Curiousity killed the cat!

Curiousity killed the cat! (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

I would be willing to pay $200

19% (55)

I would be willing to pay $150

11% (34)

I would be willing to pay $100

26% (75)

Without a Computer Player, I'm not really interested

36% (104)

I'm not interested at all

6% (18)

Total Votes : 286

(last vote on : 6/22/2005 12:07:37 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Mr.Frag -> Curiousity killed the cat! (5/12/2005 8:17:30 PM)
This is not formal in any way shape or from so don't read anything into it. 2by3's schedule is already booked for quite some time to come with multiple games. How many folks would seriously be interested in a PBEM ONLY version of War in the Pacific with expanded scope and detail? (ie: WitP II) The limiting factor here is having a Computer Player means AI development which seriously limits the ability to move forward with the thousands of great suggestions that have been made. It also caps the scale as the lower the scale, the more computer processing power that it takes to have AI. Prices are assumed to be in US Dollars so factor in your exchange rate in picking the option. Please be serious with your choice. Due to some folks who don't understand the meaning of the forums posting rules, the content of this thread has been removed. Personal attacks on other members are unacceptable.

Oznoyng -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 8:46:48 PM)
Next time, can you restrict/kill the user's authority, edit their post, and leave the thread otherwise untouched?

ltfightr -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 8:54:26 PM)
To get back on topic. I voted for $150.00. I would be much more likley to buy it if it had a good user friendly editor and had the fewest amount possible of hard coded events.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 8:57:13 PM)
I was already wondering WHEN the contents would be kicked...........[8\|][8\|][8\|] You where slow on this one Frag.............[;)]

rtrapasso -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 9:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ltfightr To get back on topic. I voted for $150.00. I would be much more likley to buy it if it had a good user friendly editor and had the fewest amount possible of hard coded events. To recap the previous discussion, now off in cyberspace, everyone without exception demanded an improved AI!!![:D][:D][:D] exceptforthoseposterswhosaidthatadvancedAIisnotpossibleandweshouldjustforgettheentireideaofanimprovedAIforWITP2plustaxtagstitleyourmileagemayvaryoffervoidinTennesse.

Banquet -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 9:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: ltfightr To get back on topic. I voted for $150.00. I would be much more likley to buy it if it had a good user friendly editor and had the fewest amount possible of hard coded events. To recap the previous discussion, now off in cyberspace, everyone without exception demanded an improved AI!!![:D][:D][:D] exceptforthoseposterswhosaidthatadvancedAIisnotpossibleandweshouldjustforgettheentireideaofanimprovedAIforWITP2plustaxtagstitleyourmileagemayvaryoffervoidinTennesse. lol [:D]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 10:33:16 PM)
quote: Next time, can you restrict/kill the user's authority, edit their post, and leave the thread otherwise untouched? Yea sure, in the other 168 hours a week I happen to have spare. [8\|] quote: You where slow on this one Frag Sad that it has to go down that path, I kept watching and hoping but nope, the flame bait was just too much and people took it.

Terminus -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 10:34:59 PM)
I'm taking my part of the blame for that; told myself I shouldn't get sucked in, but it can be difficult, as we saw so VERY clearly...

Tristanjohn -> Curiousity killed the cat! (5/16/2005 11:31:58 PM)
Where were we? [:)]

Burzmali -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 12:37:54 AM)
Well, if you intend to increase the scope of the game (without AI), you are going to need something akin to macros, or the game is going to become a giant database manipulation exercise.

Bliztk -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 12:55:58 AM)
Well, we have the formulas from WitP, to ensure decent results (with tweaking of course). But I guess that the Database and it`s related tools will be done from scratch, and with the benefit of the past experience (aka more slots, and autoerase of the empty slots to prevent corruption)

mc3744 -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:05:05 AM)
Oh man! I've been away two days and now this. What did I miss? What happened? I always miss the juicy stuff [8\|]

Brausepaul -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Burzmali Well, if you intend to increase the scope of the game (without AI), you are going to need something akin to macros, or the game is going to become a giant database manipulation exercise. I agree, a(ny) future project definately has to be much more user friendly, less clicks, less text, more optical feedback (dumb example: TFs low on fuel have direct icon or an exclamation mark next to it or whatever). Maybe some kind of news system ("Factory at Sushi Jima can't produce because of fish shortage"). In terms of computer-user interaction all war games are a complete disaster.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:08:55 AM)
quote: Oh man! I've been away two days and now this. What did I miss? What happened? I always miss the juicy stuff Only a 300 reply tread, wich got kicked due to improper language............[&o]

mc3744 -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:12:21 AM)
I did post myself too on the thread, it was at the beginning, it looked normal enough. Sounds like it went ballistic. How could it? A poll? I mean it should be about how we like WitP. I'm confused [&:]

Terminus -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:13:47 AM)
I'm almost scared to try to summarise it for you. It might run away from us again [:)]

rtrapasso -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:17:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mc3744 Oh man! I've been away two days and now this. What did I miss? What happened? I always miss the juicy stuff [8\|] People got annoyed. Words were said, insults exchanged. They tried to cool it, but, it didn't cool...

