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: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?

 
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: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/1/2018 8:54:06 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 12547
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice


You've never had a human opponent like that?

(in reply to LeeChard)
Post #: 61
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/2/2018 8:29:58 AM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LeeChard
An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice


Not that much of a problem. Comparison of force in/before a given attack is rather simple. That is one of the downsides of a script AI. It tends to just "execute", no matter how suicidal it will be. Unless there are scripted checks for the situation.
The huge benefit of a script is that you can predefine smart moves, or the pace of conquest. AE does a very fine job with it's scripts.

But there are weak spots.
In AE I once won as japan by just using subs and defending territory from beginning. Did not capture much more than a few oil sources, shut down shipyards and most other industry. The allied AI kept sending AKs in a line south of Makin/Tarawa. By 43 I had victory almost by using subs alone. Plus there were a few attacks on strongholds, like described by you.
Playing the game vs. AI pretty quickly lost attractiveness to me. Especially if you played several times and recognize the AI actions early in game and know the script pattern for the rest of the game.

The downside of adaptive AI, on the other hand, is miscalculation, stupid moves, too slow pace, high CPU stressing during decision making. But personally I prefer unpredictably stupid over predictably suicidal.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 62
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/2/2018 10:25:01 AM   
jhyden


Posts: 16
Joined: 1/3/2018
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline
does this belong here?

How about a 'training scenario' where the player can test the different mechanics of the game (without the allied player turn).
The concept is the same as for say like 'at a golf course' where there's a driving range and putting/chipping green where players can visit to help learn the game..

regards

~

(in reply to larrybush)
Post #: 63
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/2/2018 12:01:54 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5848
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jhyden

does this belong here?

How about a 'training scenario' where the player can test the different mechanics of the game (without the allied player turn).
The concept is the same as for say like 'at a golf course' where there's a driving range and putting/chipping green where players can visit to help learn the game..

regards

~



And how about one without the Japanese player turn........

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 2/2/2018 12:02:38 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to jhyden)
Post #: 64
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/2/2018 1:09:56 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2542
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
A 8 week "War in the Pacific" bootcamp requirement.

You want to rearm MY Battleship at a level 1 port?!!!!!



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 2/3/2018 1:54:25 AM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 65
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/3/2018 3:05:40 AM   
jhyden


Posts: 16
Joined: 1/3/2018
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: jhyden

does this belong here?

How about a 'training scenario' where the player can test the different mechanics of the game (without the allied player turn).
The concept is the same as for say like 'at a golf course' where there's a driving range and putting/chipping green where players can visit to help learn the game..

regards

~



And how about one without the Japanese player turn........


of course!

~

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 66
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/3/2018 4:01:22 AM   
Rogue187

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
One thing i would like is a notation for minimum airfield size for planes. Why do i have to figure out 4 + (max load of aircraft/4500)? Thats math. Im using a computer. Its job is to do math. Why do i have to calculate that seperatly?

Also, an in game note pad would be nice.

(in reply to jhyden)
Post #: 67
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/3/2018 1:20:12 PM   
LeeChard

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice


You've never had a human opponent like that?

I've only played one game against another player. It went well but I'm retired and I tend to play at odd hours, sometimes I wake up at 3:00AM and play for a couple hours.
I'm not complaining about my opponent, he taught me how to play by email and we exchanged turns nearly every day but I find myself impatient to play when I'm waiting for the other side.
At the moment I'm playing the Japanese campaign. The complexities of the economic management is a game in itself!
This is my fourth attempt. I've made it to Nov.'42 without throwing in the towel.
A record for me

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 68
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/5/2018 4:02:47 PM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I don't know if someone's mentioned this but I wish you could order naval bombardment missions' target priority by percentage for port, airbase and LCUs. Much of the time I'd put 100% on the airfield and I'd probably order more such missions.


Hi Gorn !

Is this picture aproximately what you imagined?

Rouge187: "Supply bases" would be done as supply TFs that take care of the needs 10*reaction range hexes around the home base.
Bases that stockpile stop the TF from shipping away supply. Would that seem fit?

