What do you want to see in WITP II? (Full Version)

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



Message

doktor1957 -> What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 6:38:28 PM)

I'm hoping that WITP II will be a reality some day. WITP I is the most enjoyable wargame I have ever played. I play like a fiend for three months, go on to something else (Rome: Total War, Vampire: The masquerade, etc.) but I always return. Taking what we've learned from the game, what could a possible sequel do differently?

I'd like to see a TF screen interface as in Harpoon, so I could place ASW and AAW assets, then the combat animation could show the enemy aircraft engaging the screening units, moving inward, towards the high value targets. It might be quite dramatic.

I'd also like to see a more detailed damage interface. Engineering hits, ammo hoists, electrical central. You could have a schematic view of each ship (probably pretty memory intensive).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Any others?



TulliusDetritus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 7:00:07 PM)

From what they said (if I remember correctly) WitP II will be only for PBEM. Since I don't play that, I don't know. I am waiting for War in Russia though [&o]

Oh well, I would say perhaps: "I'd like to see naked geishas/starlettes"



bradfordkay -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 7:25:14 PM)

No one of any real import at Matrix has ever said anything about WITP II. Frag posted a poll on his own (not an official Matrix poll) asking if people would be interested in a PBEM version, but I seriously doubt that the economics would support a PBEM only project. WITP was a very involved project, fairly expensive to make (for a wargame). I do not picture any effort at a WITP II in the forseeable future. Maybe in another ten of fifteen years the guys who make up 2by3 might forget their frustrations with WITP and decide to revisit the idea.

I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't think so...



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 7:31:56 PM)

Better graphics and animations - like some South Pacific girls waving when a recon flight passes over... [:D]



Brausepaul -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 7:40:51 PM)

A better user interface.



jay102 -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 7:48:07 PM)

more hotkeys, more friendly interface, I love WitP but current WitP is something like a micromanagement nightmare.



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 7:54:40 PM)

well if there is one....GG wont be doing it. I think he meant what he said when he said he would never attempt such a large scale project again. Course anyone can change their mind but given the trial that WitP represents, I doubt it.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 8:03:30 PM)

Early involvement of testers and experts on the subject. If this had been done with WITP we would not be talking about a WITP2 right now and for a while after.



invernomuto -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 8:08:01 PM)

My requested features of WITP II:

- improved graphic.
- more user frendly interface (righ click to open tasks menu and so on...)
- improved land movement/combat model
- better logistic
- better management AI (AI for production, resources management etc)

I hope to see WITP II. I'd buy it immediately.
WITP has some bugs but it's a great wargame.



Mynok -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 8:19:21 PM)


I would be happy if the source code for WITP I was placed under the GPL when its marketable lifespan is complete. The only way to address some of the WITP issues is to change the code, e.g. land combat, ASW combat.....



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 9:24:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Early involvement of testers and experts on the subject. If this had been done with WITP we would not be talking about a WITP2 right now and for a while after.


Funny, i recall differently.



moses -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:29:20 PM)

I think the whole concept of covering the Pacific war at squad/plane level is suspect to start with. I think they did an amazing job at attempting the impossible.

But I would hope that any future redo would start from scratch. Someday some brilliant young developer will come up with a new way of treating the theater in a comprehensive way but without such an extreme level of detail.



Terminus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:31:18 PM)

Except that said "brilliant young developer" will be from a generation reared on RTS's and FPS's, and will know that there's no money to be made in the PC market gaming. Never going to happen...

Forgot to take my anti-cynic medicine tonight...



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:32:41 PM)

are you saying the detail level is too fine? Don know about that. After having played Carrier Force (8bit SSI), i just couldn't get into SSG's "Carriers at War" despite some design advantages that it had (and allegedly a killer AI) I hated the fact that the planes were represented in squadrons and you only got squadron level combat reports. I loved how CF detailed the combat down the individual plane.



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:33:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Except that said "brilliant young developer" will be from a generation reared on RTS's and FPS's, and will know that there's no money to be made in the PC market. Never going to happen...

Forgot to take my anti-cynic medicine tonight...


ARRRRG dont even think it. Real time sucks! give me turn based any day.



Terminus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:34:53 PM)

Sign of the times, buddy. Wake up and smell the RTS...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:35:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Early involvement of testers and experts on the subject. If this had been done with WITP we would not be talking about a WITP2 right now and for a while after.


Funny, i recall differently.



You are forgetting how many times we asked for change and met the stone wall of statements like, "Sorry, there will be no change as it would require to much work." This obviously suggests that old code and any new stuff was already to far entrenched to be feasably altered. This is what I mean by being involved earlier than simply being monkeys asked to break something. Ground floor design is the issue, otherise we just get further rehashes of older approaches. New ideas and methods are a must.



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:38:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Sign of the times, buddy. Wake up and smell the RTS...


I did during Fighting Steel and i gagged and choked. Only RTS game i can stomach is Combat Mission and thats only because they came up with an innovative way to eliminate two of my by biggest complaints about RTS, that of not being able to see all the action because its all occuring at once and having to rush around giving orders without a staff to help me. The blending of turn based and RTS elements was a stroke of pure genius.

