RE: Ask the Dev! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930



Message

Huguderian -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/20/2005 12:06:28 PM)

OK

And the Wakamya? Will be included? I read somewhere that she was a seaplane tender but it might carried some Pups.

Will the balance of power between IJN and RN/USN/other fall to the allies sida to much? Japan will start with some 10 modern BB/BC (in later scenarios will add the 4 Amagis and 2 Kiis) achiving the 8-8 Fleet as planned. But the US have a lot more BBs and joining those will be the British ones. How you plan to balance the forces?

The US will have 16 to 10 BB at the time, so how you will divide the USN in the Pacific Fleet and Atlantic Fleet?

This game is really interresting!

Thanks



Tankerace -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/20/2005 9:05:38 PM)

Thanks for the comment. Yes Wakiyama is in the game. I am not sure of the final spelling, Jane's has 1 spelkling but is notoriously wrong in its spelling [:D]

US and Atlantic fleets are divided by its history. All US ships (sans never weres) will arrive or start in the Pacific based on historical records and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, with the exception of ships in Red Led Row in Philadelphia may arrive based on a probable date after refitting and recommissioning. The Never were designs will arrive withing a few months of their probable commissioning date. The balance of power in the beginning is fairly equal, but the Japanese must act quickly (if they decide to go on the offensive), because eventually the US Atlantic fleet will arrive, along with the British.

However, the game is set up that it can be played in 2 ways, either Japan is the aggressor, or the US can be the aggressor. At the start, the VPs are nearly the same.

The British dont arrive in force until the last years of the scenarios, and US ships arriving in the Atlantic arrive piecemeal. This gives the Japanese a chance, but (as in probable history), they must whittle down the enemy fleets prior to an engagement, or else the United States' superior numbers will pound the Japanese.



PJJ -> RE: Ask the Dev! (6/18/2005 10:28:06 PM)

In the FAQ (which hasn't been updated for some time) you mention that you are somewhat unsure about the American/Allied AI. What's the latest news about this? Can you play WPO as Japan against the Allied AI and expect sensible results?

I'm asking because I like to try games out against the AI before starting PBEM... and I don't always have the time to play against human opponents.



Tankerace -> RE: Ask the Dev! (6/19/2005 12:08:45 AM)

So far, it seems to work well. Granted, in the final product with Mike's AI tweaks it will be even better. The Allies will be slow to act at first, but as it consolodates its forces and gathers steam, it is ferocious as in regular WitP. I can better comment on this when the project goes more into its beta testing phase, but as of now all tests are positive.



jwilkerson -> RE: Ask the Dev! (10/29/2005 5:36:48 AM)

Years ago, I ( and others ) worked on a "War in the Thirties" scenario for WITP ( SPI edition ) ... this included 2 primary alternate sub-scnearios ... the "Treaty Happened" and the "Treaty Did Not Happen" ... in the "Did Not Happen" version ... you had Akagi/Kaga/etc. and Lex/Sara/Langley ... also Macon/Akron were in either ... the start year was either 32 or 33 ... and the "war" ran for about 18-24 months ... I don't remember all the details off the top of my head .. but I do still have my notes in a box somewhere ... anyway .. question is do you think WPO version of the game would support this scenario ???







Tankerace -> RE: Ask the Dev! (10/29/2005 7:11:59 AM)

It would probably support such a scenario. Granted, a little work would need to be done, as the game is primarily set for a 1920's conflict (just some new pilot exp levels would be needed). As for Akron and Macon, while not used in WPO (primarly because they aren't in the date range), I haven't found a suitable method for modeling blimps and airships. I have experimented with several forms, but each has a certain sense of Kludginess to them.

Granted, the scenario would need to be rewritten (naturally), but I see no problems in the game handling them (that is, after some date modifications are made), as the game still retains enough "witp" elements as to be carrier focused, yet has enough of its own elements to render battleships a useful, if not the center, naval element. I would think such a scenario could be done quite easily, and with very little modding by the user (all of the elements are there, just a few new classes and some new plane types would need to be added. That and all "treaty era" ships such as the treaty cruisers.)



jwilkerson -> RE: Ask the Dev! (10/29/2005 7:55:55 AM)

I guess the 2 ways I thought of to do Akron/Macon were "as a ship" ... or ... "as a plane" ... either obviously will have issues ...