Fatigue for subs added. Assigning a new CO sets a minimum fatigue to prevent player from exchanging duds before their first patrol.
Any Idea on how long sub crews did spend ashore after a war patrol?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 69
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/5/2018 5:20:46 PM   
btd64


Posts: 4742
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
It's what I would like to see....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 70
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/5/2018 10:02:53 PM   
Rogue187

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
A nice addition to subs would be a kill count like how aircraft squadrons keep track of total kills. You might be able to treat sub captains like pilots to see who are the most successful captains.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 71
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/6/2018 1:13:11 AM   
CharlieVane


Posts: 170
Joined: 10/8/2016
From: West Coast
Status: offline
What I'd really like to see is some form of hour-by-hour intersection between the Naval movement and air attack phases, if not a way to combine the two so that the use of float planes as spotters or the continual presence of attack aircraft in a surface battle is modeled.

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 72
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/6/2018 6:31:11 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 955
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

It's what I would like to see....GP

me too

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 73
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/6/2018 6:33:31 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 955
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CharlieVane

What I'd really like to see is some form of hour-by-hour intersection between the Naval movement and air attack phases, if not a way to combine the two so that the use of float planes as spotters or the continual presence of attack aircraft in a surface battle is modeled.


That would be excessive cpu computing burden

and franly not a necessary feature, ceirtanly not along the lines of a 2By3 game style

(in reply to CharlieVane)
Post #: 74
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/6/2018 6:41:55 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2289
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
@RichardAckerman:
quote:

Any Idea on how long sub crews did spend ashore after a war patrol?


Depends on condition of the boat, length of previous patrol, repairs required, etc.
IRL it averaged between 2-4 weeks after patrols (usually shorter periods with light tender repairs on a forward base - there was almost nothing to do on Manus or Midway anyway - with longer period including refits, new gun mounts, radars, shears and scope rearrangements usually performed at major bases like Pearl, Brisbane or Fremantle). Major (stateside) overhaul generally took more than 4 weeks - sometimes with replacement of diesels, major hull repairs, etc. But the major stateside overhauls were not that much common. I doubt any active sub had more than 1 or 2 during the war.

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 75
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/6/2018 8:13:37 AM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CharlieVane
What I'd really like to see is some form of hour-by-hour intersection between the Naval movement and air attack phases, if not a way to combine the two so that the use of float planes as spotters or the continual presence of attack aircraft in a surface battle is modeled.


My game is hour by hour based, but the combats are separated - no air attack during surface combat. Launching idle spotter planes during naval combat might be doable.
Using subs during naval combat is possible. CS Chiyoda was designed to carry 12 midgets to be dropped like a mobile minefield in combat. I think they never actually did, but I included the ships ability to do so. I also thought about how to have all TF in a hex participate in one naval combat.

Thanks for the info, Barb. I was just looking for how fast to decrease the subs fatigue when in port. So I guess 14 days for an undamaged sub after 45 to 60 days patrol would fit it.

(in reply to CharlieVane)
Post #: 76
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/6/2018 5:13:29 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3018
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
A device that would let you load a pre-saved first turn setup to a new game.

(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 77
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 7:26:48 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2289
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks for the info, Barb. I was just looking for how fast to decrease the subs fatigue when in port. So I guess 14 days for an undamaged sub after 45 to 60 days patrol would fit it.



Probably the minimum would be 14, but should be more random between 14 and 28. Add damage repairs to that, but include most of the upgrades to fit in. One "Shipyard" repair per sub per war in 30-60 days duration should be included in ship upgrades.

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 78
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 12:41:59 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 955
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb


quote:

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks for the info, Barb. I was just looking for how fast to decrease the subs fatigue when in port. So I guess 14 days for an undamaged sub after 45 to 60 days patrol would fit it.



Probably the minimum would be 14, but should be more random between 14 and 28. Add damage repairs to that, but include most of the upgrades to fit in. One "Shipyard" repair per sub per war in 30-60 days duration should be included in ship upgrades.



