RE: A Modest Proposel

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: A Modest Proposel

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 7:08:23 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 31

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 7:12:57 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

I don't know what he meant, that's why I asked.

I was just intrigued by the "which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim" statement. Can't quite see how the Allied player "having to form a strategy independent of history" accomplishes that either. I must be having a bad day - better not do any more work then.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 32

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 7:23:54 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

I don't know what he meant, that's why I asked. I was just intrigued by the "which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim" statement. Can't quite see how the Allied player "having to form a strategy independent of history" accomplishes that either. I must be having a bad day - better not do any more work then.

Wasn't too sure either, but that was the only no code change or anything I could think of. Unless he wants us to scribble "Japanese Victory" on a piece of paper and tape it to our monitors

_____________________________

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 33

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 8:55:11 AM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

You two are having a great time quoting out of context with no atribution as who your quoting.

Hard to believe your as confused as you seem....

I guess you have never played Board Wargames that have Victory conditions based on losses, and specific events within a _Historical_ timeframe, as example, the US has to take Sapain by a certain date to bring the now Nerfed B-29`s into play, as well as the Nukes. Failure to do so could result in a Japanese Victory on points.

or...if the Japanes player overuns India or a great part of it, he gets a huge point lead....not so hard is it..?

With ability to win through good play, using historically accurate Combat Routines, there would be no need to skew the in-game AI results so one side could " Win". All these ahistorical changes to the AI are the same as cheats in a FPS, like unlimted ammo.

That`s what he means...seems pretty clear to me, and I suspect pretty clear to you guys as well.

BTW...Tankeracer ; the " Japanese Victory Scribbled on Paper" is a pretty Cheap Shot.....

< Message edited by Richard III -- 11/14/2005 9:05:36 AM >

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 34

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 9:13:50 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

You two are having a great time quoting out of context with no atribution as who your quoting.

Hard to believe your as confused as you seem....

I guess you have never played wargames that have Victory conditions based on losses, and specific events within a _Historical_ timeframe, as example, the US has to take Sapain by a certain date to bring the now Nerfed B-29`s into play, as well as the Nukes. Failure to do so could result in a Japanese Victory on points.

or...if the Japanes player overuns India or a great part of it, he gets a huge point lead....not so hard is it..?

That`s what he means...seems pretty clear to me, and I suspect pretty clear to you guys as well.

I understood (I think) what David wrote, what I don't understand is how changing the victory conditions suddenly enhances the validity of WitP as a sim rather than a game. All I see that the suggestion does is force players down the historical path, which takes away the chance to explore "what if" scenarios. Why should the US be forced to win by dropping nuclear weapons from B-29s based out of Saipan? And surely the Japanese player should be penalised points if he overuns India as that didn't happen historically? Sorry, I'm still confused as to why all this would make WitP a better simulation.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 35

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 9:23:05 AM

trajanus

Posts: 52
Joined: 10/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
...which takes away the chance to explore "what if" scenarios.

Which is, to me, a huge reason to play these games. I like things to fall into place with a resemblance of history when I play, but when you put a warm body with hindsight in control, things are goign to change from day 1.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 36

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 9:32:13 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

BTW...Tankeracer ; the " Japanese Victory Scribbled on Paper" is a pretty Cheap Shot.....

I'm sorry, but how is that a cheap shot? It was a joke. Hence the smiley... Humor, haha, nothing bad implied nor meant.

And as to the rest of your post, no, I haven't played that many boardgames, never had people to play them with. I meant no disrespect, it was a joke on his Japanese victory without needing a code change. Not sure how a simple joke comes across as a cheap shot.

Let me explain. The Japanese player meets his conditions for victory. Well, the game (as no code change remember) doesn't say anything, so he (in a joke) writes it down. I'm forced to wonder how that as a joke is a "cheap shot". Saying his reasons are stupid, unfounded, unprecedented, etc are cheap shots, but I don't see how a simple joke (when there are lots of jokes made on this forum) is bad.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 11/14/2005 9:33:42 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 37

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 10:00:25 AM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Saying his reasons are stupid, unfounded, unprecedented, etc are cheap shots, but I don't see how a simple joke (when there are lots of jokes made on this forum) is bad.

