that will be supported for a long time (to keep us downloading new patches/adverts). Matrix get paid more and for longer, Matrix have very low overheads. Advertisers get very specifically targeted advertising - no waste. For a free high quality game a number of people who are borderline about high end games will download it and give it a try - it will help keep the industry going. Disadvantages - we have an advert in the corner of our screen, we need to download a new "advertising pack" every month. Personally I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Matrix - how about a poll to see if there is support - put up 3 or 4 "advertising ideas" (SPWAW style, ads at start, ads at end, ads at a specific phase for example) and see if there is any support for a particular type, then see if advertisers are keen.



Dunedain -> (5/21/2000 5:16:00 PM)

I dont't like the kind of ads in SPWAW at all. Just so long as there is an option where players can pay for the game up front and have no ads during the game. That's the most important thing. As far as polls go, most people like the idea of getting something for nothing. But I think a game of this quality (with the famous Grigsby himself working on it, no less [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]) warrants being payed for. This is a first class game, just like something SSI might release and there is nothing odd about a game of that caliber costing some money. I don't think it's a good idea to turn games into just another vehicle for commercials. I see enough of those while watching t.v. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



emetcalf -> (5/21/2000 9:43:00 PM)

I'll second the comments above. Everyone on or lurking on this forum has paid for games which don't approach this level of potential. If Matrix is to be a long running concern, and I sincerely hope that they are, people need to pony up money to buy the games. Advertising revenue just doesn't work right financially. The only reason other media outlets use it is that they get a ton of different advertisers. I don't think that most people want that in their games. I know that I sure don't.



DougAngle -> (5/24/2000 12:57:00 AM)

I would have no problem paying for the game. If some advertising at the beginning and at the end would help defray some of the cost, then do it. I agree with the comments about air crew experince. It would be interesting to play the what-if games where the Japanese pilots didn't have to overcome the elitism of their historical counterparts. Having played both PW and the old massive board game War in the Pacific (old SPI), it would be nice to have the necessity of yard periods built in. Some interesting decisions had to made in whether to risk potential damage to the ship or proceed with the dock time and be without the ship's services. I also agree that it would be nice to be allowed to pull some Japanese units from China. In all of the campaigns I played with PW, the Chinese eventually surrendered.



A_Master -> (5/24/2000 3:44:00 AM)

I need to put a spike through the heart of this idea and ensure it doesn't rise. Space on a game screen is a premium. To clutter if with advertising, will destroy the game. I for one, don't like seeing advertising on the web or in computer magazines. I don't have a choice in these mediums. If the computer game has advertising, I do have a choice, I just won't play it. If you can't afford 30 or 40 dollars for a computer game, which you are waiting for, then just scrap you PC and go back to board games



Kev -> (5/24/2000 9:11:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by A_Master: I need to put a spike through the heart of this idea and ensure it doesn't rise. Space on a game screen is a premium. To clutter if with advertising, will destroy the game. I for one, don't like seeing advertising on the web or in computer magazines. I don't have a choice in these mediums. If the computer game has advertising, I do have a choice, I just won't play it. If you can't afford 30 or 40 dollars for a computer game, which you are waiting for, then just scrap you PC and go back to board games
The problem is that 30 or 40 dollars up front is not going to provide the same income as advertising, clearly room can be found (as per SPWaW) on the monitor (if you can't afford a decent sized monitor, go back to boardgames) and having a high quality free download means that many people who will not pony up 30 or 40 dollars will download it and try it. Frankly I can afford to pay, I just think Matrix will do better in the long run if they sell advertising - look at the "take up rates" between paid for TV and free to air (with advertising). I support onscreen adverts because I think Matrix deserve to be paid as much as possible for the product.



Major Tom -> (5/24/2000 10:54:00 AM)

Going back to the original question (getting away from the ad debate), I think that there should be a larger list of orders for ships and airgroups. Possibly state the desired focus of the attack. If you have a surface combat Task Force and you want it to target AP and MCS over warships you should have this option instead of going for the default. Commander skill and aggressiveness should play an important part in them following the correct orders. Orders like Concentrate on... Carriers Warships Transport Sometimes recon will be wrong, identify a unit to be something it isn't, so they have to break the orders and attack what they find. And, some commanders might disobey orders, taking initiative in their own hands. Also, Commanders should have some sort of faults. Cowardice, incompetence, etc... There should be also an option to have modified (ie. computer generated and random), and indeed hidden stats for the commanders. You should not know that Nimitz has a 7 value for aircraft handling, just that it is good. You could change the ratings from 1-3 = Poor, 4-6 = Average, 7-9 = Good. Any faults should be hidden. Halsey had a major fault of glory hunting (Leyte), or too much aggressiveness, where he went after the Carriers while stripping the landing craft of aircover.



