A thought on WitP in general...

A thought on WitP in general... (Full Version)

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

Message

Big B -> A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 6:06:18 PM)
Despite all of our grousing about 'this and that' in WitP, there seems to be something special about WitP. Lately I have been out looking for a grand-tactical/operational level WWII campaign game. Other than Matrix, there are VERY few other publishers to begin with. Having found one (and probably the biggest other such publisher), I went to their forum to learn about their game system - and this is where the WitP comparison comes in. As all of you know - the WitP forum is so active it's almost like a chat room, and it is easily the most active of any Matrix game forum....This other company's forum is like a grave yard by comparison (although I grant you it's a haunted grave yard). What this tells me is - WitP seems to be quite special and has a VERY devoted following. So devoted and active that I think Matrix may just be under estimating the $$ they could make with an enhancement expansion. Just my thoughts... B

Erik Rutins -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 6:15:21 PM)
Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. [;)] Regards, - Erik

rogueusmc -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 6:20:21 PM)
Erik says, "IGOR!!...get me my floppies!!" rubbing hands together

Apollo11 -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 6:22:29 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rogueusmc Erik says, "IGOR!!...get me my floppies!!" rubbing hands together Damn... I swear I heard something similar in some movie before... but can't remember exact title right now... [8D] Leo "Apollo11"

Richard III -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 6:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. [;)] Regards, - Erik That`s what those of us who only want to play a Realistc Historical Campaign VS the AI are afraid of considering what the many past " Enhancements" to help the PBEM boys get " Play Balance " have done to the Game.

Halsey -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 6:57:32 PM)
I quit playing WITP, much to my PBEM opponents dismay. Why? Here's why. 1. Airfield limitations should be the level times 50 plus 10%. Anything over closes the airfield. Atolls should have -50% in operating and staging aircraft. 2. BB's should only be able to rearm at ports level 8 and up. CA's at ports 6 and up. The next can be ignored, if the above is implemented. (For Ron)[;)] Get rid of the escort not bombard toggle. This keeps players from abusing bombardment attacks. 3. No stacking limitations for LCU's. It should be a fixed constant according to terrain type. 4. Supplies/resources rome around the map at the AI's whim. Make it manual with toggles. 5. Need a more disrupted influence for units not prepped for base attack/defense. This one is very important.[;)] Such as, 30 prep points equal 30% of the units AV. 6. Need a reduction of available Japanese shipping. The majority of shipping in the game was used for the economy, not massive invasion TF's. 7. RN withdrawl penalty. The Japanese should have the same expenditure to keep merchant shipping available for military use. 8. Submarines should get an attack bonus when the targets are AK's and TK's. 9. CAP capacity should be set at 50% max on all F/FB missions. There's more.[;)] This was just a start.[:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 7:03:56 PM)
quote: Get rid of the escort not bombard toggle. This keeps players from abusing bombardment attacks. Noway![:)] Fix the drive through ability of rearm and refuel and alot of this will stop. Let modders adjust the max speeds of ships to real and not one off trials maximums and this will bcome further curtailed.

Big B -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 7:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. [;)] Regards, - Erik Very reassuring to hear![8D] While you guys are busy behind the scenes, allow me to be bold enough to make a suggestion or two.. 1) To satisfy those who don't like the changes to the original game (especially it seems - players who only play against the AI) ...take all of your bug fixes and make ONE coprehensive bug-fix patch to be applied over the original game - leaving out the enhancments. 2) Make another similar patch for the enhancements WITH A PLAYER CHOICE menu so as to allow players to turn ON and OFF the features they choose (or something to that effect). - Or better yet, $SELL this patch as your 'WITP Enhancement' so you get reimbursed for your time spent. 3) Alter the big full campaign scenarios for special PBEM ONLY play that would do such things as reduce shipping to historical levels - since there is no need for the AI to have extra shipping under PBEM, and any other known force levels that may have been expanded for the sake of AI only. Thanks Erik, Brian

Halsey -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 7:09:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: Get rid of the escort not bombard toggle. This keeps players from abusing bombardment attacks. Noway![:)] Fix the drive through ability of rearm and refuel and alot of this will stop. Let modders adjust the max speeds of ships to real and not one off trials maximums and this will bcome further curtailed. Good to hear from Ron![:D][:D][:D]

