On sale at Matrixgames for $52.
Honestly, if you don't own this game yet, I want to highly encourage you to get it. No, you'll never finish the grand campaign probably. So what? By the time you burn out and realize you won't finish the game, you will have gotten hours upon hours of enjoyment from the game.
In all seriousness, I feel that WitP:AE is among the best wargames ever made for PC. It is certainly a classic. I realize that with Steam sales offering buckets of games for $5, $52 seems like a lot of money, but really this is money well spent for a "groghead". I say go for it.
It's great but I prefer the non-AE version. I have both, never finished both. But still play Guadalcanal PBEM in AE that's running for more than a year in real time.
I have both.. yet to jump into AE, even though I've owned it over a year.. I wish the Non AE version would get the resolution patch.. but it seems like that version is abandoned.. That's too bad, because it is a good stepping stone into WitP
If they would implement TF waypoints in original, I wouldn't even bother with AE. AE is just plain hard.
I LOVE the May 1942 start campaign in vanilla. Easily the best campaign. Starting just before Midway as the US is the most interesting (from the US side).
I've tried maybe 3 grand campaigns, all as Allies (...prospect of playing Japan just too intimidating) --
The thing that has stopped me each time: I just don't have a clear enough picture of how to strategically deploy my ground-based / logistical assets in the Pacific -- which islands to build up in order to even begin a possible landing in the Solomons. I support the obvious places like Fiji, Johnston Island etc -- try to get as much material & resources to Oz... and then stuff starts piling up on the West Coast of the US, and I just don't know where to put it! Add to all that the task of the Commonwealth in India and Burma.... and my head just starts spinning by around April '42.
It is just a massively daunting game -- one I love for what it provides -- it's amazing what they've modelled -- but God is it intimidating. You can master the overall mechanics with some good effort -- so learning to 'play' isn't really the challenge. The challenge is how to wed a long-term strategy with the logistics you will need to carry it out. It's freaking *hard*
I wish AE had a May '42 scenario. I'd love to start then -- I've never gotten past July '42 in a GC starting Dec. 8 --
I have it, but I have yet to cross the steep learning curve.
Tried to fool around in the smaller scenarios but those are still pretty time consuming.
One of these days I get around to learning how to play properly. ;)
whats stopping me???
not being retired mostly.
Quote from: Toonces on November 29, 2012, 10:30:14 PM
AE is just plain hard
Unnecessarily so, IMO. Personally, I find the interface time-consuming and arduous. Most of my time is wasted hunting down commands and clicking a zillion times to accomplish the simplest tasks. :(
I own both, their on my list of games to play when I retire in 20-30 years.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 29, 2012, 11:03:17 PM
whats stopping me???
not being retired mostly.
I am retired and even I won't devote the time necessary to play that monster. I'm getting old and life's too short to spend so much of it on one game.
I think that WitP can only be called a "game" in the loosest of definitions.
Besides, I already have a spreadsheet program, and it runs in 1920x1080 resolution... :P
Once or twice a year I'll fire up the Guadalcanal campaign..and lose it :)
I aspire to play the GC some day but have few illusions on the commitment it will take to start, let alone finish.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 30, 2012, 12:00:18 AM
I think that WitP can only be called a "game" in the loosest of definitions.
Besides, I already have a spreadsheet program, and it runs in 1920x1080 resolution... :P
LOL!
The series has certainly felt like work to me. Mostly due to the interface, I suppose.
Like most of Grigsby's games - the moddeling is nyper detailed - but he just doesnt know how to build the program around it to support it. Like WITE - which is much less complicated - but still complicated I find while the idea of the game is superb - the software just doesnt support playing it. I like detail - but I have to have some idea WTF is going on to enjoy it. I beleive the game can be as complex as you like if the interface and tools in the product support it but opening up the main campaign scenario is daunting not because of the number of units but I just dont have the tools in the game to play it wihtout it seeming like work.
Quote from: Zulu1966 on November 30, 2012, 04:45:13 AM
Like most of Grigsby's games - the moddeling is nyper detailed - but he just doesnt know how to build the program around it to support it.
Maybe he should just design the game mechanics and then let someone else design the UI to actually help players get the information they need in the manner they need it.
Quote from: Herman Hum on November 30, 2012, 04:49:55 AM
Quote from: Zulu1966 on November 30, 2012, 04:45:13 AM
Like most of Grigsby's games - the moddeling is nyper detailed - but he just doesnt know how to build the program around it to support it.
Maybe he should just design the game mechanics and then let someone else design the UI to actually help players get the information they need in the manner they need it.
Yes - I wish he would. Someone like the decisive campaigns guy. One of the things he added in the case blue game was to print the locations of all higher headquarters units onto the strategic map - simple but helps no end in situational awareness and something I have wanted in the Panzer campaign games for years. Also his OB stuff is brilliant. This little stuff makes such a difference to how nice these things are to play. So say for example - in the Panzer campaigns games - have a treeview on the left side like the Panther games one - then finding units in your OOB is much easier and situational awareness vastly improved.
In answer to the topic question - it's still £40 ;)
besides - whilst I love the idea of super detailed games, I seldom get into them and if I do, it's often short lived....I wish I had the dedication and tenacity to keep with them though - because the detailed does interest me
If you can find a good PBEM opponent who doesn't bail, disappear or slow in returning game turns (not easy to find), the game can be rather fun. I played one guy for about a year and a half. Mostly doing one turn every day. Sometimes 3 or 4 on the weekend.
Really puts you in the boots of the real commanders. You quickly see that the Pacific War was just as much about logistics as it was about combat.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 29, 2012, 11:03:17 PM
whats stopping me???
not being retired mostly.