That's probably because jokes are not "valuable" posts.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 38

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 3:54:10 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

All I want(ed) from WitP was a "reasonable evaluation of the units, and engine that creates reasonable results." Unfortunately, it has DE-volved so that neither are true. The OB is utter non-sense, and the engine does not produce historical results under similar circumstances.

While the "atrributes" of Zeros and B-29s are certainly subjective within WitP, I should be able to pit 100 Zeros vs. 100 B-29s, and the engine should resolve a "reasonable result". It is certainly true that after the first turn, the war changes. That is exactly the point of wargaming, is to create a simulation, and see if you can do better than your historical counterparts.

But the "what if" factor should really only reflect "what if I deploy/use my units differently". The units themselves, should operate as reasonable historical reflection.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 39

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 4:15:11 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Excellent post on the single player flaws in the _evolved_ version of WITP and what it has become.i.e. a Game where wherein historical tactics/ deployment of units for the most give ahistorical , if not plan silly results.

Combining " enhancements" i,e. dumbing down the Game engine with the Bug fix Patches was a fatal mistake.

It can be fixed if Matrix releases a SDK and Modding tools, or revamp the in game Victory conditions.

< Message edited by Richard III -- 11/14/2005 4:16:09 PM >

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 40

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 4:21:13 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

All I want(ed) from WitP was a "reasonable evaluation of the units, and engine that creates reasonable results." Unfortunately, it has DE-volved so that neither are true. The OB is utter non-sense, and the engine does not produce historical results under similar circumstances.

While the "atrributes" of Zeros and B-29s are certainly subjective within WitP, I should be able to pit 100 Zeros vs. 100 B-29s, and the engine should resolve a "reasonable result". It is certainly true that after the first turn, the war changes. That is exactly the point of wargaming, is to create a simulation, and see if you can do better than your historical counterparts.

But the "what if" factor should really only reflect "what if I deploy/use my units differently". The units themselves, should operate as reasonable historical reflection.

-F-

Hmmm,

So how did the OOB change?

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 41

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 4:48:20 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

The amount of IJN shipping available in WitP to haul around invasions that make June 6th look like child's play. It took 6 weeks for Japan to land their troops in the Philipines. Now it takes 1 day. Oh, and did we miss the scouting reports where there are simultanious mega-invasions at Khota Bharu (took 2 weeks to complete historically), Rabaul, Canton Island, Lunga, Noumea, Kendari and Tarakan. In about 3 weeks, those same troops will be gleefully boarding their transports, and heading to Chadpur.

Um, no.

The lack of sea-lift was a very real problem for Japan historically. With 440 APs to start, and an average of what, about 2k per AP, you're talking about a lift capacity of 880,000. Since I don't know the proportion of large AP to small AP, we'll cut that number to 800,000. An "average" division is about 15k to transport. We'll go high, and call it 20k. That's a lift capacity of 40 Divisions to start. Not that Japan even has that (what is it, including all the the NLF and Gd Btns/Bdes, comes to about 10 Divs?). But the ability to insta-land 10 divisions is ludicrous. The fact that Pearl, Noumea, NZ, Oz, India are even considered for invasion (and holding) by WitP players, substantially bears out the flaw.

Could Japan have landed troops in Oz? Sure. A couple of SNLF or a MAYBE a full Division? Sure. But not the mega-landings possible in WitP. The 4 Divsion beach-heads that we see regularly in WitP, are completely implausible.

The naval WARSHIP ob is accurate. But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 42

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 5:13:23 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

The amount of IJN shipping available in WitP to haul around invasions that make June 6th look like child's play. It took 6 weeks for Japan to land their troops in the Philipines. Now it takes 1 day. Oh, and did we miss the scouting reports where there are simultanious mega-invasions at Khota Bharu (took 2 weeks to complete historically), Rabaul, Canton Island, Lunga, Noumea, Kendari and Tarakan. In about 3 weeks, those same troops will be gleefully boarding their transports, and heading to Chadpur.

Um, no.

The lack of sea-lift was a very real problem for Japan historically. With 440 APs to start, and an average of what, about 2k per AP, you're talking about a lift capacity of 880,000. Since I don't know the proportion of large AP to small AP, we'll cut that number to 800,000. An "average" division is about 15k to transport. We'll go high, and call it 20k. That's a lift capacity of 40 Divisions to start. Not that Japan even has that (what is it, including all the the NLF and Gd Btns/Bdes, comes to about 10 Divs?). But the ability to insta-land 10 divisions is ludicrous. The fact that Pearl, Noumea, NZ, Oz, India are even considered for invasion (and holding) by WitP players, substantially bears out the flaw.

Could Japan have landed troops in Oz? Sure. A couple of SNLF or a MAYBE a full Division? Sure. But not the mega-landings possible in WitP. The 4 Divsion beach-heads that we see regularly in WitP, are completely implausible.

The naval WARSHIP ob is accurate. But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

-F-

Oh is THAT why we see all that? So was the extra shipping with us from day one? And what was the intention (if known) of adding all that extra lift capacity? - Truly mistified...

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 43

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 5:40:38 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Good grief, you're taking this awfully personally.

Try to be objective, this isn't worth getting your blood pressure up.

I wouldn't call it INTENT. I don't believe that the Devs said, "Hey let's screw the Allies! Let's give Japan a billion transports!". I am quite sure they had no idea of the impact on PBEM.

About of 70% of the Japanese sea-lift ability in WitP was never available to transport troops. It was needed to haul rice or supplies. (* separate discussion about the supply/production model of WitP not NEEDING those transports to function *)

The simple fact is that the AI is stupid enough that it will impale itself very quickly, and thus NEEDS the abundance of shipping and the invasion bonus to boot. We (also the Devs) learned as much from UV, and certainly the same problem plagues WitP. But in allowing the AI huge amounts of shipping, because it will lose it doing stupid things, seriously affects a PBEM game.

I don't think the Devs "intended" anything. I think they worked very hard, and did a damn fine job. I think they created a helluva OB. Too good infact. There actually WERE steamships out there called the American Maru or whatever. The problem is that, they were never available for the duties they perform WitP, and should thus not be included in the OB.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 44

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 5:44:23 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

The amount of IJN shipping available in WitP to haul around invasions that make June 6th look like child's play. It took 6 weeks for Japan to land their troops in the Philipines. Now it takes 1 day. Oh, and did we miss the scouting reports where there are simultanious mega-invasions at Khota Bharu (took 2 weeks to complete historically), Rabaul, Canton Island, Lunga, Noumea, Kendari and Tarakan. In about 3 weeks, those same troops will be gleefully boarding their transports, and heading to Chadpur.

Um, no.

The lack of sea-lift was a very real problem for Japan historically. With 440 APs to start, and an average of what, about 2k per AP, you're talking about a lift capacity of 880,000. Since I don't know the proportion of large AP to small AP, we'll cut that number to 800,000. An "average" division is about 15k to transport. We'll go high, and call it 20k. That's a lift capacity of 40 Divisions to start. Not that Japan even has that (what is it, including all the the NLF and Gd Btns/Bdes, comes to about 10 Divs?). But the ability to insta-land 10 divisions is ludicrous. The fact that Pearl, Noumea, NZ, Oz, India are even considered for invasion (and holding) by WitP players, substantially bears out the flaw.

Could Japan have landed troops in Oz? Sure. A couple of SNLF or a MAYBE a full Division? Sure. But not the mega-landings possible in WitP. The 4 Divsion beach-heads that we see regularly in WitP, are completely implausible.

The naval WARSHIP ob is accurate. But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

-F-

Oh is THAT why we see all that? So was the extra shipping with us from day one? And what was the intention (if known) of adding all that extra lift capacity? - Truly mistified...

B

The more I think about this the more pointless the entire game seems as anything other than complete make-believe?

How can it even pretend to be historical if numbers and capabilities are swagged so egregiously??!!

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 45

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 6:03:29 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Don`t go there

In most respects WITP is pretty great, the shipping thing is necessary to " help" the AI get started.

IMHO, There are 2 AI`s working in WITP

The Stratigic AI with many scripted events-movements- reactions.

The tactical AI, which deals with battles , spotting, AC flying, and probably movement in some cases.

The Strategic AI is probably as good as anyone could make it, and indeed better then most, Mike et al have done a **great job** with getting that to work in a reasonably good and historic form. No one should , or is knocking them.

The issue I and F ( where did all the other critcs who want to see a true Sim go to, in hiding ? ) have is with the TACTICAL AI that comes into play in Combat Results, both in A to A, A to Ground, ( his B-29 issues ) and Ship to Ship, as well as HB Launches, and other areas. This has been altered, to help " The Game" to the point that it does not IMO reflect historical
truths, so you can`t get historical results, which is a problem for some of us.

Don`t give up on the Game or get down on it. Hopefully at some point Matrix will address that issue by releasing a SDK/ Modding tools or revamp the Victory scoring in Game.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 46

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 6:07:41 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Excellent post on the single player flaws in the _evolved_ version of WITP and what it has become.i.e. a Game where wherein historical tactics/ deployment of units for the most give ahistorical , if not plan silly results.

Combining " enhancements" i,e. dumbing down the Game engine with the Bug fix Patches was a fatal mistake.

The silly results have been there from day one. IMHO the post-release tinkering has to an extent dumbed things up if anything. Not enough to make a difference mind you.

--
Regarding the original point: No wargame ever comes with an "SDK" or anything like it. Reason? The business model is based on selling "battles", not game construction kits. Look at HPS Panzer Campaigns. Twelve or so "games" (haven't counted recently) all of which are basically just different scenarios using essentially the same engine. Closer to home, WPO and WitP is another example ...

If punters could make their own battles (including maps and code level stuff) that sort of revenue generation would be less possible. This is not necessarily a bad thing, we all know how small this market is.

Having said that, there are some examples where being more open has been successful. TOAW and Decisive Battles come to mind. Neither of these has anything like an SDK though.

My only gripe in this area is where the publishers and developers do not make clear exactly what parts of their creations are open to modification. They must know that some of their customers aren't just going to use the products as black boxes. In the same vein, there is the lack of documentation ...

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 47

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 6:11:53 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

P.S. There will never be any type of SDK for WitP. Apparently even the virtually unusable scenario/database editor was only reluctantly included.

The best we can hope for is the code getting released under NDA to a volunteer from the community at some point.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 48

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 6:26:39 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

P.S. There will never be any type of SDK for WitP. Apparently even the virtually unusable scenario/database editor was only reluctantly included.

The best we can hope for is the code getting released under NDA to a volunteer from the community at some point.

I/ WE only would like to have the ability to do what Mikes does, customize the Combat Routines/AC launch perameters/etc. The stuff that you can`t do in the Editor .

I have no idea how the code was constructed, and it may not be viable, but I would assume he has some tools to enable that.

BTW: You can pretty much customize/create scenarios and full Campaigns for any HPS Game if you spend the energy to learn the Scripting routines and the PDT files function. Since there is no useful Documentation on that, no one ever bothers.
What you cannot do is create Maps.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 49

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 6:52:07 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Yes I know about PDT files in PzC. I see what you're on about now. You just want that all the numeric values used in the game are available for modification rather than being hard-coded.

I agree :) Not going to happen though.

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 50

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 7:29:47 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Ok I give up, especially since other then Feinder all the other " Hardcore " players who wine about the Ahistorical gameplay have folded like cheap tents....

But in the interest of closure, since you speak with some authority on what Matrix will/will not do ( I assume you are not in their employ but know the Code ? ) please tell why it is not in their interest to enable easy modding of the Game.

Joel Billings has already said there will be no Med. Version so WITP is a Dead End.

TOAOW ( among others Like Doom & Quake and soon Civ 4 ) shows that player created Mods/Scenarios give legs to the original Games, witness that old Game TOAOW bringing higher prices then when new.

What is the Downside for Matrix here, tell me please

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 51

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 7:44:25 PM

Terminus

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

Low ROI.

The tools the developers are using are 99% likely to be unsuitable for public consumption, so it'd take all sorts of packaging, repackaging, documenting, etc... All of that costs money. And for what? Not a lot of market for such a product. PC turn-based wargames are a niche, and WitP (because of its size and complexity) is a niche within a niche. A WitP SDK would be... well, you get the idea.

I remember the editor for Carriers at War. It was too complex to use, because it hadn't been made user-friendly.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 52

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 8:29:59 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Good grief, you're taking this awfully personally.

