RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 4:48:57 AM

WingedIncubus

Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline

I have two questions about leaders and�rank :

1- Will�something�be done to�make rank something to take�into account? I always found weird that it is possible�to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity,�without penalty in political points. In real life,�if a�commander-in-chief would choose�to place a�Colonel to command a Corps HQ,�he would logically have to expend�a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing�over senior�officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in�their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

< Message edited by Drakken -- 12/8/2007 4:52:36 AM >

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 151

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 5:00:10 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Any new Weather related changes ?...Typhoons....Monsoons.

No unfortunately. We had hopes. And we even had a real world weather guy 2stepper signed up to help us at one point but - long story short - didn't happen. But I think some aspects did get pulled out of the code and into the pwhexE.dat file. Andrew is best to answer these questions over on the map thread.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to MineSweeper)

Post #: 152

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 5:03:18 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I have two questions about leaders and�rank :

1- Will�something�be done to�make rank something to take�into account? I always found weird that it is possible�to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity,�without penalty in political points. In real life,�if a�commander-in-chief would choose�to place a�Colonel to command a Corps HQ,�he would logically have to expend�a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing�over senior�officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in�their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to WingedIncubus)

Post #: 153

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 5:37:33 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I will take the leaders question Joe

Currently its the same structure as stock so between 0 and 9 PP's to change a leader.

On my little triage listy of things I would like to get fixed after we get the beast out is to make HQ level leaders and Large LCU type leaders cost a lot more in PP terms to change but we had to prioritise to allow us to turn to things like the AI and this was one of the things that didnt make the release cut.

I would point out we have more HQ's and we have added more leaders (mostly at HQ level for CW nations and CHinese leaders) to accomodate the new HQ's

A single impressive little nugget you can have as many HQ's as you need they are no longer slot dependent

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 154

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 5:44:48 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

1. Spotting

It's hard to hide even a sub in WITP, plus the allied player gets to see way to much info on Japans cities, production, ships/TF's, etc. It seems Russian forces provide spotting before the Russians are even active.

So is anything being done to adjust this super uber spotting? Something a little closer to WPO would make a much more exciting game.

2. Recon

There are several hexes on the map that can't be reconned, one example is Bataan when playing Japan, can you send 100 recon flights and the only info you get is there are 34 units there!

Then there is base/Island recon where all you every get is there just one base unit there, only to invade and find a full division there! I sometimes send a sub with troops (when the sub tranport bug hasn't hit

) to invade/recon just to find out what's really there.

Maybe the ability to land a recon team on an enemy base without trigging a full assault!

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 155

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 5:51:56 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

1. Spotting

It's hard to hide even a sub in WITP, plus the allied player gets to see way to much info on Japans cities, production, ships/TF's, etc. It seems Russian forces provide spotting before the Russians are even active.

So is anything being done to adjust this super uber spotting? Something a little closer to WPO would make a much more exciting game.

2. Recon

There are several hexes on the map that can't be reconned, one example is Bataan when playing Japan, can you send 100 recon flights and the only info you get is there are 34 units there!

Then there is base/Island recon where all you every get is there just one base unit there, only to invade and find a full division there! I sometimes send a sub with troops (when the sub tranport bug hasn't hit) to invade/recon just to find out what's really there.

Maybe the ability to land a recon team on an enemy base without trigging a full assault!

I must admit I haven't experienced much of what you are referring to here. Perhaps I am mis=understanding.

And I'm not aware that WPO model is different. But WPO pilots are typically in the 30-50 EXP range. That makes a huge difference. In stock once the "ASW Sallys" reach 85+ EXP they will RULE. Same with the 85+ Coronados. Moses is killing me with those in our current game!

The above being said, we have tried to increase FOW across the board. This was a key request from the really long time players.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 156

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 6:15:23 AM

WingedIncubus

Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I have two questions about leaders and�rank :

1- Will�something�be done to�make rank something to take�into account? I always found weird that it is possible�to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity,�without penalty in political points. In real life,�if a�commander-in-chief would choose�to place a�Colonel to command a Corps HQ,�he would logically have to expend�a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing�over senior�officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in�their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.