;D
Only Gundams are good enough to play that game. I own a copy as an indulgence, to say I have one. Proud to have it. Will probably never get around to playing it.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on November 30, 2012, 08:25:42 AM
If you can find a good PBEM opponent who doesn't bail, disappear or slow in returning game turns (not easy to find), the game can be rather fun. I played one guy for about a year and a half. Mostly doing one turn every day. Sometimes 3 or 4 on the weekend.
Really puts you in the boots of the real commanders. You quickly see that the Pacific War was just as much about logistics as it was about combat.
I played it mostly PBEM for a couple of years. I'd played all of its predecessors so it didn't seem particularly daunting.
Why did I stop? I think I just spent enough time on it. It does take a lot of time. Pretty rewarding though. At least for me.
As a gaming experience it is kind of different. Good, but not easy to describe. Somewhere in the midst of playing it, I remembered
why I preferred games about smaller wars. Now I'm playing Fall of the Samurai and can even spell Samurai.
I bought it during last year's Matrix Games' holiday sale. I will eventually get around to playing it. Having been a total "Uncommon Valor" fanatic back in the day, it shouldn't be too hard to jump in and play.
I still have a life...no seriously, i'd love it but i still have too many games i want to play before...maybe in 10 years.
Quote from: Zulu1966 on November 30, 2012, 05:17:26 AM
Quote from: Herman Hum on November 30, 2012, 04:49:55 AM
Quote from: Zulu1966 on November 30, 2012, 04:45:13 AM
Like most of Grigsby's games - the moddeling is nyper detailed - but he just doesnt know how to build the program around it to support it.
Maybe he should just design the game mechanics and then let someone else design the UI to actually help players get the information they need in the manner they need it.
Yes - I wish he would. Someone like the decisive campaigns guy. One of the things he added in the case blue game was to print the locations of all higher headquarters units onto the strategic map - simple but helps no end in situational awareness and something I have wanted in the Panzer campaign games for years. Also his OB stuff is brilliant. This little stuff makes such a difference to how nice these things are to play. So say for example - in the Panzer campaigns games - have a treeview on the left side like the Panther games one - then finding units in your OOB is much easier and situational awareness vastly improved.
I tend to summarize UI nightmares, such as the WitP example, as
fighting the interface instead of playing the damn game!
The interface is almost always the first thing I notice about a game. And if it's not easy-to-use, intuitive, and informative then it will stain the rest of the game no matter how good it is. :-\
I have the original flava which I bought off of Eddie Steryx recently. I have yet to play it. Why would I want to get the AE version? Are there any particular features that make it easier to play? Harder? I'd love to play a game such as WITP if I could play an Allied power such as the DEI, Australia, NZ, Great Britain only while the AI handles the USA and it's massive logistical universe. It would make for an interesting game if it included some uncertainly in the inter-Allied cohesiveness and back room wheeling and dealing as far as things like ABDA style mixed TFs and such.
Quote from: Staggerwing on November 30, 2012, 08:35:59 PM
I have the original flava which I bought off of Eddie Steryx recently. I have yet to play it. Why would I want to get the AE version? Are there any particular features that make it easier to play? Harder? I'd love to play a game such as WITP if I could play an Allied power such as the DEI, Australia, NZ, Great Britain only while the AI handles the USA and it's massive logistical universe. It would make for an interesting game if it included some uncertainly in the inter-Allied cohesiveness and back room wheeling and dealing as far as things like ABDA style mixed TFs and such.
AE has more bells and whistles and micromanaging stuff which leads to more historical outcomes and tougher AI. Sure, they did fix some legacy stuff in the original WITP but the additional layer of detail just makes it (unnecessarily) complicated for some.
I had the original as well. I struggled with the interface for quite some time before I felt comfortable with it (still managed to screw up loading/unloading stuff with regularity though) and I played through the grand campaign once as the Japanese. It took about 4 months playing 1-2 hours almost daily and I ended up losing. I am firmly convinced that the game cheats in regards to the spotting rules. I'd regularly miss spotting Allied surface ships around Rabaul yet they'd always find me despite the fact that I had more experienced units with better spotting chances.
It's not a game. It feels too much like work.
The one other thing with the game however which for some reason really bugs me - is that you cannot specify how much supplies or fuel to load on a transport - so it will carry on loading till you tell it to stop and thats the only way you can say how much goes where. Not massive - but I really just hate it. If I want to get say 400 supplies to a seaplane based I should be able to say so. In a game where you can define the search arcs of individual seaplanes I dont see why they cant. As I say - not massive in the scheme of things but sometimes there are just little things in a game that bug the hell out of me.
The short answer to this question is...
My brain.
I've played the original off and on for years. What always drive me nuts is the interface. It makes an incredibly complex game even more complex.
I've always thought there should be some way to blend War in the Pacific with Distant Worlds. Have that huge map be the Pacific Ocean.
What I said about WitE - Don to Danube holds for WitP:
"While no one can fault 2By3's attention to detail or accuracy, one wonders if they've lost sight of what most players want. Even short scenarios have high unit density and require several clicks to make one good move. Is the level of detail necessary or simply chrome? Bugs are still being reported in the base game two years after initial release, perhaps due to complexity. Serious students of the Eastern Front should look at this game but others may be satisfied with a simpler product."
Quote from: Bismarck on December 01, 2012, 01:17:59 PM
What I said about WitE - Don to Danube holds for WitP:
"While no one can fault 2By3's attention to detail or accuracy, one wonders if they've lost sight of what most players want. Even short scenarios have high unit density and require several clicks to make one good move. Is the level of detail necessary or simply chrome? Bugs are still being reported in the base game two years after initial release, perhaps due to complexity. Serious students of the Eastern Front should look at this game but others may be satisfied with a simpler product."