BaitBoy -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Burzmali Well, if you intend to increase the scope of the game (without AI), you are going to need something akin to macros, or the game is going to become a giant database manipulation exercise. Macros would be good. I saw one game (I don't remember the name) that advertised the ability to draw directly on the game map, probably on an erasable layer. This would be a great addition to WitP2 as it would allow the player to delineate operational boundaries, anticipated routs of march (swim?), and generally make notes for himself. I also reiterate my request to have something akin to Bodhi's WitP Utility added to the game.

Burzmali -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:28:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brausepaul I agree, a(ny) future project definately has to be much more user friendly, less clicks, less text, more optical feedback (dumb example: TFs low on fuel have direct icon or an exclamation mark next to it or whatever). Maybe some kind of news system ("Factory at Sushi Jima can't produce because of fish shortage"). In terms of computer-user interaction all war games are a complete disaster. Maybe not even to the point of user friendly-ness, but the last thing you should be doing while running a war is hand picking transports for speed and load size to invade a few piddlely islands while an army of panzers is rolling over your boys in Europe. Now, you might want to hand pick a fleet to carry out the Doolittle raid, but routine operations like ferrying supplies, and training pilots need cookie cuts that say "do this to each of these groups".

mc3744 -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 1:46:05 AM)
Ok, anyway thanks everybody for trying to summarize. I'm really amazed by the fact the some people manage to get angry in a game forum. [:-] We should all be here for the fun of it and for the fun only. What's the point otherwise? [&:] I'll forget about it, but I'm annoyed to have miss it because I'm somehow curious about how this could happen. I guess I'll survive my curiosity [:)]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 2:00:49 AM)
quote: I'm really amazed by the fact the some people manage to get angry in a game forum a) Some people obviously didn't learn any manners growing up. b) Some people get off on making other people feel small. c) Other people react to both of the above. (wrong action but tough not to justify). c) causes more from the a) & b) types which in turn causes more folks to go the c) path ... once started, it is impossible to stop.

Terminus -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 2:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag c) causes more from the a) & b) types which in turn causes more folks to go the c) path ... once started, it is impossible to stop. Yeah... then we need somebody with a big hammer to come in and shut it down. Hey, we've got one of those! I voted for not being interested in a game without an AI. I still stand by that, and by my opinion that $200 is WAAAAAAAY to much for a computer game. ANY computer game. It's strange: I always thought I'd be totally into a super-detailed game, but that doesn't seem to hold true anymore. Maybe it's advancing age: 10 years ago I'd probably have gone for it [8\|] Still, if 2by3 and Matrix decide to go ahead with the idea, best of luck to them. I'll be on the sidelines, cheering.

bilbow -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 2:57:12 AM)
I've gotten several times my $70 out of this game so far, so I'd pay pretty much anything for an improved and more detailed version. For me PBEM is the only way to go, and I have't tormented the ai since the early days of UV.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 3:07:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bilbow I've gotten several times my $70 out of this game so far, so I'd pay pretty much anything for an improved and more detailed version. For me PBEM is the only way to go, and I have't tormented the ai since the early days of UV. That's what I don't understand about price-pointing. As you say, divide the money paid for the game by the hours pored into it and it's clear enough that some games actually "cost" more and give less enjoyment than others. So the guy who won't pay $200 for the real deal will go out and pay $30 for seven or eight throwaways. Smart. [8D]

Terminus -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 3:19:07 AM)
Well, I did pay full price for WitP when I downloaded it from Matrix's store, and aside from SP:WaW, I haven't played ANYTHING else since then. I'm getting a lot of enjoyment out of the game, and have collected quite a few of the mods (graphics, scenarios and otherwise) that other fans have made for it. I also have a lot of fun here at the forum (that's actually one of the best bits [:D]). It is, to put it into economics terms, a question of ROI (Return On Investment) for me. I invested a sum of money in WitP, and enjoy it and all it's aspects a lot. However, when this poll was posted, I took a (more or less) rational look at my experience with the game and tried to consider whether or not I could reasonably expect to get two and half times as much enjoyment out of a hypothetical WitP II. I came to the conclusion that I could not. It is my conclusion, and I speak only for me [:)]. With that said, and as I stated above, I'm certainly not going to run away in disgust from here if 2by3 and Matrix decide to make WitP II. For one thing, I'd miss out on the new War in Russia [:D]!

