quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

But to connect it you'd have to have War in the Mediterranean [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Hijack![sm=00000054.gif] SH3, can't wait![;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Hmmm - the developer's journal isn't opening for me, so here are my thoughts based upon what I've read in the thread and what I've seen in some of the other forums...

I bought Pacwar a dozen years ago and enjoyed it for years until the "improvements" killed it in the late 90's.

I bought tthe follow-up SSI game that was a graphic toy simulation of the war in the Pacific and returned it for my money back.

I bought UV when it came out and enjoyed it quite a lot until WitP came out.

I bought and enjoyed WitP a lot and expect to continue to enjoy it.

I'm not intending at this time to buy WAW. From what I've read in the WAW forum and on the official preview pages it reminds me too much of that SSI game that I sent back.

I wasn't a fan of Gary's War in Russia even when I d/led it for free - I wouldn't buy it then, I had it off of my harddrive within 24 hours and I won't buy a new version.

I'm not a fan of Civil War games, so I won't be spending money on any.

I would have liked to have bought a MedWar game.

I'm sorry that 2x3 and Matrix still aren't getting rich and I hope that their new business strategy helps them reach their goals, but they aren't advertising anything that will take any money out of my pocket. And frankly, no war game is ever going to be a "Halo 2" as far as making money is concerned, so maybe they need to re-think their expectations.

Dave Baranyi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Hmmm - the developer's journal isn't opening for me, so here are my thoughts based upon what I've read in the thread and what I've seen in some of the other forums...

I bought Pacwar a dozen years ago and enjoyed it for years until the "improvements" killed it in the late 90's.

I bought tthe follow-up SSI game that was a graphic toy simulation of the war in the Pacific and returned it for my money back.

I bought UV when it came out and enjoyed it quite a lot until WitP came out.

I bought and enjoyed WitP a lot and expect to continue to enjoy it.

I'm not intending at this time to buy WAW. From what I've read in the WAW forum and on the official preview pages it reminds me too much of that SSI game that I sent back.

I wasn't a fan of Gary's War in Russia even when I d/led it for free - I wouldn't buy it then, I had it off of my harddrive within 24 hours and I won't buy a new version.

I'm not a fan of Civil War games, so I won't be spending money on any.

I would have liked to have bought a MedWar game.

I'm sorry that 2x3 and Matrix still aren't getting rich and I hope that their new business strategy helps them reach their goals, but they aren't advertising anything that will take any money out of my pocket. And frankly, no war game is ever going to be a "Halo 2" as far as making money is concerned, so maybe they need to re-think their expectations.

Dave Baranyi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Hmmm.... Seems to me these three guys have done just fine on their expectations. From what I can gather their expected final sales are going to be somewhere around 10,000 units at roughly $70.00 a pop. That's $700,000 minus the pittance DR and Matrix takes divided amongst three guys for something like five or six manyears of work. That's not getting rich, but it's not a bad return on a labor of love. And remember, WiTP isn't by any means the only iron these three have in the fire. Kind of puts the kabash on the crowd that thinks these guys are living on Cheetos while giving us wargames. Other than devising more efficient development environment, I'd say their business model and expectations are quite sane....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Hmmm.... Seems to me these three guys have done just fine on their expectations. From what I can gather their expected final sales are going to be somewhere around 10,000 units at roughly $70.00 a pop. That's $700,000 minus the pittance DR and Matrix takes divided amongst three guys for something like five or six manyears of work. That's not getting rich, but it's not a bad return on a labor of love. And remember, WiTP isn't by any means the only iron these three have in the fire. Kind of puts the kabash on the crowd that thinks these guys are living on Cheetos while giving us wargames. Other than devising more efficient development environment, I'd say their business model and expectations are quite sane....

You also have to factor in the cost of people besides the 3 of 2by3: Mike Wood seems to have been spending most of his time on it for quite a while, also the cost of the supplying the art. I don't know how the Matrix/2by3 finances are organised for WitP but I doubt that the portion of DR and Matrix added together will be a "pittance". But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yep, agreed, with most of the player input organised and issued through HQs, but that's something for the next revamped PacWar incarnation. You are talking major rewrite and design approach here.

I simply am bowing to some realities (some may think it a dead horse, but hey)based on the fact that this patch 1.4 or whatever is the swan song for WITP and certain things are or will prove to be necessary. Allowing players to organize ships into more manageable sizes and adding a larger Task Group which acts like a mobile base for TFs placed within it to allow react and return to function is paramount.

Yes, that's a totally different approach. I can't resist pointing out that many of items that people call for in order to "streamline" the way player's can give orders ends up requiring an AI to interpret what exactly the player had in mind. This takes control out of the hands of the player and gives it to the untrustworthy AI, that many other players don't trust to do anything. Not all streamlining efforts require this, but many do.

As for future changes, who's to say that some individuals won't come along and continue improving WitP (either officially for Matrix, or unofficially), just as Mike Wood improved Pac War. My point was that short of additional revenue down the road, there's always going to be a finite amount of resources we're willind to devote to the project. By the way, where did everyone get this idea that 1.40 will be the last patch. I said "Mike will continue to spend some time patching WitP, but will transition over the next few months to work primarily on Eastern Front". I didn't say that no work would be done on WitP. It was always our intention along with Matrix Games's intention to have Mike move on to another project. I'm sure that Matrix would claim that the ongoing WitP support will be better than the support that most other wargames get (and they'd be right).

What I did say was that the WitP engine is now technologically out of date and that we are not planning on using it for other products down the road (as we have much better ways of making games now). This is a casualty of both improvements in hardware and operating system software, and improvements in the way we design and program our games. However, anyone that has followed Gary's work over the years realizes that much of what he creates in new games is grounded in the work he's done in the past.

quote:

It's sad the original X-com game is still the best squad level based game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Ok this might sound a bit silly, and it is based on not having played the game yet, but to my eyes GGWaW looks like a somewhat simplistic game. I guess that I am going to have to spend some time over there and have a more detailed look. The Easten Front game and the ACW does interest me, but the GGWaW format has me a tad spooked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. ... it will use the technology in GGWaW ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Ok this might sound a bit silly, and it is based on not having played the game yet, but to my eyes GGWaW looks like a somewhat simplistic game. I guess that I am going to have to spend some time over there and have a more detailed look. The Easten Front game and the ACW does interest me, but the GGWaW format has me a tad spooked.

Guilty as charged. Didn't mean to spook you. It is a simple game, although the comparisons with Risk are a bit ridiculous. It's probably 2-4 times the complexity of Axis & Allies, but that still puts it at about 10% of the complexity of War in the Pacific. I'm a long time gamer that has enjoyed monster games since the mid-seventies while also enjoying games like Axis & Allies (although it's way to unrealistic for more than social gaming). I assumed that most players interested in World War II would enjoy an easy to play game that covers the entire war as realisitically as any has given the scale of the game. It allows players to attempt alternative grand strategies (in terms of axis of attack and production plans) in a system that provides realistic constraints on the players (it's not Panzer General with artillery firing 100 miles, etc.). Those looking for detailed grand-tactical combat (ala WitP) and detailed division/battalion OOBs will clearly not find it in GGWaW. It is a true strategic game, unlike WitP which I consider to be a grand tactical game (when your tracking individual pilots around half the globe, that's pretty grand and pretty tactical to me). For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. Even though it will use the technology in GGWaW, it won't look or play anything like it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. ... it will use the technology in GGWaW ...

*sigh*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

Like many others here WaW doesn't appeal to me, but it may be worth getting just to check out your new game design mechanism to get a head start for modding any future games that do interest. I sure wish WitP was a bit more open.