Many of GG's games are monsters. While these games are not what most players want, clearly there is a market for them. Some players like myself really enjoy the deep data dives, so I would not call it "chrome". For me the really long scenarios are journeys, not destinations. I rarely finish them, but really enjoy the immersive understanding of history that the detail brings to the game experience. Sure, it's a niche within a niche but I love 'em. WiTP:AE, WitE, and Eagle Day to the Bombing of the Reich, are some of my favorite computer wargames.
Decades ago, the Avalon Hill General had a short "grog fantasy" tongue-in-cheek article about a boardgame called "IT". It was WWII, with one counter per man, and one game hour turns. The game showed up in four moving vans, and had to be played in a warehouse (my memory is a little suspect, but I think I have the details right). Anyway, GG has almost given me that game, and made it playable....and I love him for it.
But also to your point, I think WiTE particularly would be better with many shorter, more focused scenarios (like the Kharkov 42 scenario), as well as more forcus on mid-late war. The WiTE game engine supports these pretty well. Smaller scenarios are not as good in WiTP however.
Still, I'm not completely happy with WiTP:AE, I would also like to see some interface improvements (ship loading as pointed out in earlier posts), but otherwise am pretty happy that these games exist.
The more details you put in, the more the Grognards will nitpick the game. The more they will say what's historically accurate or not. You'll have more variables that influence outcomes the right or wrong way. I've seen this all over in the WITP / WITE forums and it's a never ending debate. Patches swing from pleasing one camp of fans to another, sometime breaking gameplay and forcing you to restart a game that will take months / years to finish. :) It does eventually become stable at one point.
Another argument about claiming historical accuracy is that Japan and Germany will always lose the war. There are inherent balancing issues in the WW2 setting and may take away the fun for some.
But when a game is presented as abstract and less precise, people only care if the final combat results are plausible instead of looking at every phase of battle and if each weapon / asset is performing as it should be. And most of all, focus is on gameplay and the fun factor. Decisive Battles has great balance between abstraction and detail. It does not claim to be very historical so people do not expect much from it as opposed to the GG games.
Quote from: jomni on December 01, 2012, 07:10:40 PM
The more details you put in, the more the Grognards will nitpick the game. The more they will say what's historically accurate or not. You'll have more variables that influence outcomes the right or wrong way. I've seen this all over in the WITP / WITE forums and it's a never ending debate. Patches swing from pleasing one camp of fans to another, sometime breaking gameplay and forcing you to restart a game that will take months / years to finish. :) It does eventually become stable at one point.
Another argument about claiming historical accuracy is that Japan and German will always lose the war. There are inherent balancing issues in the WW2 setting and may take away the fun for some.
But when a game is presented as abstract and less precise, people only care if the final combat results are plausible instead of looking at every phase of battle and if each weapon / asset is performing as it should be. And most of all, focus is on gameplay and the fun factor. Decisive Battles has great balance between abstraction and detail. It claims to be very historical so people do not expect much from it as opposed to the GG games.
Oh, so well put! +1
Thanks. Had to edit my post for a few typos. :)
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 01, 2012, 05:54:35 AM
The one other thing with the game however which for some reason really bugs me - is that you cannot specify how much supplies or fuel to load on a transport - so it will carry on loading till you tell it to stop and thats the only way you can say how much goes where. Not massive - but I really just hate it. If I want to get say 400 supplies to a seaplane based I should be able to say so. In a game where you can define the search arcs of individual seaplanes I dont see why they cant. As I say - not massive in the scheme of things but sometimes there are just little things in a game that bug the hell out of me.
I think you narrowed down a big specific of the UI complaints I have - the interface for handling the logistics is poor. ;)
Quote from: jomni on December 01, 2012, 07:10:40 PM
The more details you put in, the more the Grognards will nitpick the game. The more they will say what's historically accurate or not. You'll have more variables that influence outcomes the right or wrong way. I've seen this all over in the WITP / WITE forums and it's a never ending debate.
Personally, I am fine with all the details. it's the manner of implementation that kills me. It's nice to be able to pick the individual soldiers for a million-man army. It's not so fine if you need 10 million+ clicks to locate and select each and every individual for addition to the army. I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter. :(
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 01, 2012, 07:42:59 PM
I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter. :(
I haven't played these games, but this sounds absolutely unforgivable to me.
I'm in a PBEM of WITP:AE (Toonces, if you're up for a game, let me know).
For me, games are all about immersiveness, and for all justifiable complaints about Gary Grigsby's lack of post-1985 programming skills, his games immerse me in a way that no other designer has. It's not that I love detail and micromanagement. It's more that I feel like I'm getting something for my efforts that I wouldn't get with a simpler game.
Here's my poor attempt to explain my feelings in Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/5895917/the-immense-pleasure-of-huge-war-games
Michael
I just have no interest in devoting the time in to something that comically over sized and complicated. Seriously, this looks like less recreational and more occupational. I don't want a second job. :D
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 01, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 01, 2012, 07:42:59 PM
I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter. :(
I haven't played these games, but this sounds absolutely unforgivable to me.
Oh yes indeed.
Imagine, if you will, a window full of settings for each unit/base/whatevah which consist almost wholly of number values. And the only way you can change them is by repeatedly clicking on the up or down arrow button to adjust it one numeric unit at a time. Need to move that air patrol's default altitude up a few thousand feet or unload some fuel off a tanker?? Click click click clickity click on the arrow button. Then move on to the next setting. There are LOTS of arrow buttons, too. :o
The detail is excellent. The UI not so. :'(
Eurgh. Well, that answers OP's question as far as I'm concerned then!