Why not , and simply, to introduce- FINALLY!- fatigue for ships crews, finally, finally!

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 79
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 1:14:34 PM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab
A device that would let you load a pre-saved first turn setup to a new game.


Basically possible, under the restriction that it would only work for "units" in existence at game start. I.E. No order import for new TFs, split airgroups, LCU, new Midgets, barges, etc that were created after scenario start.
This is due to the second player may create "units" that have the same slot ID# than what the first player used. Both players could create a TF using fleet slot #6 on their computer. Primarily the same problem that arises with the proposed "WEGO" game style.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
Why not , and simply, to introduce- FINALLY!- fatigue for ships crews, finally, finally!


I've done so for sub crews. +1 fatigue per day in any TF. I just had no idea how fast to decrease fatigue for disbanded subs. I'm not sure if fatigue does make sense for surface ships, though. They seem to be less long on mission. And less uncomfortable to their crews.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 80
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 1:56:37 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2289
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
Why not , and simply, to introduce- FINALLY!- fatigue for ships crews, finally, finally!


I've done so for sub crews. +1 fatigue per day in any TF. I just had no idea how fast to decrease fatigue for disbanded subs. I'm not sure if fatigue does make sense for surface ships, though. They seem to be less long on mission. And less uncomfortable to their crews.


Fatigue for surface ships certainly.. It has been the factor in combat operations and in combat. Prime Example: Battle of Savo Island - after three days on constant high alert allied crews were put down to relax during the night. The results are pretty well known ...

But it would have to be put in a bit different way (subs too maybe): When patrolling in close proximity to home base or without enemy air/surface/underwater presence the fatigue should raise only slowly. But when on actual operations, high alert, it should be climbing rapidly. Consider 3 days high alert to be maximum to endure, then at least 1-2 days of rest should be necessary.

Also while the game allows carriers to launch numerous full strikes ( about 8 days worth for Essex class / full plane load / once a day) before sorties run out the common practice was to have 2-3 days on station with 1-2 at refueling/replenishment out of combat. And even then the parts of TF58 put to ports like Ulithi for 3-5 days to get some rest, repairs and resupply so that of the TF58.1-4 usually 2-3 groups were in "front" while 1-2 were refueling/at base).

So this would be pretty hard to code...
Also a boring sub patrol without encountering enemy ship/plane for 2 months wouldn't require much rest. Compare it with an action packed patrol with sub to be hunted by several planes daily, fight a convoy battle, evade 2-3 ASW groups and encounter a portion of carrier fleet! The guys would sure be pretty beat up after that!

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 81
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 4:16:17 PM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
It would be possible to further increase fatigue on actual combat. Calculating it on an abstracted alert level will be really diffcult, I think. Well, at least aside from calculating if it is enemy waters, they are in. That would give surface ships in enemy waters a quickly raising fatigue, while subs are not affected by enemy waters alone, but only actual engagements.

Adding fatigue to carries that launched strikes would be possible.
Question, too, is what kind of effect the fatigue should have. Being cought on surprise, rate of fire, gun accuracy, sub aggressiveness, fewer AC per airstrike.
Since AE does not have ship fatigue effect to copy, I have only vague ideas on how to do the effect.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 82
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 5:16:30 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 955
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
Dear Mr Ackermann

(are you the renown Ackermann of the fabled PG3 Ackermann mod?), what kind of game are you creating? how shall it look like, please?

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 2/7/2018 5:20:53 PM >

(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 83
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 5:38:46 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4633
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

after three days on constant high alert allied crews were put down to relax during the night.


The crews were not exactly tucked in by their mommas: they were put in the equivalent of Condition 2 which had half of their armament manned and ready (1/2 manning of damage control and engineering stations too). That would put the crews on 6 hours ON(watch) and 6 hours OFF. The armament crews still relied on the OOD (at least) to order them to open fire. IIRC none of the OODs took responsibility to order the ship's weapons to fire and consulted their Captains first.