Mike Wood -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 7:12:09 PM)
Hello... Please be advised that code changes made since the release of version 1.0 were not based on "play balance". There were a number of players who felt one side or the other was to weak and when ever changes were made, some players on the other side always complained that the game was being balanced away from their side. Issues, such as air search, surface anti-submarine warfare, zones of control, enhanced leadership characteristics usage, bombing effectiveness, air-to-air combat between fighters and fighters and between fighters and bombers were not addressed because of player complaint. They were addressed because I felt they needed to be. Seldom use the term 'I', as like being and feeling part of a team, but will, in this case, because feel need to accept responsibility for code changes. I play the game, and in some cases felt the mood achieved in game was not quite right. Made list of needed changes and after release of game, began to work on them. Took a while, as bugs and many, many user interface changes and orders options requests were also addressed. Also, added a goodly bit of combat descriptive text, to help players understand what was happening in battles. Although I worked with player testers and usually consulted with Joel and Gary on changes, I made all decisions concerning code changes through out patching (except for nerfing night bombing effectiveness, which Joel instigated, Gary implemented and with which I agreed). I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Eric told me he is posting build 1.795 today or tomorrow and I feel it is the cleanest, most realistic and playable build to date. Hope You have fun... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Richard III That`s what those of us who only want to play a Realistc Historical Campaign VS the AI are afraid of considering what the many past " Enhancements" to help the PBEM boys get " Play Balance " have done to the Game.

Apollo11 -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 7:57:45 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Please be advised that code changes made since the release of version 1.0 were not based on "play balance". There were a number of players who felt one side or the other was to weak and when ever changes were made, some players on the other side always complained that the game was being balanced away from their side. Issues, such as air search, surface anti-submarine warfare, zones of control, enhanced leadership characteristics usage, bombing effectiveness, air-to-air combat between fighters and fighters and between fighters and bombers were not addressed because of player complaint. They were addressed because I felt they needed to be. Seldom use the term 'I', as like being and feeling part of a team, but will, in this case, because feel need to accept responsibility for code changes. I play the game, and in some cases felt the mood achieved in game was not quite right. Made list of needed changes and after release of game, began to work on them. Took a while, as bugs and many, many user interface changes and orders options requests were also addressed. Also, added a goodly bit of combat descriptive text, to help players understand what was happening in battles. Although I worked with player testers and usually consulted with Joel and Gary on changes, I made all decisions concerning code changes through out patching (except for nerfing night bombing effectiveness, which Joel instigated, Gary implemented and with which I agreed). I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Thank you immensely Mike - you are our WitP hero (and I can't say this enough times)!!! [&o][&o][&o] BTW, the WitP v1.0 (i.e. "out of the box") was already good and playable - all the work you did after release greatly improved the game and made it even better! We all appreciate your hard work and sincerely hope your current and future obligations will not stop you to revisit the WitP in months to come from time to time... Leo "Apollo11"

Mike Wood -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 8:01:45 PM)
Hello... Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, ...hope your current and future obligations will not stop you to revisit the WitP in months to come from time to time... Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo11 -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 8:07:25 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. _GREAT_ !!! [sm=00000436.gif] Leo "Apollo11"

witpqs -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 8:25:59 PM)
Mike, It's great to see your comment about the nature of the changes (as opposed to bug fixes) being to improve the game rather than being for balance, etc. I think that makes a big difference. On the futures front... While I am sure that there are a bunch of things like the way bases are handled, etc. that might bring things closer to realistic, I think an upgraded user interface would have a huge player payoff. I'm talking in general terms, ranging from displays and orders to in-game utilities for intelligence, planning, etc. I'll keep to a general comment until you solicit specifics because I suspect it's impractical to keep track of every suggestion posted here and there on the board.

Andy Mac -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 8:35:27 PM)
Thank you I have never kept a game on my hard drive as long as this one

CMDRMCTOAST -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 9:08:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Thank you I have never kept a game on my hard drive as long as this one UV has it beat timewise but will be bypassed in another year...[:D] Great game and now War plan orange to play with...[&o] How about a Civil war version....

ChezDaJez -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 10:23:04 PM)
quote: I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Thanks, Mike. Now, would you mind putting the blindfold on while we line up the firing squad? No, seriously, most of us very much appreciated the effort that has been put into WitP. You can never please everyone but I believe that the vast majority of the changes were warranted and effective. Many want to see better play balance but I prefer an unbalanced game that represents the real life situations. Outcomes can only be approximated and may not reflect RL outcomes but they should reflect realistic potentialities. My biggest complaint with the game is the bloody air combat during large air battles. I would like to see a basic law of diminishing returns applied to large air battles. CAP also needs to be addressed. I don't favor limiting the number that can be assigned but I do favor limiting the number that can intercept any one raid. The same with the number of escorts. A routine that determined X percentage of CAP/Escort that intercepted would be very nice. I would also like to see it allow the chance for a raid to get through without interception as sometimes occured IRL, especially with smaller raids where there was a great differnece between altitudes of the participants. Anyways, thanks again for all the work by the various teams on keeping the game alive and enjoyable. And most of all, thanks for listening to us (even if you don't do what we say!). Now, where's that blindfold?[:D] Chez