Let me clarify my request, then. :)

1- What I meant is that, usually, command of large operational organizations like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs (wither Army or Corps) were given to generals, either fully promoted or breveted. The higher the command, the higher the commander's rank had to be to grant him a legitimate authority over his subordinates and prevent confusion of command.

In stock game, these commands can be given to any officer, regardless of his rank and even his branch. I could even give a LCU Corps HQ to an Air Commander if I wished, when usually such commands would be for Army officers only. Even giving a brigade command to a Colonel without instant promotion to brevet general seems weird. Why, after all, a full general, even a useless slob like Percival, would let a large command go to an Junior Officer, even breveted as Brigadier General, when he as full General could fill that position?

Perhaps certain commands, like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs, should be reserved to leaders holding the rank of General or higher. If the player REALLY wants to give the position to a Colonel, the price in PP should be much higher to simulate the clout a commander would have to put to quell the organisational uproar such a decision would provoke among the more senior commanders who are available for the job. 9 PPs seems much too low.

I hope things are clearer now.

2- Like I said above, I just ask if leaders will be only assignable to commands within their branch: LCU for Land officers, Air units for Air commanders, and TFs for Navy leaders. In stock game I can assign any officer I want regardless of branch.

< Message edited by Drakken -- 12/8/2007 6:18:05 AM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 157

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 6:24:21 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
We have instead improved the security of the save file to make cheating significantly more difficult, hopefully impossible for all but the KGB and the NSA.

LOL the easiest way to do that would be to simply have the game execute the turn and save the results when the allied player saves it, but not show him the results. He then mails the finished save to Japan and the witp001 file.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 158

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 6:28:08 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Err sort of its all defined in the editor

Broadly there are 6 categories and the one that causes issues in the HQ one and we have not further restricted it as I said at some stage I want to increas the PP cost to change these leaders specifically.

HQ

HQ's are one job lot with Admirals commanding Naval HQ's, Air Commodores and AVM for Air HQ's and Corps, Army and Command HQ leaders all together.
These senior officers may all command any national HQ in game there is no restriction - if a player wants to give Admiral mountbatten command of 14th Army he can - he would be an idiiot to overlook Slim but he can.

Large LCU

Only Lt and Maj Generals unless otherwise set up in editor

Small LCU
All other army ranks

etc etc
Air Sqn
Naval TF
Ship Captain

(in reply to WingedIncubus)

Post #: 159

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 6:49:58 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I have two questions about leaders and�rank :

1- Will�something�be done to�make rank something to take�into account? I always found weird that it is possible�to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity,�without penalty in political points. In real life,�if a�commander-in-chief would choose�to place a�Colonel to command a Corps HQ,�he would logically have to expend�a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing�over senior�officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in�their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.

Let me clarify my request, then. :)

1- What I meant is that, usually, command of large operational organizations like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs (wither Army or Corps) were given to generals, either fully promoted or breveted. The higher the command, the higher the commander's rank had to be to grant him a legitimate authority over his subordinates and prevent confusion of command.

In stock game, these commands can be given to any officer, regardless of his rank and even his branch. I could even give a LCU Corps HQ to an Air Commander if I wished, when usually such commands would be for Army officers only. Even giving a brigade command to a Colonel without instant promotion to brevet general seems weird. Why, after all, a full general, even a useless slob like Percival, would let a large command go to an Junior Officer, even breveted as Brigadier General, when he as full General could fill that position?

Perhaps certain commands, like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs, should be reserved to leaders holding the rank of General or higher. If the player REALLY wants to give the position to a Colonel, the price in PP should be much higher to simulate the clout a commander would have to put to quell the organisational uproar such a decision would provoke among the more senior commanders who are available for the job. 9 PPs seems much too low.

I hope things are clearer now.

2- Like I said above, I just ask if leaders will be only assignable to commands within their branch: LCU for Land officers, Air units for Air commanders, and TFs for Navy leaders. In stock game I can assign any officer I want regardless of branch.

Differentiation by "branch" would be nice. Unfortunately I'm not sure that would be sufficiently easy (too many places in the code to change) to make it possible. I do think it is by "nation" at least with IJA and IJN and US Army and USMC being different "nations" in the game. So at least some differentiation. But this is stock and no change for "AE".

