What's next

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What's next

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The core naval portion of the game would have to be about sub interactions with surface ASW and with CVE ASW and with land based ASW. I wouldn't say WitP-AE is particularly good in that area, but adequate. CVEs will be interacting with U-boats and nothing else. You might have some air battles in the Med between Axis land based aircraft on Sicily and UK CVs, but I don't think it's enough reason to use WitP-AE as a model game engine.
warspite1

Why only this? What about the naval engagements? Just curious.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: What's next

Post by geofflambert »

You're right, but I think the carrier portion didn't interact that much with surface vessels, if I'm remembering right. It's almost like surface actions should be a separate game or module that feeds results into the main game.

User avatar
Moltrey
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: Virginia

RE: What's next

Post by Moltrey »

What's next?

Nothing.

Nada, zip, zilch... based on this thread and the last to broach the subject and the attitude of the two people left that are close enough to Matrix and the (defunct) Henderson Field Design devs, Alfred and the Moderator(s).
This is just my "reading of the room" if you will. But the door appears to be permanently closed on such initiatives. Alfred seems rather put out that he had to (once again) deny any outside inquiry through channels would change matters and then the thread was promptly locked by a Moderator. That should tell all of us who would believe otherwise that hope is misguided at best, perhaps foolish.

Sad, yes; but not altogether surprising. The game obviously still has "legs", which in my opinion is part of the problem. Regardless of the 30500+ threads on the forums that dwarf the next most popular game, they have apparently made the final determination that due to whatever reasons, War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition will not see the development que.

So, to wrap, that tells me that no one capable is interested in revisiting the game, not even Michael.
We will have to rely on what can be accomplished with mods.

Never say never- a future game of some type might appear, but I doubt it would be a Grigsby-style game, which would disappoint loads of grognards here due to the lack of detail, mostly b/c they aren't Grigsby.
"Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes." - Roy Batty
User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: What's next

Post by Gridley380 »

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

So, to wrap, that tells me that no one capable is interested in revisiting the game, not even Michael.
We will have to rely on what can be accomplished with mods.

Never say never- a future game of some type might appear, but I doubt it would be a Grigsby-style game, which would disappoint loads of grognards here due to the lack of detail, mostly b/c they aren't Grigsby.

Look at the silver lining - if Matrix isn't going to do it, then there's no competition for another group that wants to develop something from scratch. Said theoretical group has the advantage of knowing there is a market and where to find potential playtesters, database developers, etc.. Remember that while the game engine is copyrighted, the historical data in the game can't be.

While I agree that WITP:AE is the best in its class, it is also based on an engine over a decade old. Software continues to evolve, as does the readily available data on the war. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than it is to update.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: What's next

Post by Dili »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You're right, but I think the carrier portion didn't interact that much with surface vessels, if I'm remembering right. It's almost like surface actions should be a separate game or module that feeds results into the main game.

That is silly, from aircraft carrier to land attacks, to Matapan, to some other battles. It is true there wasn't much carrier successes in open sea but that doesn't mean it could not have happen, and what if's like Italians starting building their carrier just at war beginning.

User avatar
Moltrey
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: Virginia

RE: What's next

Post by Moltrey »

ORIGINAL: Gridley380
Look at the silver lining - if Matrix isn't going to do it, then there's no competition for another group that wants to develop something from scratch. Said theoretical group has the advantage of knowing there is a market and where to find potential playtesters, database developers, etc.. Remember that while the game engine is copyrighted, the historical data in the game can't be.

While I agree that WITP:AE is the best in its class, it is also based on an engine over a decade old. Software continues to evolve, as does the readily available data on the war. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than it is to update.

Well, part of me would welcome any such development. But the cynical side would bet that the group would not choose to be as detail-oriented as Grigsby has been known for through the years. It's a fundamental problem in our niche community. Gary won't be around forever as an active developer and we are all spoiled with the high bar he set. It would be a small chance I'd wager that we end up with a group as dedicated and crazy about WW2, etc.

Nice to dream about though...
"Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes." - Roy Batty
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: What's next

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

While I agree that WITP:AE is the best in its class, it is also based on an engine over a decade old. Software continues to evolve, as does the readily available data on the war. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than it is to update.

More than a decade old for the engine. 11 days from now will be the 10 year anniversary of AE's release. I bought it that day. WitP was 2004, and was based on the engine developed for Uncommon Valor around 2002. She's a solid antique in the realm of computer games. [&o][&o][&o]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: What's next

Post by rustysi »

She's a solid antique in the realm of computer games.