Try to be objective, this isn't worth getting your blood pressure up.

I wouldn't call it INTENT. I don't believe that the Devs said, "Hey let's screw the Allies! Let's give Japan a billion transports!". I am quite sure they had no idea of the impact on PBEM.

About of 70% of the Japanese sea-lift ability in WitP was never available to transport troops. It was needed to haul rice or supplies. (* separate discussion about the supply/production model of WitP not NEEDING those transports to function *)

The simple fact is that the AI is stupid enough that it will impale itself very quickly, and thus NEEDS the abundance of shipping and the invasion bonus to boot. We (also the Devs) learned as much from UV, and certainly the same problem plagues WitP. But in allowing the AI huge amounts of shipping, because it will lose it doing stupid things, seriously affects a PBEM game.

I don't think the Devs "intended" anything. I think they worked very hard, and did a damn fine job. I think they created a helluva OB. Too good infact. There actually WERE steamships out there called the American Maru or whatever. The problem is that, they were never available for the duties they perform WitP, and should thus not be included in the OB.

-F-

Oh sorry Feinder, didn't see this post earlier.

So the intent of all the extra shipping was just to get the AI to function properly....but unfortunately humans can readily take advantage of the extra shipping in a PBEM to sea lift vastly more troops than was ever dreamt of which is why players can invade places never possible ITRW.... Is that an accurate summation?

If so - one of the first things that should be done in ANY PBEM would seem to be putting shipping back down to a realistic level?

Comments??..

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 53

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 8:41:20 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

That's exactly what I'm saying.

To keep things within "do-able", there would be a

#15 - Grand campaign vs. the AI (contains things like the abundance of shipping, to help prop up the AI).
#15 - Grand campaign for PBEM (contains things like fewer transports for Japan, and less volume of Allied level-bombers; to start).

Still, it's not that easy. Fundamentally, the productio/supply model, which is the heart of the game, is wonky. If players had to actually use 70% of their shipping to haul supplies to the Home Islands or whatver, you wouldn't need a reduced shipping OB.

So do you work farther up the chain, and "fix" the production model? What is "fixed"?

If you fiddle with production/supply model, there are certainly far reaching issues that you suddenly create that you can't have possibley thought of, simply because it is such a fundamental part of the game.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 54

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 8:42:09 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

But to start, the Japanese shipping ablility is utter non-sense.

I do agree that Japan starts with too much sealift capability, but not necessarily too much shipping. Japan did use AKs to transport troops between theaters because of an AP shortage. Some AKs were even used to unload troops over the beach. I do know that I, as a Japanese player, cannot use all the APs I have on the map.

I also believe that the Allies have the same situation, except they have the overabundance of supply to go with it. Historically the US was unable to mount a hundred ship convoy and send it to Australia in January 1942. And I hardly think that Karachi had all that supply and transport to play with, considering the majority of British shipping and supply was needed in the Atlantic and North Africa.

Either way, the game has some things wrong. The Japanese sealift ability is offset by the Allied supply and transport ability.
Japanese pilot training is another problem. Pilot quality decreases through the war, as it did historically due to decreasing supply in the home islands. But I think it should be tied to the level of supply. If the Japanese player can maintain sufficient supply in the home islands, why should pilot quality decrease? I also think the number of fully trained pilots received each month should be doubled to reflect the historical output as Japan trained nearly 350 IJN pilots in 1942 alone. The current level doesn't even offset ops losses let alone, combat losses.

These are from the viewpoint of a Japanese player. I'm not syaing, by any means, that the Allied player doesn't have similar inaccuracies but I haven't played the Allies in PBEM so am not as familiar with the game problems associated with them.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 55

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 9:17:27 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

That's exactly what I'm saying.

To keep things within "do-able", there would be a

#15 - Grand campaign vs. the AI (contains things like the abundance of shipping, to help prop up the AI).
#15 - Grand campaign for PBEM (contains things like fewer transports for Japan, and less volume of Allied level-bombers; to start).

Still, it's not that easy. Fundamentally, the productio/supply model, which is the heart of the game, is wonky. If players had to actually use 70% of their shipping to haul supplies to the Home Islands or whatver, you wouldn't need a reduced shipping OB.

So do you work farther up the chain, and "fix" the production model? What is "fixed"?

If you fiddle with production/supply model, there are certainly far reaching issues that you suddenly create that you can't have possibley thought of, simply because it is such a fundamental part of the game.

-F-

Well, if I take your meaning correctly - the ideal solution would be to fix the production model - for a variety of resons (not least of which would be to make the submarine war more strategically important).

But since fixing the production model would require something on the part of Matrix to do...that would not be the most likely thing to happen.

Option two would be to have seperate PBEM scenarios, wich would seem to be nothing more than OOB changes - that would be relatively easy to do and also require no contribution from Matix to achieve.

So how about proceeding with the latter, re-figuring shipping (for both sides) requirements and any other PBEM issues that may be simliarly out of whack?

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 56

RE: A Modest Proposel - 11/14/2005 9:37:53 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

In difference to CHS (altho I've never played it), I believe they actually have done considerable work on bringing shipping more in-line with historical capabilities. A problem is that, you really need an "official Matrix rubber stamp approved!" scenario, that directly addresses/tweaks these things. Part of the reason that folks scream, is because it's the "offical" scenarios that need tweaking, or worse need re-tweaking after the last tweak. If the CHS scenario plays like a pit-pull, it's not official, and so thus carries the "play at your own risk" stigma. But when the official scenarios get "enhanced to death", you wailing of gnashing of teeth.

In fairness (like you or somebody else said, the ALLIED sea-lift capacity is also probably also overstated). If you fixed production for Japan, you'd also need to bring in-line the Allied abilities. In truth, the game PLAYS fairly well as rock-paper-scissors in PBEM. I actually can get units on the ground at Noumea or Port Moresby fairly quickly (if start moving stuff immediatly on 12-07). Historical reflection be-damned, but the game is intense and exciting. But I would rather not have the ability to warp-speed units to the front, and even MORE, rather not have to, to begin with. But if you brought Japanese production into historical parameters, it would slow down the pace of JAPAN considerably. You would percipitate the need to bring in line the Allied ablility to delploy in a fashion that more accurately reflect history. (just for a start).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 57

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 9:55:00 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III
But in the interest of closure, since you speak with some authority on what Matrix will/will not do ( I assume you are not in their employ but know the Code ? ) please tell why it is not in their interest to enable easy modding of the Game.

If that was directed at me, I have no authority whatsoever. I've just been around here for a while and am applying logical deduction. Everything I say is JMHO. Including:

I would fall off my chair if the concept of providing SDKs/APIs/whatever had ever occurred to 2by3. WitP is a quick and dirty hack based on code from the early 90s (maybe even earlier) that, as far as I can tell, they want nothing further to do with. Even if they did, as Terminus said, it wouldn't be worth their while. They are a small outfit, nothing like the vast multi-million dollar concerns behind those other games you mention.

You'd have more success with re-implementing the thing yourself, which some other forum-dwellers have talked about occasionally.

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 58

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/14/2005 10:23:45 PM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

please tell why it is not in their interest to enable easy modding of the Game

One reason to not release the code or make SDK avaiklable is the game is still generating revenue, there may be others - but that one is enough.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 59

RE: A Modest Proposal - 11/15/2005 12:58:46 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

For those folks who had difficulty understanding what I was getting at in the B-29 thread, here is a summary of what I recommended:

1 - Get rid of the ahistorical changes to the capabilities of both sides

2 - Set victory levels so that the better player can win under historical conditions

Those two recommendations drive the victory levels that I suggest.

Now, I realize that means that a good Japanese player will not be able to conquer the map against a good Allied player. But both will be able to test out the capabilities of their forces and their own ability to improve upon history. So, for example, an Allied player will have to attempt to successfully engage the Japanese player early in the war to avoid a Japanese autovictory.

Now, this would mean that the Developers would have to do a fair amount of recoding. This would take time and money. I, for one, would be more than willing to buy a "WitP II", similar to the many other great computer games that have been improved and resold as new editions.

This way, those folks who want to play the current "what if" version can continue to play it, and those folks who want to play a historical simulation can play that too. Both sides win and Matrix/2x3 gets to sell more product.

It seems like a good idea to me.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 60