(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 84
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/7/2018 10:31:53 PM   
Rogue187

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
I think, ultimately, most players would want a game like the old Great Naval Battles by SSI. I remember playing it when I was a kid. I wasn't very good and reloaded A LOT (come on I was like 10) but this game was very similar to that game from a grand strategy point of view. AE doesn't have the tactical level aspect that Great Naval Battles had, but a future War in the Pacific 3 might be more like Great Naval Battles. It has the strategy aspect that some people like and the tactical aspect other people like. There were 4 games in the series and I only ever played the 2nd game centering on Guadalcanal.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=great+naval+battles+pc+game#id=3&vid=28f9aca81a18a04aa909a196bb081046&action=view

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 85
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/8/2018 6:57:42 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2289
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Fatigue should affect overall performance - 6 hours on/off duty is long time to stay alert and vigilant! Increasing chance of surprise is only one of the effects, it may involve effecting decision making process - turning the "wrong side", gun accuracy... Possibly even Red-on-red fire (as the enemy plane passes between ships few shells could probably go before fire is checked).

For carriers the higher fatigue would probably mean lower strike output (but this should be covered by plane fatigue/damage) and more operational losses (this should be covered by pilot fatigue). But the Game Ops losses are greatly reduced from the IRL (I presume because of a possible player bitching) :) And Operational losses on carriers were quite common.

To make the situation even more "funny" on the plane side imagine a usual BG(H) strike in the Pacific. Of the 4x12 squadrons a strike force of 18/21 is sent out (other crews rests, maintenance, one squadron standed down, etc.) flying 8-10 hours long mission including forming up. Add in a P-38 squadron of 25 sending 8/12/16 planes to tag along. Got into some serious scrape over target (say hard day over Rabaul in 1943?) with flak and fighters. Some bombers would be lost over target, some will end up in water, many more damaged. 2-5 planes would probably land on nearest friendly base (not home base) to save crewman, patch their ships. The rest will go back with maybe one or two more cracking up on landing. To make this mess back to any form of organization again would take few days (get ships to flyable status, replace crewmembers, cover the holes). In the other time the other half squadrons would go on, with maybe the spare squadron being switched back on while the one hit most would be grounded (or relegated to some "easy" duty like Naval Search).
IRL a crew flying on a mission like this would be spent for the rest of the day. Flying twice in a row would get crew to 50% efectivity, flying 4 days in a row would get crew exhausted.


_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 86
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/8/2018 7:10:14 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2289
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I think, ultimately, most players would want a game like the old Great Naval Battles by SSI. I remember playing it when I was a kid. I wasn't very good and reloaded A LOT (come on I was like 10) but this game was very similar to that game from a grand strategy point of view. AE doesn't have the tactical level aspect that Great Naval Battles had, but a future War in the Pacific 3 might be more like Great Naval Battles. It has the strategy aspect that some people like and the tactical aspect other people like. There were 4 games in the series and I only ever played the 2nd game centering on Guadalcanal.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=great+naval+battles+pc+game#id=3&vid=28f9aca81a18a04aa909a196bb081046&action=view


Yeah I would love to have some tactical choices regarding naval battles. Would be great to pick up from several AA formations, ASW formations and Surface combat formations, that would affect the outcome of battle.

So instead of having just lines of ships on the screen to the left and right, one would be able to see DesDiv forward making torpedo attack, another DesDiv laying smoke, capital ships to the back.

To have some default, or "best suited for ship types and numbers" be decided by AI, but to have ability to pick your own preferred for a TF.

Also Air-to-ship attack should show the planes entering ship formation from certain angle, being fired by ships around before making attack on its target and then run away through the formation again (Sort of Top-down view).

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Rogue187)
Post #: 87
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/8/2018 7:39:09 AM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
(are you the renown Ackermann of the fabled PG3 Ackermann mod?), what kind of game are you creating? how shall it look like, please?


No, I am not related to any known Ackermann. Plus I am sharing this account and email with Richard, who is in charge of data gathering, so I can quickly check for the results of his quest.