Funny enough, my original point (poorly made perhaps) is that the price of AE is about half of what it was when it came out I think. Didn't it originally retail for about $100? It's only $52 now and I think that if you are moderately interested in the Pacific theater you should give this a serious look. Yes it's hard and complex and takes a long time, but it's still the best treatment of the theater IMHO.
I mean, there are other Pacific War games out there, but I always feel like if I'm not playing WitP then I'm shortchanging myself.
At any rate, it's an exceptionally good deal at the $50 price point is what I was orginally getting at.
Quote from: Toonces on December 02, 2012, 03:03:11 PM
At any rate, it's an exceptionally good deal at the $50 price point is what I was orginally getting at.
Only if you're willing to put up with the UI. One can get the fine War Plan Pacific for $39.95 this month.
I am still struggling with it. Bigtime.
While I do find the manual extremely interesting with its big size, I find it hard to read it, because (at least the first part of it) it only describes what a button does in a technical sense. Clicking button A does A.
It doesn't really help much in terms of tactics or operational execution of a plan.
The game also lacks a tutorial (which oddly enough is referenced in the manual as being there). This has placed the barrier quite high for people jumping into the game without any experience with GG's other offerings, like myself.
Every time I start WitP;AE I feel like I need to watch some serious Pacific documentaries and read some operational books about the theatre first, before I have a clue what do start doing.
I would love a more guided approach into the game, either by a player or a written/video tutorial.
There are some older video tutorials out there, but they -again- explain only what does what, not how to conduct operations or execute plans.
Still, I am determined to get it going some day.
If the AE version of WiTP had received the UI love that WiTE has, then I'd be a happier bunny playing it. WiTE isn't a shining example of how to do things, but, it does have several layers of information, that if you want you can drill down into, but if you dont' or you don't have the time to, you don't have to. Therefore, the player has a choice as to how "deep" or "groggy" he wants to go into it.
Simply put the effort into updating the title, if it's as big a fish as its name and price implies, then surely it deserves some UI attention to bring it up to speed with the modern way. I'm surprised the AE update did so very little in terms of UI, it seems to have been more endless content tweaks and corrections than anything else.
Either do good abstraction (like Unity of Command, Decisive Campaigns), or do layered management of information that is in the players control (like WiTE, or Command Ops:BftB) - but above all, common to both, do usable/friendly UI - study a bit of applications programming and ergonomics, thats it... most coded on a shoestring indie titles come up with half decent UI's for doing simple selection/value setting tasks and actions. Wrestling with an interface is not part of the enjoyment of a game, no matter how painful it is, it doesn't make it more of a badge of honour to wear! :)
I love the game's concept, but I'll freely admit to being thoroughly intimidated by it. I own two GG titles already, and even the (relatively) simpler of the two (World at War: A World Divided) threatens to overwhelm me with its complexity and UI. I can scarcely imagine tackling a monster like WITP:AE, which by virtually all accounts is an order of magnitude more difficult to learn & play.
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 02, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
I would love a more guided approach into the game, either by a player or a written/video tutorial.
There are some older video tutorials out there, but they -again- explain only what does what, not how to conduct operations or execute plans.
This is my big bugbear about nearly all Grand Strategic Games often their intro's or tutorials are purely centered on mechanics, and hardly any of them take you through a playthrough, beginning, middle and end game thought processes.
Ultimately, you want to know "what decisions" are to be made, and "what are the consequences" of making them. If they spelt those issues out first, then described how you make the decisions using mechanics perhaps things would be a bit smoother.
I think this is where AAR's can help, if the player knows the game, and can describe the thought processes and context of each decision made.
Quote from: spelk on December 02, 2012, 03:21:10 PM
If the AE version of WiTP had received the UI love that WiTE has, then I'd be a happier bunny playing it. WiTE isn't a shining example of how to do things, but, it does have several layers of information, that if you want you can drill down into, but if you dont' or you don't have the time to, you don't have to. Therefore, the player has a choice as to how "deep" or "groggy" he wants to go into it.
I disagree. Neither WitP nor WitE have a single functional hotkey button. The hotkeys bring up all manner of displays and reports just fine, but not a single instance whereby you can actually send an order to a unit. i.e. move, attack, ANYTHING
Everywhere you go, you are chasing little arrow buttons or boxes. It's like the programmers decided to totally ignore the device with which they are actually programming the game (the keyboard). :(
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 02, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
I disagree. Neither WitP nor WitE have a single functional hotkey button. The hotkeys bring up all manner of displays and reports just fine, but not a single instance whereby you can actually send an order to a unit. i.e. move, attack, ANYTHING
Everywhere you go, you are chasing little arrow buttons or boxes. It's like the programmers decided to totally ignore the device with which they are actually programming the game (the keyboard). :(
Well to be fair, most games nowadays require mouse input. I think the days of keyboard only control is long gone. I'd settle for intuitive mouse control over a pure keyboard shortcut solution anyday. There are just so many more things you can do, intuitively, with a mouse that would take extra keys to be remembered to do it soley with a keyboard.
Oh and while we're at it, stick Harpoon in the category of naval games that need a proper modern overhaul! ;)
Quote from: spelk on December 02, 2012, 04:59:58 PM
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 02, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
I disagree. Neither WitP nor WitE have a single functional hotkey button. The hotkeys bring up all manner of displays and reports just fine, but not a single instance whereby you can actually send an order to a unit. i.e. move, attack, ANYTHING
Everywhere you go, you are chasing little arrow buttons or boxes. It's like the programmers decided to totally ignore the device with which they are actually programming the game (the keyboard). :(
Well to be fair, most games nowadays require mouse input. I think the days of keyboard only control is long gone. I'd settle for intuitive mouse control over a pure keyboard shortcut solution anyday. There are just so many more things you can do, intuitively, with a mouse that would take extra keys to be remembered to do it soley with a keyboard.
Oh and while we're at it, stick Harpoon in the category of naval games that need a proper modern overhaul! ;)
Very true about Harpoon, but at least Harpoon has functional hotkeys so that a player can choose to use them in addition to the mouse commands. A mouse is a very useful tool, but should not totally replace every single hotkey.
I despise hotkeys. I can't be bothered memorizing a set for each game I play.
I think text / number input is a good addition to WITP. WITE has it implemented in some areas.
As a strategy gamer I can't believe were having a discussion about making a game's UI better, and then the requests are for more hotkey options or even text/numeral input. With bog standard strategy titles, they have modern UI's which can be a combination of intuitive mouse gestures and keystrokes.. we don't usually have this sort of discussion with modern titles, because they're adopting current techniques of interfacing with a game, simple, once learned and adopted can be transferred across games. You want the UI to facilitate the user in playing the game.
WitP could do with some updating, even if it only gets as far as the current WitE standard.
I'm not eschewing the use of keyboard shortcuts, they can be very useful, but you don't have to design your game around making every move or action solely through a keyboard. Even roguelikes nowadays are beginning to embrace mouse and tablet stroking gestures.
Unity of Command is almost effortless in its use. It gets the UI right. WitP could use some basic UI re-design, to make it more accessible - along with a re-structuring of the information to hand. Some of the logistics setup's are positively arcane and amateur in their design.
We're in an era where some companies are developing good wargames with good UI. We want to encourage that, just because the genre is niche doesn't mean it can't become more open and accessible. Battle Academy, Panzer Corps, Commander:The Great War.. these titles have well designed UI's that you just don't notice (most of the time) as you enjoy play. That's what we need for our older titles, surely? If we're doing idealist discussion.
Anyway, to answer the OP, nothing stopped me from getting WitP:AE, because I bought it a long while ago when it was expensive, but Pacific theatre operations games are very thin on the ground, so you sort of have to go with it, and try and wrestle with the UI to play it. I only got a little way in, and faltered. I wish I could devote my life to accomodating a UI, to get my Pacific theatre kicks, but I can't. Which is often why you see WitP fans play nothing else. They devote their entire gaming time to it. I simply can't commit that much, or I don't want it that much. I want wargaming with interesting decisions and outcomes to make, rather than year long training on a UI that isn't up to the job of managing the entire Pacific war. I guess it's down to how much you want to like it. How much effort youre willing to put in. How much you can endure.
/rant over
I need hotkeys for certain commands that are repeated a lot, especially ones with buttons in an out-of-the-way corner of the screen. The fast onset of carpal tunnel is taking it's toll for those repetitive mouse movements to the same screen location, on the side, over & over. I still prefer using the mouse for most everything but I'd really prefer most commands also have an extra keyboard equivalent for redundancy, in case a certain action starts making my tendons saw further into my nerve. ;)
Spelk is right about having the discussion of making poor UIs better in our hobby - it shouldn't be happening in the last few years. We've seen software interfaces improve by leaps & bounds in the past decade and more. I'm reminded of this nearly every time I run an old game since many have annoying interfaces. Nowadays even most of the indie games have at least decent UIs. Let's hope that any new hardcore grog & niche strategy games continue to get in the now. So we don't have this discussion much more. ;D
Quote from: Nefaro on December 02, 2012, 02:08:34 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 01, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 01, 2012, 07:42:59 PM
I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter. :(
I haven't played these games, but this sounds absolutely unforgivable to me.
Oh yes indeed.
Imagine, if you will, a window full of settings for each unit/base/whatevah which consist almost wholly of number values. And the only way you can change them is by repeatedly clicking on the up or down arrow button to adjust it one numeric unit at a time. Need to move that air patrol's default altitude up a few thousand feet or unload some fuel off a tanker?? Click click click clickity click on the arrow button. Then move on to the next setting. There are LOTS of arrow buttons, too. :o
The detail is excellent. The UI not so. :'(
But after playing th game for years against a good opponent, you don't worry so much about the interface as you do about how to set up your CAP and other operational decisions.
I agree that the game could have been designed better and had just as much detail, but I guess I was happy with the options the game offered. Of couse, I also got tired of it all -- but eventually I get tired of most games after a few years.
I think Spelk is absolutely right. It's one of my complaints with Linux actually...it's my preferred OS but let's face it, it's designed by a bunch of geeks who'd rather be programming cool features than making it look good or intuitive to use. Same thing with wargames.
QuoteAs a strategy gamer I can't believe were having a discussion about making a game's UI better
Really? the UI is GG's War in the East is light years better than War in the Pacific AE. That said, you get used to it after the first 1000 turns or so! :-\
Quote from: SgtRock on December 04, 2012, 01:30:32 PM
QuoteAs a strategy gamer I can't believe were having a discussion about making a game's UI better
Really? the UI is GG's War in the East is light years better than War in the Pacific AE. That said, you get used to it after the first 1000 turns or so! :-\
Well, exactly my point. I was sort of making that point that if WitP:AE could be "updated" to the level of WitE I would have a better chance of making any headway into the game.
My quote you mentioned above, was only part of the sentance - I was pulling a shocked face - :o - to the comment about how there isn't enough hotkeys in WitE. You can't perform a move nor an attack solely through a hotkey.