The are separate pools for "org size" for LCU command. This is also in stock and not changed to my knowledge. I don't know much about this. Maybe James does. We can ask him over on the land thread.

Bottom line, there are bits and pieces of what you want in stock already. But I don't think we have changed things on these axes much for AE.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to WingedIncubus)

Post #: 160

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 7:03:03 AM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

Will someone be doing a web page banner for the game so we can put one on our own sites?

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 161

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 7:32:11 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I see one topic, I hope, that hasn't been mentioned has to deal with free intel. Someone mentioned a change in Fog Of War. Right now the Japanese player can read the Allied SigInt reports and visa versa. Any way to change that??

The Allied player can move the cursor over Japan and know a lot about production. Any changes in what each side knows without use of some sort of intelligence gathering device?? Recon, Magic intercepts, etc. Do base expansions have to be reported?? A player should be able to land forces at a base and build without the other player knowing everything about a base so far away. Moving subs into a coastal hex/base should allow some sort of increased intel.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 162

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 7:39:06 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I gather you guys won't be radically overhauling the UI, which is understandable. There's only so much you can do. That said, a couple questions:

1. Any plans to implement more keyboard shortcuts? Anything to reduce mousing is good for my arthritic hands.

2. I'm pretty sure someone already asked this, but I can't find it now: any plans to implement something like WITPDecoder?

3. Any chance you'll track and display stats like tonnage sunk by subs, or ships sunk by the DD Hibiki, or whatever? Or at least give modders a chance to track and display this stuff?

4. I hope the new emphasis on fog-of-war extends to the intel ("i") screen, which reports both sides' plane losses in exact detail!

Thanks again for all your work on this. I'm bowled over by this effort. The "big announcement" turned out to be bigger than most of us dared hope. :)

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 163

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 7:46:44 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

To Jump in on the Leader questions:
-can leaders promote to the next higher rank?
-do they lose skill when they do - i.e. a MGen may be great at Div stuff but when promoted to LGen and given a Corps he has to learn new stuff?
-can a leader who is under ranked for his job - a Col in command of a Brigade - be given penalties to account for his lack of experience?
-Same goes for a TF Comd - a Lt(JG) commanding a 50 ship convoy seems like sub-bait to me.

Thanks

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 164

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 8:19:16 AM

trhinz

Posts: 70
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Saskatchewan, Canada
Status: offline

Don

My machine has an Intel Core 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13 Ghz. I noticed in MS Flight Simulator X that the software in configuring itself tended to underrate the processing capacity of dual CPUs because of their lower clock speeds.

So would my system be considered optimal for AE?

Terry

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 165

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 11:18:28 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Just to check something I think I am reading between lines in press release and your answers here...

Can player in WitP-AE "command" the amount of supplies and fuel in his bases without fearing that AI would move it around (using internal transportation grid) on its own whim?

In other words are there user selected dials in Base properties GUI that would exactly reserve the amout of suplies / fuel he wants to have in a base?

IMHO that was one of the most sought improvements from current WitP that many players (including me

) have voiced over the years...

Thanks in advance!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to trhinz)

Post #: 166

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 11:29:26 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

One more thing just come to my mind (it is always like that when you wait long time for something and then there are just too many questions to ask)...

Are leaders still "teleportable" (i.e. moved from one location in an instant) or they require movement by transport ships/planes during turn itself (HINT: the historic Yamamoto departure for example)?

Same thing with aircraft movement from base to base (in WitP player can load/reload endlessly to avoid transport casualties because that movement is done inside turn instantly)?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 167

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 12:03:38 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Joe,

Regarding the 'Recon' question above, here's some info: Some time ago it was acknowledged that there was a bug/code limitation that hexes with above a certain number of units (or troops?) could not be reconnoitered correctly - instead of giving the correct FOW info the game only returned the number of units. I think that is what he meant. I know as the Allied player Truk is impossible to recon.

