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: Blow by blow

 
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: Blow by blow Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Blow by blow - 1/1/2009 6:40:14 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2298
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
It's easy to see how much work has been put into this game just from the AAR... So much of it looks great I especially like the new clouds! Thanks again for giving us a look Cathartes, and the rest of the team for their efforts.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 151
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 1:09:15 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10466
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Greetings everyone - Carthes has told me we are ending the scenario - I read through everything. I have to say I think I was very lucky indeed with the weather on the first day of the carrier action. Not only did the weather over my carriers probably save me, but the weather was also bad in the afternoon over Port Morseby when the B-25s attacked. As it was they still sank one transport. Had the weather not been bad there, I could've lost a lot more.

AE offers a lot more flexability in the use of small forces - and as you can see from the actions, small forces can be effective as well.

Oh and BTW, the first umpteen times I ran this scenario (as Allies against the AI) it took PM and trashed my carriers, so the AI can do the same job I did - though we wound up changing the start date to 4 May and changing the start postion of the task forces - as they were on that day - to focus the action a bit more and make the immediate dash for PM a bit more risky for the Japanese.

We will take a short break - work on the testing some more - and then come back with another AAR shortly - stay tuned!

Joe


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 152
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 11:17:34 AM   
cantona2


Posts: 3726
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
Cheers lads

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 153
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 3:28:31 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

And Port Morseby falls. After two turns of bombarding and unloading the Japanese shock attack. I gambled that my defense would hold one turn, long enough to get my aircraft out. It's a route, and a smart shock attack by my opponent. A bad day for the Allies!

After this performance, you'll all probably be eager to take me on as PBEM opponent in AE.

(text from combat report edited in below)





That combat report is awesome! I dont know if I missed it before, but this is the first time I have seen the new, more detailed report.

Is any of the ground combat detail included only in the testing versions of WitP:AE? Or, is all the detail shown here going to be in the full version of WitP:AE? (outside of fog of war setting as mentioned earlier)

If it will be in the full version, with full fog of war will the player get accurate losses on his OWN troops atleast? Or will these numbers be affected by fog of war also?

Thanks in advance and again, looks great!

Chad

(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 154
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 3:49:42 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10466
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
The text shown is all straight from the new more detailed combat report. We did embed this text in the graphic for posting purposes - that is NOT done in the game. The combat report is still a separate entity - as it always was.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 155
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 3:59:34 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15576
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
It's still really cool stuff, Joe.  Question though.  Is the data in the text FOW for both sides or will the "owning" side see accurate data?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 156
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 5:11:53 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:



The text shown is all straight from the new more detailed combat report. We did embed this text in the graphic for posting purposes - that is NOT done in the game. The combat report is still a separate entity - as it always was.




Thanks for the quick reply. Having that data will be very, very nice.

quote:



It's still really cool stuff, Joe.  Question though.  Is the data in the text FOW for both sides or will the "owning" side see accurate data?



I had not thought of that. I assume the combat report is still a shared document. So how is that going to work with fog of war? Will the owning player have fog of war with his own troops?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 157
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 6:38:54 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5793
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
I love the breakdown of LCU device-losses. One rather basic question: in the sample report, Japan "lost" 12 guns, but the report lists only 10 disabled and zero destroyed -- a total of 10, not 12. Likewise, the Allies "lost" 30 guns, including 21 disabled and zero destroyed -- a total of 21, not 30. What happened to the unaccounted-for "lost" guns? Perhaps they are truly lost -- left on the field of battle, out of reach?

_____________________________


(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 158
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 6:48:47 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15576
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
FOW Grotius.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 159
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 11:34:54 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10395
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I love the breakdown of LCU device-losses. One rather basic question: in the sample report, Japan "lost" 12 guns, but the report lists only 10 disabled and zero destroyed -- a total of 10, not 12. Likewise, the Allies "lost" 30 guns, including 21 disabled and zero destroyed -- a total of 21, not 30. What happened to the unaccounted-for "lost" guns? Perhaps they are truly lost -- left on the field of battle, out of reach?


With FOW on, you will rarely see those numbers add up. Assume you are getting conflicting reports from your people at the front. With FOW off, the numbers reported will add up.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 160
RE: Blow by blow - 1/2/2009 11:43:41 PM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4781
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
And then WitP Tracker will be like a very detailed AAR for your side only.