More like an archaeological find.[:D]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: What's next

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: Dili

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You're right, but I think the carrier portion didn't interact that much with surface vessels, if I'm remembering right. It's almost like surface actions should be a separate game or module that feeds results into the main game.

That is silly, from aircraft carrier to land attacks, to Matapan, to some other battles. It is true there wasn't much carrier successes in open sea but that doesn't mean it could not have happen, and what if's like Italians starting building their carrier just at war beginning.


The ETO will never be a carrier game. Comma. Or semicolon. Or something, I can't remember.

Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: What's next

Post by Dili »

2 carriers were sunk in Med, 3 heavily damaged... 5 carriers in that photo for operation Pedestal https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205016068

Partial account of Pedestal convoy with many photos and some videos.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/operati ... 10-12-1942


Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: What's next

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

While I agree that WITP:AE is the best in its class, it is also based on an engine over a decade old. Software continues to evolve, as does the readily available data on the war. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than it is to update.

More than a decade old for the engine. 11 days from now will be the 10 year anniversary of AE's release. I bought it that day. WitP was 2004, and was based on the engine developed for Uncommon Valor around 2002. She's a solid antique in the realm of computer games. [&o][&o][&o]

You are forgetting the old DOS Pacwar which is the "Lucy" of this family.[:)]

Alfred
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: What's next

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

While I agree that WITP:AE is the best in its class, it is also based on an engine over a decade old. Software continues to evolve, as does the readily available data on the war. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than it is to update.

More than a decade old for the engine. 11 days from now will be the 10 year anniversary of AE's release. I bought it that day. WitP was 2004, and was based on the engine developed for Uncommon Valor around 2002. She's a solid antique in the realm of computer games. [&o][&o][&o]

You are forgetting the old DOS Pacwar which is the "Lucy" of this family.[:)]

Alfred

Indeed, it is the Great Grandfather, and the game that brought me to the Matrix forums many years ago when I heard about an updated version. There was talk of this "new game" called UV with a detailed scale that was evolutionary from PacWar. 1 day turns??? [X(] [:D]

I know the basic game designs came from PacWar, but it seemed to me that the game engine was written from scratch for UV, and then expanded for WitP.

Old story, but I bought PacWar and the first Civilization at the store on the same day in '91 or '92. Little did I know how much my gaming future was determined on that day! [&o]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
BillBrown
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:55 am

RE: What's next

Post by BillBrown »

I came from PacWar also. I still have the manual that came with it. And like US America I did a search on line for PacWar and found Matrix Games. I played some PBEM of Pacwar in the day, even did some modifying of the code.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: What's next

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

What's next?

Nothing.

Nada, zip, zilch... based on this thread and the last to broach the subject and the attitude of the two people left that are close enough to Matrix and the (defunct) Henderson Field Design devs, Alfred and the Moderator(s).
This is just my "reading of the room" if you will. But the door appears to be permanently closed on such initiatives. Alfred seems rather put out that he had to (once again) deny any outside inquiry through channels would change matters and then the thread was promptly locked by a Moderator. That should tell all of us who would believe otherwise that hope is misguided at best, perhaps foolish.

Sad, yes; but not altogether surprising. The game obviously still has "legs", which in my opinion is part of the problem. Regardless of the 30500+ threads on the forums that dwarf the next most popular game, they have apparently made the final determination that due to whatever reasons, War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition will not see the development que.

So, to wrap, that tells me that no one capable is interested in revisiting the game, not even Michael.
We will have to rely on what can be accomplished with mods.

Never say never- a future game of some type might appear, but I doubt it would be a Grigsby-style game, which would disappoint loads of grognards here due to the lack of detail, mostly b/c they aren't Grigsby.

Matrix would be interested in a properly structured development proposal. It is just that in all the many threads opened since AE was released, not a single one has shown a skerrick of evidence that the agitators had any idea of how to go about it. The context is never taken into account in these threads.

AE was in development for 4 years before release and received full support for another 2 years post release. Limited support was still provided for another 3 years subsequently. Excluding testers, some 18 people were closely involved in the development. A minimum of 4 coders at any one time were involved. All under the direction of an experienced IT industry team leader who had the track record in bringing IT projects to a successful conclusion. All done for basically zero remuneration.

None of the experience built up in developing AE would be available for a new game. Well maybe a little might be salvaged but essentially there would be no useful project history retained. That in itself is a huge hindrance to using the current game engine as the basis for a new game, for you would be all completely wrong if you believe the current game code is well documented. That is before you even get to copyright considerations.