My own question regarding OOB: I've seen the references to adding new units, etc. My question is regarding accuracy of existing (stock) data. I first noticed an issue when I saw that some US plane types were virtually useless because of short range, which turned out to be incorrectly short. Modders (CHS and RHS come to mind because I have used them, I know there are others) made great efforts to correct those, along with fixing armor and ranges on various ships, LCU weapons, etc. etc.

Are those kinds of things being fixed for existing stock OOB records, or are only new things being added? (Not asking for promises, just what's being tackled.)

Thanks in advance!

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 168

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 1:40:11 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yes, the OOB problems are being corrected.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 169

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 1:48:43 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 170

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 1:54:28 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Off board movement: Will this feature allow the OOB from the Atlantic & Home fleets, ETO units etc to be shown and re-assigned with PP? Would allow for a Pacific First vice Germany First campain.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 171

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 2:50:59 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

No. We decided that the Pacific OOB was more than big enough by itself, and it didn't need to be 200-300% bigger...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 172

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 2:55:00 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

Will there be different combat resolution screens for night air and naval battles, giving the options for the graphics wizards to do cool things with it. For example, making new very dark ship sides for the night resolution screen, together with the almost black sea, and having muzzle flashes popping up all over the place?

Pretty useless fluff I know, but you never know

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 173

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 3:04:16 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

No. Sorry...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 174

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 4:31:20 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
Will someone be doing a web page banner for the game so we can put one on our own sites?

Yes, we'll put out some banners and other fan site stuff in January.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 175

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 4:32:51 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thinz2
My machine has an Intel Core 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13 Ghz. I noticed in MS Flight Simulator X that the software in configuring itself tended to underrate the processing capacity of dual CPUs because of their lower clock speeds.
So would my system be considered optimal for AE?

Absolutely - the "GHz" rating is really somewhat misleading, but there are few better methods out there. I think it's probably fair to say that when we say 2GHz, we mean "2GHz back from when the first processors hit 2GHz". That means a new dual core like the 6400 is probably more equivalent to 4-5GHz in those terms.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to trhinz)

Post #: 176

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 4:33:56 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String
Will there be different combat resolution screens for night air and naval battles, giving the options for the graphics wizards to do cool things with it. For example, making new very dark ship sides for the night resolution screen, together with the almost black sea, and having muzzle flashes popping up all over the place?

Pretty useless fluff I know, but you never know

Neat idea though, as eye candy goes...

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 177

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 4:44:11 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: thinz2
My machine has an Intel Core 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13 Ghz. I noticed in MS Flight Simulator X that the software in configuring itself tended to underrate the processing capacity of dual CPUs because of their lower clock speeds.
So would my system be considered optimal for AE?

Absolutely - the "GHz" rating is really somewhat misleading, but there are few better methods out there. I think it's probably fair to say that when we say 2GHz, we mean "2GHz back from when the first processors hit 2GHz". That means a new dual core like the 6400 is probably more equivalent to 4-5GHz in those terms.

Regards,

- Erik

YES!
Now I have no worries about having to upgrade my one (1) month old computer.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 178

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 4:53:21 PM

Woos

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

2. Will there be functionality similar to Bodhi's utility and Woos' witpdecoder incorporated into the game?

I'd like to second that question as I and another guy are working on a database program, much in the vein of witpdecoder, but highly enhanced & for both sides to use... summer is a long way away, but are we plugging away at something that might be useless in 8-9 months?

The save file formats are very different, so anything that relies on reading the current stock save file will not work with AE.

I can confirm the latter statement as I'm currently fighting with that format (with support from Matrixgames). If I managed to wrestle it down, there will be a witpDecoder version for the Admirals Edition. That version will have limited support for plugins so user will be able to extend the functionality of the "Map overview" tab.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 179

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2007 5:31:57 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: String
Will there be different combat resolution screens for night air and naval battles, giving the options for the graphics wizards to do cool things with it. For example, making new very dark ship sides for the night resolution screen, together with the almost black sea, and having muzzle flashes popping up all over the place?

Pretty useless fluff I know, but you never know

Neat idea though, as eye candy goes...

PLEASE. Let's have them get the actual game working right before we worry about making it look "pretty".

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

0.859

Slitherine

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread