I now have more air HQs than the game can handle :(

[dereck]

I went through a scenario and added air wings under the main Air HQs.

I'm testing the game now and find out that there are now more air HQs than it appears the game can handle.

In the Air Doctrines screen it seems it cannot display more than 24 HQs and when the air map with the air HQs along the right it only displays 30. There are no scroll bars available to scroll through to the ones beyong the visible screen.

Is this something that "may" eventually be added or have I wasted a few months of my time adding wings to the main air HQs?

[Joel Billings]

This was in the 1.00.29 public beta list:

11. Added ability to have more than 23 air HQs in scenarios (added scroll bars).


Are you using 1.00.29, because I thought that we had increased the number of HQs you could have, although I'm not sure what the upper limit is. Red Lancer is designing some scenarios with more HQs so he probably knows the answer.

[pz501]

I tried doing the same thing when this was first released (trying to create an Air-Only Campaign) and ran into the same problems.

My observations:

1. The game itself is VERY hard-coded which in turn impacts on what the editor can and can't do.

2. The editor at first glance appears to be very flexible, but when we try stretching the limits, we break something, since we're not fully aware of all of the hard-coding limits.

3. Editor documentation is adequate for a quick and dirty job, but when we try to go more in depth, (I tried once to redo the OOB, using language-specific military names and abbreviations) the system is looking for a certain organization (including spelling/naming) of data, and if it's not there, it just scrambles things, or doesn't work at all.

This is an OK game, but the limits have to be accepted. I was thinking things could be done with this editor that the War in The Pacific-AE editor can do...I now realize the even though the base system is similar, they are in fact two different things ( I actually think that even though WiTP-AE is older, the editor is superior, but that's just my opinion).

Overall, I'd say the editing capability is somewhat disappointing (my expectations were too high). For now, I've stopped all editing, and while I do play the game from time to time vs the AI, have cut back on overall use a lot. I'm thinking (hoping) that as the game evolves, the editor will too. The production team for this title looks to be fully engaged and responsive, so there is cause for hope.

For what it's worth, I had intended to purchase the first expansion when it comes out, but don't think I will now. Not because this is a bad game, but simply because the projected Torch scenario is not a full campaign that continues into 1945....different strokes for different folks as they say.

There is great potential for improvement and growth here. Time will tell.

[RedLancer]

@ Dereck - as Joel says having more than 23 Air HQs is now possible with v29 and later. I haven't found an upper limit yet but then again all I'm doing is adding Groups / Air Divs to the 43-45 Campaign.

@pz501 - The Editor Manual was written primarily to explain the Editor functionality. Learning Scenario Design is a whole extra volume. Although I am not an editor apologist (I hate some parts of it with a passion) the problems you are encountering are not going to be solved by changes to the editor as the game's hardcoding is predominately linked to the AI. There is a lot less hardcoding than WitE - you can now change morale levels by year. One of the best aspects of the game is that it has a very acceptable AI. Programming that is no easy task and some datum point has to be used to do so. In WitP much of it was slot related which also provides it's own challenges. In WitE & WitW it is mainly names. WitP-AE has exactly the same problems with AI compatible scenarios.

My advice is that if you want to mod the game and retain the AI then don't touch the names of the side the AI will play. In fact your comment on Torch not being extended to a 45 Campaign has much to do with the ability to programme the AI to handle a campaign of that length and complexity. Creation of a human only Nov 42 campaign is 'easy' although IMO without an improved naval model probably unbalanced without a number of houserules.

[pz501]

John,

I understand about the naming conventions (learned it the hard way!), and why different language designations can't be used.

What I meant to say was using the WiTP-AE Editor, there is a field where one can designate by turn/date, when a unit (ground and/or air) can change it's name...in WiTW it's not possible without withdrawing the entire unit and bringing the 'new' one in as a reinforcement. I'm thinking terms of for instance German 'Panzergruppe West' becoming '5th Panzer Army' while engaged in Normandy. A cosmetic thing really, but can it be done using the WiTW Editor? If not, can that feature be added in the future as in WiTP-AE?

[RedLancer]

It's certainly on the wish list Trey and I have as scenario designers - we'd love more 'scriptability'.

[dereck]

Well I upgraded to 1.00.29beta and it wiped out ALL the leader information I spent 4 days now putting into my scenario (and I had this information in Generic Data).

Will this *&**^* happen EVERY time I upgrade to a new version?

[Joel Billings]

Sorry that you were surprised by the changes and lost some work. If you made changes in the generic files, then yes, you have to expect that they will be changed when you install an update. You'd have to save off your generic file somewhere else and then put it back after you update. Another approach is not to change the generic file, but to lock the generic data in a scenario and just make the changes in your scenario. That way, you your changes won't be overwritten. The downside of this is that your scenario won't take advantage of any improvements in the generic data. There's no 100% clean solution, so you have to decide what trade-off you want to make.