However in the end i still prefer the Steel Panthers series. NWS has greatly improved Fighting Steel (version 10.0 now) but it still has the RTS bugaboo....the biggest one being that naval actions can be a bit boring to watch when it's long range fighting.....fire, steam....wait.....fire steam...wait.....was that a hit? no.....fire steam...wait. Give me turn based !!!!!



Terminus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:38:37 PM)

Well, obviously. 10+ years of God only knows how tangled spaghetti code is not conductive to making new games. Clean slate, and that's unlikely, at best, considering how monstrous a task a second WitP would be.



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:43:02 PM)

I remember, however you are forgetting how many adjustments and changes they did incorporate. A balanced view is required. I would have loved it in particular if they could have implemented the surface model changes I wanted....but in the end i accepted their explanation. Whether we want to admit it or not....the making of a wargame, any wargaming is a business venture and economic and coding limitations must be accepted.

To balance that memory i recall that at long last MikeW was able to incorporate a supply destruction factor into the ship damage model and finally nailing down the exp drop bug. Player upgrades were for a long time a taboo subject but in the end they made it happen. lots of changes...lots more not changed but thats the nature of the beast.




witpqs -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:43:08 PM)

I like the game, warts and all. Yes, I wish it were better in certain areas, much better in some areas (like the interface and easing play effort through data management, etc.).

With regard to entrenchment of code, it seems clear that much of the code was a hold-over from long ago. The real deal for what we collectively want (barring minor differences of opinion) is to start from scratch. Certain algorithms and concepts would be useful, but the design, data elements, and code would be best begun from scratch.



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:44:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, obviously. 10+ years of God only knows how tangled spaghetti code is not conductive to making new games. Clean slate, and that's unlikely, at best, considering how monstrous a task a second WitP would be.


Maybe 2b3 should quote the total number of pages of "code" that make up WitP. Might temper some harsh judgements. Will never forget Zoomie1980's sweeping proclamations over what was wrong here or there or on how easy it would be to fix this change that.



Terminus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/14/2005 11:47:19 PM)

Tens of thousands of lines of code... with plenty of 'em performing no function whatsoever. God, I hate coding...[:@]



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 12:04:31 AM)

Yes....love computers, but i found in high school i didn't have the knack for programming. I can only admire someone of the caliber of MikeW, Kieth Bros or Gary Grigsby who can turn 'code' into something that looks and feels like a wargame.



moses -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 12:04:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

are you saying the detail level is too fine? Don know about that. After having played Carrier Force (8bit SSI), i just couldn't get into SSG's "Carriers at War" despite some design advantages that it had (and allegedly a killer AI) I hated the fact that the planes were represented in squadrons and you only got squadron level combat reports. I loved how CF detailed the combat down the individual plane.



Yes. Covering half the earth at squad level cannot be done to the level of accuracy demanded by the average Grognard. The developers can work the next 20 years but in version 6.0b of WITP 4, people will still be saying that this or that major aspect of the game is crap.



Nikademus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 12:11:46 AM)

you might be right....but Gary's done his damage though...i dont think i could ever settle for a pacwar game that doen't resolve the combat down to the current detail level. Its true though that wargames devoted to a specific battle will always have an advantage since they can focus exclusively on the variables that impacted that specific battle. I've heard very good things about the Decisive battles series (i think thats what it was called....games like Korsan pocket)

And yes....no matter what, there will always be people who will be unhappy with this or that....its the nature of the beast in wargaming. Matrix/2b3 took the hard road in opening up their design process/feedback to the degree that they did. Other wargame companies will post forums but will have little to do with it nor will the discussions there impact much.



Terminus -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 12:14:42 AM)

Concur. I'm amazed sometimes that these forums even stay open with some of the cr*p that gets flung around in here.[8|]



trojan58 -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 1:09:57 AM)

Getting back to the original question.
I would love to be able to specify a aircrafts weapon loadout by mission.

ie bombs for land attack
torpedoes (if carried) for naval attack.
rockets and small bombs for sweep.

that sort of thing



moses -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 1:14:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

you might be right....but Gary's done his damage though...i dont think i could ever settle for a pacwar game that doen't resolve the combat down to the current detail level. Its true though that wargames devoted to a specific battle will always have an advantage since they can focus exclusively on the variables that impacted that specific battle. I've heard very good things about the Decisive battles series (i think thats what it was called....games like Korsan pocket)

And yes....no matter what, there will always be people who will be unhappy with this or that....its the nature of the beast in wargaming. Matrix/2b3 took the hard road in opening up their design process/feedback to the degree that they did. Other wargame companies will post forums but will have little to do with it nor will the discussions there impact much.



Yes, but with Korsan Pocket its harder to argue because so many things are abstracted that everyone accepts that its just a game. In WITP, with every squad and plane open to inspection, and a thousand turns to exploit any inacuracy or flaw.....



mdiehl -> RE: What do you want to see in WITP II? (9/15/2005 1:17:37 AM)

I'd like to see a WW2 sim in which Axis logistical capability and sealift capacity represents something like that which was actually available.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375