That a Mediterranean version is raised again as a viable option once again demonstrates the sheer vanity of the proponents who can't see the "bleedin' obvious" limitations of the existing AE engine. To name only some; where is the support for CAS, where is the depth for ASW, where is ULTRA, how can more than 2 sides be accommodated, how can neutrals be incorporated, how can devices switch over to undertake cross missions, how can water plus fuel be handled, how can a 2-3 hex limiting front be made interesting. These, and many others, are all issues obvious (or should be) to any experienced AE player. Not being raised in these threads reveals a lot about the unsuitability for the task of the proponents.

A combination of copyright, documentation and legacy limitations mean that it would be far easier and quicker to start from scratch. That is if you want to produce a game of similar standard. Still would need a large team and a development period measured in years, not weeks. A team able to work under and abide fully to the team leader's directives. All for uncertain remuneration. Think of that for a moment, if involved the individual would have no time to play AE (or any other game) whilst developing the new game ... for some years.

Plus the killer issue, which I always point out and is always disregarded, the sine qua non for a new game, viz a viable AI for solo play. Ten years of AE has seen many mods developed but not a single new AI script from the modders. They can't produce a single script for their own developed scenario. In part this is the result of all the modders being only data manipulators using the game database editor, none of them being actual coders; even their knowledge of the existing publicly documented game rules application to their mod being deficient. What makes anyone believe there is someone out there waiting to step forward to develop a new script, let alone a new AI module not so heavily dependent on scripts.

Alfred
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: What's next

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica


... I know the basic game designs came from PacWar, but it seemed to me that the game engine was written from scratch for UV, and then expanded for WitP...


Correct, going from DOS to that "new" fangled invention, Windows, necessitated a rewrite from "scratch". But the old concepts still informed the coding and shaped the structure. Which creates legacy issues in part for further development.

Alfred
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: What's next

Post by jdsrae »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Matrix would be interested in a properly structured development proposal.

Plus the killer issue... ...a viable AI for solo play.

...a new AI module not so heavily dependent on scripts.

I am definitely interested in the idea of a new AI “module”, but so as not to get any hopes up I do not have the technical skills to be able to do it.

From the rest of Alfred’s post, regarding the business case for such a project, I don’t think there’d be a shortage of people willing to throw some free time at helping, but the essential things you most likely cant get for free would be the project leader and the coding hours/months/years to turn our flowcharts, spreadsheets and hand-scribbled notes into a virtual reality human opponent that can react to what a human player is doing each turn.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.wsj ... 1559239201
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
Moltrey
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: Virginia

RE: What's next

Post by Moltrey »

One aspect to consider is former HFD dev access and time to get questions answered. Alfred can elaborate, but I gather one reason the Manual project was shelved by him was difficulty in getting clarifications, info, etc. concerning changes over the patches and basically everything else. These folks have moved on in life and may be reluctant to spend anymore free time on WITP:AE.
As he mentioned above, there is a distinct lack of documentation from the programmers/designers (not an uncommon failure) so that trying to understand the why, what, when, where and how of WITP:AE is made very difficult.

I imagine the frustration level gets rather unbearable. While I don't want to just give up any hope at all, the prospects are dim.
"Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes." - Roy Batty
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: What's next

Post by Kull »

Here's a nice discussion on the WitP-AE AI system. There's more going on than you might think.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: What's next

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

While I agree that WITP:AE is the best in its class, it is also based on an engine over a decade old. Software continues to evolve, as does the readily available data on the war. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than it is to update.

More than a decade old for the engine. 11 days from now will be the 10 year anniversary of AE's release. I bought it that day. WitP was 2004, and was based on the engine developed for Uncommon Valor around 2002. She's a solid antique in the realm of computer games. [&o][&o][&o]

You are forgetting the old DOS Pacwar which is the "Lucy" of this family.[:)]

Alfred

Alfred used a smiley. I wasn't aware that that was even possible. Has anyone notified his general MD?

Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: What's next

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica


... I know the basic game designs came from PacWar, but it seemed to me that the game engine was written from scratch for UV, and then expanded for WitP...


Correct, going from DOS to that "new" fangled invention, Windows, necessitated a rewrite from "scratch". But the old concepts still informed the coding and shaped the structure. Which creates legacy issues in part for further development.

Alfred
+1 Rewriting software for a new OS is always complicated. The presentation logic is usually intertwined with the game logic.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”