GaryChildress -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 10:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B Despite all of our grousing about 'this and that' in WitP, there seems to be something special about WitP. Lately I have been out looking for a grand-tactical/operational level WWII campaign game. Other than Matrix, there are VERY few other publishers to begin with. Having found one (and probably the biggest other such publisher), I went to their forum to learn about their game system - and this is where the WitP comparison comes in. As all of you know - the WitP forum is so active it's almost like a chat room, and it is easily the most active of any Matrix game forum....This other company's forum is like a grave yard by comparison (although I grant you it's a haunted grave yard). What this tells me is - WitP seems to be quite special and has a VERY devoted following. So devoted and active that I think Matrix may just be under estimating the $$ they could make with an enhancement expansion. Just my thoughts... B The fact that Matrix has listened to all our scuttlebutt about the game definitely says something positive about the company. IMO forums would be a boring place to be without all the ideas thrown in by players to make WitP even better than it already is. And if Matrix didn't actually listen to some of our ideas then why would anyone bother to post any of them to begin with? Thanks Matrix for keeping one ear on the ground! Bigger companies have done a lot less for their fans. [:)] Gary

ADavidB -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 10:50:54 PM)
quote: I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Mike, given all the changes to the game, both bug fixes and modifications, do you believe that either player can win by points a scenario 15 PBEM game given the current victory conditions and victory points allocations? Thank you, Dave Baranyi

Mike Wood -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 11:20:47 PM)
Hello... Yes. Yes, I do. The more clever of the two. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB quote: I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Mike, given all the changes to the game, both bug fixes and modifications, do you believe that either player can win by points a scenario 15 PBEM game given the current victory conditions and victory points allocations? Thank you, Dave Baranyi

pompack -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 11:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... I play the game, and in some cases felt the mood achieved in game was not quite right. Made list of needed changes and after release of game, began to work on them. Took a while, as bugs and many, many user interface changes and orders options requests were also addressed. Also, added a goodly bit of combat descriptive text, to help players understand what was happening in battles. Although I worked with player testers and usually consulted with Joel and Gary on changes, I made all decisions concerning code changes through out patching (except for nerfing night bombing effectiveness, which Joel instigated, Gary implemented and with which I agreed). I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Hope You have fun... Michael Wood Good on ya Mike [&o][&o][&o] If I had the talent and stamina that you have, I would do it exactly the same way!! Unfortunately I don't, so all I can do is stand behind you and cheer!

ADavidB -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/19/2005 11:55:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Yes. Yes, I do. The more clever of the two. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB quote: I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me. Mike, given all the changes to the game, both bug fixes and modifications, do you believe that either player can win by points a scenario 15 PBEM game given the current victory conditions and victory points allocations? Thank you, Dave Baranyi Okay, thanks Mike. Dave Baranyi

mc3744 -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 1:42:15 AM)
I'm going to get a new copy for Xmas. As present for a gamer friend [:)] Just give me a good reason to and I'll be happy to put more $ in WitP. Best value for money I ever had from games.

Sonny -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 3:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. Bye... Michael Wood I like the "Company line" = keep it up and thank you for all the effort you have put into the game.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 3:32:56 AM)
Witp has been on my harddrive for so long now-I don't think it can be erased.[:D]

walkerd -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 5:02:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, ...hope your current and future obligations will not stop you to revisit the WitP in months to come from time to time... Leo "Apollo11" May I just say that this game has brought back to me the joy of computer wargaming. It is an outstanding achievement and you have made me a dedicaded fan of this company. It the first game I have ever plyed in PBEM mode and I regret the intrusion the remainder of my life has into my sparce wargaming time. I wish to thank the effort and time spent by everyone involved in the development of this game. While there are some changes I would still like to see I am more then happy with the product. No other game comes close to the scope and enjoyment this game does. If nothing else I have now purchasing numerous books about the Pacific War and will continue to purchase more as well as browse these forums for the often entertaining and sometimes educational reading. Darren Walker

PaulWRoberts -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 5:25:48 AM)
I'm new to WitP, having bought it about a week ago. Consider me immersed! It must mean something that this forum is the busiest of all the Matrix line. I'm looking forward to future updates!

rogueusmc -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 5:31:04 AM)
Picture a man...going on a journey...beyond sight and sound... Welcome[8D]

michaelm75au -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 1:54:53 PM)
Hi Mike I hope that you might add the apparent minimum ceiling of the larger AAA to the things that you think might need addressing. Oh! Not for this poor player, but for the sake of the masses ...[:D] Michael

captskillet -> RE: A thought on WitP in general... (11/20/2005 2:23:09 PM)
WITP has provided MANY hours of enjoyment, no its not the "perfect" game, there is no such animal, but it is THE BEST I have seen come down the pipe in years. Tks to Mike and all the others at Matrix/2by3 for their efforts on this!! [&o] Now after all this sucking up to Matrix please tell me a fix for the Bangkok bug will be on the 1.795 build to be released [;)] [:D].

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625