I think there isn't a cat in hell's chance of any of the older wargames getting modern UI updates, the majority of them never get updates or patches of any sort anyway. I think the best bet is to look to the future, and take heart in what good design has been released recently in the wargaming niche. At least there is hope that talented game devs do exist in the wargame arena, and we're not reliant on barely revamped iterations of stuff from the early 90's! ???
Quote from: MengJiao on December 03, 2012, 10:51:47 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on December 02, 2012, 02:08:34 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 01, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: Herman Hum on December 01, 2012, 07:42:59 PM
I think that the reason it takes years to play WitP is due primarily to the need to click everything a zillion times in order to perform the most mundane tasks; like trying to type out an encyclopaedia with one mouse click for every letter. :(
I haven't played these games, but this sounds absolutely unforgivable to me.
Oh yes indeed.
Imagine, if you will, a window full of settings for each unit/base/whatevah which consist almost wholly of number values. And the only way you can change them is by repeatedly clicking on the up or down arrow button to adjust it one numeric unit at a time. Need to move that air patrol's default altitude up a few thousand feet or unload some fuel off a tanker?? Click click click clickity click on the arrow button. Then move on to the next setting. There are LOTS of arrow buttons, too. :o
The detail is excellent. The UI not so. :'(
But after playing th game for years against a good opponent, you don't worry so much about the interface as you do about how to set up your CAP and other operational decisions.
I agree that the game could have been designed better and had just as much detail, but I guess I was happy with the options the game offered. Of couse, I also got tired of it all -- but eventually I get tired of most games after a few years.
Looks like I might be getting back into WitPAE PBEM at least briefly. I'll be the Japs, just before Coral Sea. At least it will all be over pretty fast. One way or the other.
I will try my usual cunning plan: say, "I'll be the Japs if I get to redesign the scenario slightly so that I get Air field construction units, Fighters that can shoot down B-17s and some nice amphibious assault ships with barrage balloons and lots of AA."
They don't call me MengJiao for nothin'
Quote from: ArizonaTank on November 30, 2012, 08:25:42 AM
If you can find a good PBEM opponent who doesn't bail, disappear or slow in returning game turns (not easy to find), the game can be rather fun. I played one guy for about a year and a half. Mostly doing one turn every day. Sometimes 3 or 4 on the weekend.
Really puts you in the boots of the real commanders. You quickly see that the Pacific War was just as much about logistics as it was about combat.
Yes, PBEM is really the way to go. You may be blundering around...but perhaps your opponent is as well. Or NOT. I have been trounced by my opponent about 5 times (thrice in a Grand Campaign that allows lots of Political Points to both sides) and twice at Guadalcanal. I think I won Coral Sea once as the Japs and once as the Allies. And Maybe I won Guadalcanal once as the Japs and once as the allies. These were all modfied scenarios. Modified by me to give me as the Japs a better chance. How wrong was I. I was how wrong? very wrong. Still it was a lot of fun.
I picked back up my Grand Campaign last Friday night. I'm only in mid-March 42 right now.
When I left off I had stockpiled quite the armada of troops, and I had all 4 of my CVs in the Fijis and Australia. I recaptured Espiritu Santo without much trouble so I decided to push on to Guadalcanal. With hindsight being what it is, I know getting Lunga early is a good play. Besides, the Japanese are freaking killing me all over Indo and he can't have CVs everywhere, right?
So I moved on up. I've landed a force on Guadalcanal, but for some reason my main transport TF keeps retiring without unloading...I have no idea why the game is doing that. Meantime, though, my CVs have ambushed a butt ton of Japanese ships in and around Guadalcanal and Munda. My last turn I sank something like 10 ships. God, that felt good. After the beating I've been taking it was so damn gratifying to see my guys just slaughter some Japanese shipping. 8)
If Lunga is in enemy hands and if your task force is configured for Transport (not Amphibious), it might tend to withdraw from the hex even if you have the Remain on Station option enabled.
I fired this up the other week to have a wee go again and re-loaded my Guadalcanal save - and I have to say - I was pretty bored waiting on the next turn to start...and that was only a very small scenario. It boggles my mind to think how long a full scale campaign would take on the AI turn.
I just played the Guadalcanal scenario v AI and set all the messages and animations to minimal/fastest possible values. It was quite speedy. However, I do agree with you that a full-blown campaign would be mind-numbing.
Quote from: Herman Hum on May 08, 2014, 01:30:10 AM
I just played the Guadalcanal scenario v AI and set all the messages and animations to minimal/fastest possible values. It was quite speedy. However, I do agree with you that a full-blown campaign would be mind-numbing.
I never messed with any settings - so that then is likely the cause then.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 08, 2014, 01:13:20 AM
I fired this up the other week to have a wee go again and re-loaded my Guadalcanal save - and I have to say - I was pretty bored waiting on the next turn to start...and that was only a very small scenario. It boggles my mind to think how long a full scale campaign would take on the AI turn.
I'm running through the modified May 1942 campaign (itself something of a mod) i cooked up. I have a new Japanese strategy for total victory: just don't be the Japs -- take the allies for once. Anyway, the AI doesn't seem to be taking too long and hopefully by tonight the PBEM will get rolling.
Hint: If you hit or hold down the 'Esc' key it will speed things up during the AI's turn.
You can also press the space bar. For some reason that speeds up the AI very, very fast.
I do have my transports set to "transport" vice amphibious. I'll take a look at that.
Changing the settings fired things on significantly.
Having a problem loading troops. The transports are at Noumea(?) but when I go to load troops, it says the task force isn't docked. I thought (from UV and possibly WitP) that you set their destination and they docked automatically. Anyway - I can't seem to find a docking command.
Where's my manual :D
There is a dock command in the TF screen.
Also, your troops have to be set to "Strategic Mode" or they won't load.
Thank you. You are of course correct. I can't dock though - TF size apparently.
And I am VERY pleased to see a tool tip showing (when moving the mouse over the text) the port size, ships docked and TF size. Nice one Gary...that's good help there. I thought for a moment I was going to have to go hunting about in various screens to work it all out myself.
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 12:48:40 AM
Also, your troops have to be set to "Strategic Mode" or they won't load.
Be forewarned. Amphibious load and unload troops that are in Combat Mode. Transports load and unload troops in Strategic Mode. It is not possible to switch between the two once the process begins.
FUC..... >:( See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.
I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation. I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out. I have like 500 Marines landed. Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something... ;)
So let me get this right...
If I have an amphibious TF, my troops can load fine (Combat mode)?
If I have a transport TF, my troops have to be in Strategic mode?
If I have a task force that's a mix of amphibious ships and transports - what happens?
Are ships clearly labeled as transport/amphibious? or is it based on what type of TF it is (Amphib TF or Transport TF)?
And finally (sorry)...what's the difference? I presume an amphib TF can load and unload in Combat mode because they are able to fight...so you would use Amphib TFs to move ready for combat (invasion) where Transport TFs would be used to move troops to a staging area? Is there a penalty for Amphib or Transport mode?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:01:58 AM
So let me get this right...
If I have an amphibious TF, my troops can load fine (Combat mode)?
If I have a transport TF, my troops have to be in Strategic mode?
Correct.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:01:58 AM
If I have a task force that's a mix of amphibious ships and transports - what happens?
Are ships clearly labeled as transport/amphibious? or is it based on what type of TF it is (Amphib TF or Transport TF)?
It is physically impossible to have a TF that is both Amphibious and Transport types. They are mutually exclusive TF types. Any ship than can go in an Amphib TF can also go into a Transport TF. It depends on what type of TF you wish to create. Amphibious-class landing ships and transports can go into either type of TF, transport or Amphibious.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:01:58 AM
And finally (sorry)...what's the difference? I presume an amphib TF can load and unload in Combat mode because they are able to fight...so you would use Amphib TFs to move ready for combat (invasion) where Transport TFs would be used to move troops to a staging area? Is there a penalty for Amphib or Transport mode?
An Amphibious TF simulates 'combat loading'. This means that it is not as administratively efficient as a Transport TF because of the necessity to have a unit spread amongst different ships in case of loss due to combat. This means that the vessels will only load to about 80% of their maximum capacity. Also, Amphib TFs will load a portion of their cargo as supplies as they expect to land at enemy-controlled locations. Transport and Cargo TFs are generally from friendly port to friendly port.
I think Amphib TFs also have a quicker unload rate than Transport TFs, especially in the face of the enemy. I think that Transport TFs will still unload into combat zones, but they retire and you have to repeat the Unload command continuously. Also, some large equipment such as radar may not be able to offload from a Transport TF but may unload from an Amphibious task force.
Brilliant...thanks HH
I'm a tad confused with mixing amphib with transports in, say, an amphib TF. If I was to create an amphib TF with both amphib and transports and load troops - how would those troops load? I guess if they are in combat mode, then only the amphibs would load troops - so what about the transports? Would they just be empty, or would I then change some units to strat mode and load them...or...could I even work out which units to leave in combat mode, change others to strat mode and select Load Troops from the options for the TF and the troops would automatically be loaded into the appropriate vessels in the TF?
No need to answer - I might try that.
But - I would presume it's best to keep your transports away from danger and use them in transport TF's - leaving out any confusion anyway.
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 02:17:04 AM
FUC..... >:( See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.
I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation. I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out. I have like 500 Marines landed. Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something... ;)
Typical Navy guy mentality...land a few Marines and then leave them there, out-numbered and surrounded with no supplies, until you "figure things out."
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:46:16 AM
I'm a tad confused with mixing amphib with transports in, say, an amphib TF. If I was to create an amphib TF with both amphib and transports and load troops - how would those troops load? I guess if they are in combat mode, then only the amphibs would load troops - so what about the transports? Would they just be empty, or would I then change some units to strat mode and load them...or...could I even work out which units to leave in combat mode, change others to strat mode and select Load Troops from the options for the TF and the troops would automatically be loaded into the appropriate vessels in the TF?
You could create two separate task forces, one Amphibious and one Transport. Personally, I would only use one type to avoid confusion. If you have an Amphibious TF with amphibious-class landing vessels like LSTs mixed in with normal transports like AKs and APs, the tanks would tend to load upon LSTs, the troops tend to load on the APs while the equipment is mostly on the AK transports. The AI takes care of the distribution and it is not set in stone. It will place some troops on transports that normally carry cargo if it is possible.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:46:16 AM
But - I would presume it's best to keep your transports away from danger and use them in transport TF's - leaving out any confusion anyway.
That is a common use for Transport Task Forces. I think you are mistaken by the word 'Transports'. Any merchant ship (x-AK or AK) is a transport and can included in Amphibious TFs along with dedicated amphibious assault vessels like LST, APA, AKA, and AK types. Transport-type vessels tend to carry more cargo than troops, but usually have space allocated for both. The Transport TFs are commonly used between friendly ports due to their unload rate and higher loading efficiency.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 09, 2014, 04:15:14 AM
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 02:17:04 AM
FUC..... >:( See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.
I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation. I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out. I have like 500 Marines landed. Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something... ;)
Typical Navy guy mentality...land a few Marines and then leave them there, out-numbered and surrounded with no supplies, until you "figure things out."