The game is intended to work much like AE, but with a few changes, like having a global map for stock scenario. AE scenarios can be imported, but are changed a bit on it due to some new rules. Like torpedoes use single devices per ammo, so 18(18) is 18 of 18 torpedoes left. My subs will be able to fire the # the skipper chooses - multi ship targeting and wolfpacks included. Tons of other things was tweaked. E.G. I have weather with wind speeds, real bad weather zones that grow, age, decay and move, as it is better for a forecast. And of course ingame creation of airgroups, LCUs, and ships to construct.(Optional) Sonar (active/passive), Snorkel and fire control devices. To mention a few.
It is a "just for fun sparetime" project at this time.

Rouge187: Fun that you mention that. At the beginning, I had combat like this. I own all 4 games of the series, with the first 2 being still my favorites. I also had "Steel panthers" ground combat, both hexbased and C&C style realtime. Those experimental combat concepts where dropped early, though, because they are not PBEM friendly. Realtime is not an option in PBEM, and having 30+ ground combat turns per LCU combat isn't either.

Thanks for the insights Barb. Sure helps me to figure out a decent way to add some effects to ship fatigue.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 88
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/8/2018 12:27:14 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6615
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
Most of my dream modifications to WITP involve the editor.

1. At the top of my list is a more straight forward editor (especially devices) that makes it easier to plug in known historical data and get reasonably realistic results. For example no fuzzy or vague numbers like "durability" (for aircraft) or "effect" (for devices) which a scenario designer needs to guess at in order to make an item work realistically in the game. Ideally it would be nice if the editor only dealt with solid, known data (things like penetration, range, weight, armor thickness etc.) and then used algorithms extrapolated from that data to resolve combat. It would make some aspects of scenario designing less of a guessing game for some of us.

2. Also, ideally, armored fighting vehicles should be treated in the same manner as aircraft and ships (platforms which incorporate various devices from the device database). So, for example, a tank would be composed of its main gun, defensive machine guns, have various armor thicknesses, etc. and when land combat is resolved it should be similar to air combat algorithms. How many AFVs (as well as infantry squads) are lost in a particular land combat action would be resolved similar to different types of aircraft encountering each other in air combat. If a tank regiment has tanks with 37mm guns and light armor and it's up against another regiment with 75mm guns and heavier armor then the results should be relatively straight forward in the combat resolution.

3. NO HARD CODED SPECIAL SLOTS IN THE EDITOR. For example: if someone wants to make a scenario based on a map of Europe and the European theater of action, then they wouldn't have to deal with things like special slots in the location database that activate kamikazes. If special effects or events need to be incorporated, then allow them to be flagged in specific fields within a single entry. The editor should be as intuitively straighforward and versatile as possible. Ideally a scenario designer should be able to start with a clean database and add everything from the bottom up and have it work relatively straightforward.

Overall I absolutely LOVE the WITP AE game engine and would love to see it endure and flourish. Make the game engine just as applicable to the European theater as the Pacific. Heck, even make it applicable to other time periods. Get rid of the hard coded calendar so that a designer can use any start and end dates to his scenario he wants. Then we can more easily have War Plan Orange mods, World War I mods, Korean War, etc.

Refine the game engine include some stock scenarios and then let the modding community do the rest to carry the game further. I think the key to success of any good game is the versatility of its editor.

< Message edited by GaryChildress -- 2/8/2018 12:33:59 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RichardAckermann)
Post #: 89
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? - 2/8/2018 1:10:17 PM   
RichardAckermann

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline
Actually, a partially very difficult request. Especially for things like "durability" there are alot of specifications to aircraft apart from flight performance data and self sealing tanks. Very difficult to extrapolate the resilience to gunfire from sheer values. I think one would have to add as many types of data to exceed the limit of what people other than aviation engineers can do.

Same goes for devices like active and passive sonar / radar. Effect rating is a very convenient way to give some bonus or effect. Having audio frequencies, range, sound receiver quality modeled into the editor is nightmare. Same goes for Radar devices specifications. Hard to imagine a way to do without some abstracted effect value.

Doing without hardcoding devices and locations should be possible.
Time period choosable. Want a napoleonic game amidst the 19th century? No problem at all.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141