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 161
RE: Blow by blow - 1/3/2009 3:17:48 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5793
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Ah, FOW. Cool! Thanks.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 162
RE: Blow by blow - 1/3/2009 1:44:26 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Indeed, if the Allied side just high-tailed it into the weeds, I would have no expectation of an accurate ops report. In fact, if Mac knew for a fact Moresby was lost on the same day of the loss, for certain, I would say he got more info than he might have gotten!

_____________________________




(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 163
RE: Blow by blow - 1/7/2009 10:34:43 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2298
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Joe can we be looking forward to anymore of these AAR threads ? This thread was a good read...

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 164
RE: Blow by blow - 1/7/2009 11:44:14 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
That's in "we'll see" mode at the moment. Depends on how much longer the development process has to run.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 165
RE: Blow by blow - 1/7/2009 11:53:27 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10395
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
More seriously, I believe there are plans to do another AAR soon.  I'm not sure of the exact time table.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 166
RE: Blow by blow - 1/8/2009 12:02:20 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

More seriously, I believe there are plans to do another AAR soon.  I'm not sure of the exact time table.

Bill




When will the AE AAR be released.(Hope no kitties are involved here?)..

_____________________________




(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 167
RE: Bad CAP!, Bad! - 5/8/2009 10:03:52 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3569
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Here was a critical point in the day... about 16 Wildcats stray over Port Moresby, precious CAP that I could have used over my carriers and in escort of my strike aircraft. My bad on this one, as it serves my right moving my carriers close enough for my CAP to reach Port Moresby. It makes sense they would stray off and help intercept a massive raid over the base, but if I didn't want them to do this, I probably should have moved my carriers over a hex or two. After all, my priority here is enemy carriers, not the invasion force since I know enemy carriers are nearby.

I exchange one F4F for on Zero, but I end up with about 9 damaged Wildcats. There is probably some FOW here, but the point is, a portion of my CAP is not where I would like it.






Thanks for the great AAR!

I hate to continue any nitpicking but something Ive wondered for some time now as I also use Elf's plane set is why are the firing animations uneven? Can this be corrected?

One is out further than the other- Is this because when he resized the planes the animations stayed in the same place? Maybe this cant be fixed?
Just always wondered! Ok now awaiting my punishment for nitpicking!


So I see from the screenshots in the new review that just came out that this was never fixed?

(Sees torches in the distance)

_____________________________


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 168
RE: Bad CAP!, Bad! - 5/8/2009 11:37:07 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10466
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I added this (recalibration of MG animations) to the pre-GOLD checklist - as a P2 - meaning we will try to get it in before GOLD.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 169
RE: Bad CAP!, Bad! - 5/10/2009 3:32:13 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I added this (recalibration of MG animations) to the pre-GOLD checklist - as a P2 - meaning we will try to get it in before GOLD.

It's been addressed. The updated art has not been released to the Beta team yet, and the screens used in the preview are the same shots that have been passed around for months...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 170
RE: Bad CAP!, Bad! - 5/10/2009 3:37:31 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10466
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Thanks, we can take this off line - but I'll need to know a tiny bit more about HOW this was fixed.


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 171
RE: Bad CAP!, Bad! - 5/11/2009 8:02:32 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3569
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I added this (recalibration of MG animations) to the pre-GOLD checklist - as a P2 - meaning we will try to get it in before GOLD.

It's been addressed. The updated art has not been released to the Beta team yet, and the screens used in the preview are the same shots that have been passed around for months...


Thanks guys for fixing this! Yay it will no longer drive me nuts!

_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 172
RE: Bad CAP!, Bad! - 6/10/2009 7:34:34 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3569
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I added this (recalibration of MG animations) to the pre-GOLD checklist - as a P2 - meaning we will try to get it in before GOLD.

It's been addressed. The updated art has not been released to the Beta team yet, and the screens used in the preview are the same shots that have been passed around for months...


Hi Elf I noticed in Joe and Nik's AAR some of the firing arcs are still crooked. Are they not using the updated art?

_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 173
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Blow by blow Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
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

0.200