A_Master -> (5/24/2000 9:13:00 PM)

Umm, Advertising is not going to not going to generate the same income as $30 or $40 up front. If advertising could, it would have been done. The $30 up front actually translates to maybe $5 or $10 to the developer. The rest is packaging and distribution. If a game is really good, it might sell 50,000 copies, a war game of this nature, maybe half (very optimistic). 25,000*$5 gives you $125000. This is called a receivable. You go to the bank to get a loan to pay your developers. Now try convincing a bank manager that your going to get the same income from giving a game away free but generate revenue from nebulous advertising when for a 10th of the cost you could run full page adds in all the major computer magazines. And going back to the main topic. Yes, I agree. Rate the commanders POOR, AVERAGE and GOOD, with EXCELLENT for the very best (9's in the original). Carriers should be prime target of a task force regardless of orders, unless hopelessly out gunned. Next I would say troop transports then warships. In a uneven match, during day, ships should be able to evade. At night, evading should not be available.



A_Master -> (5/25/2000 2:52:00 AM)

Just to clarify numbers of copies sold. Reading some editorials about PC games verses Console games, apparently a successful PC game sells in the range of 250,000 copies. This is far short of the console sales. Also, successful PC games are generally what is being termed a 'casual software', such as SIM CITY. Games like Pacific War is for hard core games, and in particular war gamers. I would like to think PW could sell 250,000 copies, and would spur additional releases of the genre. Count me as one.



norsemanjs -> (5/25/2000 6:32:00 AM)

I do not think carriers should always be the primary target. Strategic situations often arise where some other ship (often troop or merchant ships) is far more important. The area force commander should definitely be able to instruct task force commanders to go after a specific target. This as suggested by Major_Tom should then be affected by random events, quality of the commander, etc. Anyone hear any projections on release, I'm patient but curious.



A_Master -> (5/25/2000 9:09:00 PM)

Giving this a lot of though, the right answer is probably don't have any default. Since the turns are weekly, I could imagine your carriers launching a strike against 'troop carriers' empty or otherwise, while enemy carriers strike your own. The solution would be to query each strike. Prime, then secondary target. Target being an enemy task force or base. The game should go into 'daily' turn mode, so more micro management can be made. Cap, LR-Cap and strike support should also be made available and effectiveness should depend on command rating and squadron experience. Player should be allowed to control percentage of aircraft on strike, cap or on reserve. Maybe by squadron or flight.



Dunedain -> (5/26/2000 7:59:00 AM)

Yes, the kind of detailed control that A_master has suggested should be in WIP. When two task forces meet the game should go into a more tactical mode, giving the player a number of options. How many fighters to assign to CAP to protect the fleet, how many to send on close escort with the strike planes, etc. And also, any nearby bases that have fighters in range should be able to join in and send fighters to strengthen the CAP around the friendly fleet. Same would go for TF's that close to gun range. Should your battle line press the attack or attempt to withdraw? If the enemy is trying to escape do you let him or attempt to force the engagement to go on by pursuing him? Questions like that should be left up to the player. With, of course, appropriate modifiers for success based on the TF commander's traits and skill level. And I would like to second the idea which was proposed about all leaders being represented in the game with a historical photo of them. This would add great flavor and authenticity to the game. When you call up a stat screen on the commander, it would show his photo and give his list of traits (aggressive, cautious, etc.) and his skill level at various types of command (air, ground combat, naval gunnery combat, etc.).



Major Tom -> (5/26/2000 8:18:00 PM)

Looking back through history you cannot find too many instances of Carrier aircraft and land based aircraft coordinating attacks effectively. The Japanese at Battle of the Philippine Sea tried to do this, and failed drastically. I don't know if it was possible back then, with the miscommunication between the different air arms. Having the ability to order airstrikes would be good (Like Carrier Strike), but, might be putting too much micro-battle management into the game. The addition of such a relatively small feature would require much more time and effort into coding than will be gained from having this option. I would only suggest attempting such things when the main base of the game is completed and working fine.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.1875