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 10:50:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag This is not formal in any way shape or from so don't read anything into it. 2by3's schedule is already booked for quite some time to come with multiple games. How many folks would seriously be interested in a PBEM ONLY version of War in the Pacific with expanded scope and detail? (ie: WitP II) The limiting factor here is having a Computer Player means AI development which seriously limits the ability to move forward with the thousands of great suggestions that have been made. It also caps the scale as the lower the scale, the more computer processing power that it takes to have AI. Prices are assumed to be in US Dollars so factor in your exchange rate in picking the option. Please be serious with your choice. Due to some folks who don't understand the meaning of the forums posting rules, the content of this thread has been removed. Personal attacks on other members are unacceptable. For my part� I apologize. A question on expanded scope� what specifically do you have in mind? At present I play games against the AI and �Hotseat� with a couple of guys here whom have generally the same ideas as to limitation they wish to put on the game (no Deathstars for one). This year both 6-6 ands 2-6 are headed back to Iraq and Afghanistan so it is either AI or PBEM, and from reading the AARs I don�t find PBEM appealing. Would an �expanded� WitP provide greater historic restriction on player�s actions? House rules are great, but actual historic restrictions on why China isn�t crushed in 1941 would work better. The same goes with massive ASW fleets, 200 plane B-17 bombings, naval invasions of India/Australia, etc. Would I pay $200 for a WitP which accurately (as much as possible) the operation requirements and restrictions as the existed in WW2, so that my opponent had to conduct himself under those historic limitations� I believe I would. Would I pay $200 for a WitP that adds more unit and/or complexity, but doesn�t not better recreate the historic feel of the era� no. I have no desire to limited my defense of Tarawa to a Naval Guard Unit and a Baseforce (near historical limits) to watch my opponent assault with four Divisions. While in game terms it might make sense to do it that way, historically it wasn�t possible. I don�t care about victory points, and have told both of my hotseat opponents before the games start they can consider themselves the victor. What I do care about is the operational level within historical limitation. If WitP2 is 500 Battalion Deathstar riding the Chinese rail by ignoring historic realities� what is gained? So� exactly what are you suggesting? Again, I apologize for any part I played in the deterioration of this thread.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 10:54:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus ...Still, if 2by3 and Matrix decide to go ahead with the idea, best of luck to them. I'll be on the sidelines, cheering... Absolutely. Ever success these guys have means a better likelihood that they will make a game I will buy.

Speedysteve -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 2:34:18 PM)
I bought some popcorn last night especially for this! [:(] In all seriousness it does amaze me as to how certain people act on forums. Roll on WIR [8D] Regards, Steven

Mr.Frag -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 5:59:47 PM)
quote: A question on expanded scope� what specifically do you have in mind? Logistics is the number one thing on my list. As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

jwilkerson -> RE: Curiousity killed the cat! (5/17/2005 7:01:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: A question on expanded scope� what specifically do you have in mind? Logistics is the number one thing on my list. As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc. Good points - certainly places like Noumea and Wellington had "unloading problems" not just because ( or even mostly because ) of physical insfrastrutuce limits - but because of dock worker problems. So having a "dock worker" motivation factor - could be one of the many components [:D] just kidding of course, but pointing out endless complexity in this area. I have to say that in games I've started as Japan from Dec 7/8 by mid Summer '42 ... I don't have logistical problems ... either in the "strategic logistics" area ... i.e. the inputs to production and supply generation ( oil and resouces ) or in the "operational" area ... i.e. supply and fuel availability at the front ... there are a number of factors ... including probably to much supply / fuel generation directly in the DEI ... as well as loading and unloading times being to quick. I have seen in recent reading that Japanese shipping was essentially divided between three entities, Civilian, Navy and Army. And strategic raw materials where only allowed to be carried back to Japan on CIVILIAN shipping ... Army and Navy shipping went home empty. So not sure how to model this either ... but overuse of Japanese shipping for purposes not allowed historically, is also a contributing factor to "lack of shipping shortage" as Japan.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

2.703125