(1) As a Ship .. in this case it can carry the fighters ... and roam around and scout ... but OMG what about surface battles ! So it would have to have 30 foot thick armor and no weapons in order to ensure that it would survive surface battles with little damage but not inflict any in return ... of course it could be abused as an ammo de-loader .. to unload an enemy battlefleet of it's ammo .. .prior to sending in the real fleet ... that might be a issue !

(2) As a plane .. in this case the F9s would have to be abstracted by baking them into the stats for the airships ... how to balance the right amount of vulnerability with the right amount of survivability would be an issue ... and maybe getting the endurance right would be a problem ...

For my money all the airships were far to susceptible to weather and the only wonder is why it took so long to figure that out ...

But I'd be interested in a sentence or two related to your experiments !

Of course I want to play WPO straight up .. but I know that pile of data sitting in that box will gnaw at me and I'll probably have to have a go at redoing the WITTs !




Rysyonok -> RE: Ask the Dev! (4/30/2006 10:02:42 PM)

Are conversion paths for large AKs hardcoded? So are there specific slots in IJN/USN class list that have to be set aside for AS/AR/AE/AK/ML conversion paths? 56, 90, 91, 106, 108 for IJN, correct? And if those are blank, the game picks the next class in the list (e.g. if 91 is empty but 92 is filled, the game picks 92 for the conversion path)?



Terminus -> RE: Ask the Dev! (4/30/2006 10:21:19 PM)

Conversion paths are hardcoded. You can assign any class to the slots, and they'll convert to that, but the text in-game won't change, and the program won't go looking for any other class. It is what it is...



Rysyonok -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/1/2006 1:53:31 AM)

Fair enough.

Did I get the Japanese paths correctly?



Terminus -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/1/2006 4:25:58 PM)

Almost. It's 92 instead of 91; the class list has a small error. Tanker knows... Now, if only somebody knew where Tanker was...



Rysyonok -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/2/2006 1:26:06 AM)

Thanks =)



Tankerace -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/2/2006 3:37:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Almost. It's 92 instead of 91; the class list has a small error. Tanker knows... Now, if only somebody knew where Tanker was...


Whoa what?

Haven't seen this reported before, and I just checked the v1.2 scenarios (not the 1.2x that I am working on), and on the conversion screen the Japanese AE conversion converts to class 92 Kashino (AE) as it should.... so what exactly is the error?

And as to the patch questions, its all TBA at this point. It won't be until next week before I can get back to the French Navy add on, which I want to include with the 1.3 patch. And 1.3 won't be until I get new exes from Mike or Joe, and at least the Group resize bug fixed(which has been sent to Mike).



Terminus -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/4/2006 6:11:56 PM)

D'OH! Sorry... I mixed 91 and 92 up; that error was obviously fixed previously. Forget everything... You will forget everything... When I snap my fingers, you will have forgotten everything...

*SNAP*



Tankerace -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/4/2006 10:13:24 PM)

Hey, I have to get one of those flashy memory messer upper things.


Wait a minute, have you every flashy-thinged me before?



Terminus -> RE: Ask the Dev! (5/4/2006 10:18:54 PM)

I don't know... Maybe that's why you've "forgotten" to do our game?[:'(]



Yava -> RE: Ask the Dev! (7/27/2006 1:47:35 AM)

So maybe I should ask since my WPO just arrived is the Manual worth reading after playing some time WITP or are there no bigger changed in the game play( I mean the mechanism not the different years and what goes with it the types of ships and so on)



Tankerace -> RE: Ask the Dev! (7/27/2006 2:14:22 AM)

If you've played WitP (or even UV) then the manual isn't all that much new. Some of the new rules are described (differences in classes, certain plane specific rules, etc) but almost 95% of the manual is the same. If you can play WitP, then you should have no trouble climbing right in to WPO.



Yava -> RE: Ask the Dev! (7/27/2006 2:17:35 AM)

Thanks for a fast reply, let the Dreadnoughts speak.[:D]



Von Weber -> Barges and damned PT boats (5/3/2013 10:42:14 PM)

I've seen on the base screen dimmed options Pt boat create and barge create. How can they be created? In what port or base it ca be possible for the allies or only for Japanese? What should happen in the Pacific to make them appear?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375