You can handle it - what are you crying about? :P
Quote from: Herman Hum on May 09, 2014, 04:20:09 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:46:16 AM
I'm a tad confused with mixing amphib with transports in, say, an amphib TF. If I was to create an amphib TF with both amphib and transports and load troops - how would those troops load? I guess if they are in combat mode, then only the amphibs would load troops - so what about the transports? Would they just be empty, or would I then change some units to strat mode and load them...or...could I even work out which units to leave in combat mode, change others to strat mode and select Load Troops from the options for the TF and the troops would automatically be loaded into the appropriate vessels in the TF?
You could create two separate task forces, one Amphibious and one Transport. Personally, I would only use one type to avoid confusion. If you have an Amphibious TF with amphibious-class landing vessels like LSTs mixed in with normal transports like AKs and APs, the tanks would tend to load upon LSTs, the troops tend to load on the APs while the equipment is mostly on the AK transports. The AI takes care of the distribution and it is not set in stone. It will place some troops on transports that normally carry cargo if it is possible.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 09, 2014, 03:46:16 AM
But - I would presume it's best to keep your transports away from danger and use them in transport TF's - leaving out any confusion anyway.
That is a common use for Transport Task Forces. I think you are mistaken by the word 'Transports'. Any merchant ship (x-AK or AK) is a transport and can included in Amphibious TFs along with dedicated amphibious assault vessels like LST, APA, AKA, and AK types. Transport-type vessels tend to carry more cargo than troops, but usually have space allocated for both. The Transport TFs are commonly used between friendly ports due to their unload rate and higher loading efficiency.
Thanks again. :)
Cargo Transports
- Supplies & Cargo (supply, fuel, oil, resources)
- Transport & Cargo Taskforces/ship types (AK, TK, AKL, OL, LB)
Troop Transport
- Transport (AK, AKL, LB's, AD, ADV) - Troops must be in Strat Op mode
- Used to move troops to/from Large ports, otherwise it will take forever to unload at a small port
Amphibious
- Always start with AP, APA, AD, LST, (troops) then add AK's (for equipment & supplies)
- Troops must be in Combat Op mode, Troops should be trained for target for assaults
- Used to assault enemy islands or used to move troops to small ports
- Japan can use just AK's for Amphibious for the first 6 months of the war.
Fast Transport
- Fast unload of troops and supplies
- Troops must be combat Op mode
- Japan can use CS, CA, CL, DD, AD, AV
- Allies can use ADP, AD, AV
^ Awesome.
Yep, I definitely screwed the pooch on this one...
Ok, I might have salvaged this. Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army. Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.
They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga. The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon. I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment.
It's going to be close...
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 09, 2014, 04:15:14 AM
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 02:17:04 AM
FUC..... >:( See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.
I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation. I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out. I have like 500 Marines landed. Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something... ;)
Typical Navy guy mentality...land a few Marines and then leave them there, out-numbered and surrounded with no supplies, until you "figure things out."
Worked at Guadalcanal...
There was a time when I actually knew how to play this game in its vanilla iteration. Now I start it and stare at the screen. After a few seconds, my left eye twitches uncontrollably and I start to drool. Once I'm done seizing, I shut it off.
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 10:20:47 PM
Ok, I might have salvaged this. Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army. Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.
They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga. The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon. I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment.
It's going to be close...
lol
For the record I don't think there was ever ANY military person from ANY arm of the military that I met that didn't bellyache. It's part of your training!
Something that always seems to catch me is this...
I see all the islands. I know I have combat troops and ships and task forces. I know I have to go and take these islands.
I know all that.
But what I don't really get is - which islands? I could go for the usual (if I was so knowledgeable). But how do you determine which islands to go for (if you don't follow the norm).
For example - maybe I see and island uninhabited and I think "I'll have that". I have no way of knowing (or do I) that if I was to spend resources on that island to build an airfield that I would be able to get aeroplanes to the airfield - and even if I could, I don't know what coverage they would have (Like being able to click on the island in question and select one of your aircraft that you have in your arsenal (not currently on the island - remember - your thinking about taking it) and seeing the range of that aircraft from that island.
Is that just knowledge people have or can you do something like that in game - because I would have thought a crucial part of an island hopping game is maximising your resources by building airfields and ports where you need them - and as that is the case, then a key part of that would be knowing the range of your aircraft from those islands...no?
So - how do you play this game with "land grab"? Do you identify your island targets by their VP point? I presume that is linked to their usefulness/importance hence possibly negating your requirement to know ranges of aircraft.
Thanks
I don't know how everyone else does it, but I tend to follow historical precedent. One of the neat things about WitP, in my opinion, is that as you play it you start to see why the war, and the U.S. strategy evolved as it did.
Just for example, in my current campaign I'm in mid-March, 1942. In Feb, Japan had captured Espiritu Santo and Efate, as well as Lunga in the Solomons. Japan starts with, or gets Rabaul early on, and Rabaul controls the upper Solomons and gets you into New Guinea. Lunga controls the southern Solomons. From Lunga you can work down into Espiritu Santo and Efate and if you have them you've essentially severed the SLOC to Australia.
So, from the U.S. perspective it's pretty vital to control the Solomons, which means Lunga is a key objective.
In my game, I know I want Lunga. But in order to support forces going to Lunga I need to be able to get Land Based Air (LBA) forward on Espiritu Santo so I can CAP over my CVs, which will project their CAP over invasion forces on Lunga. This is "island hopping". In order to get the next objective you have to capture a field behind it, get LBA on it that can CAP your CVs, and use your CVs to CAP invasion forces forward.
So in my game I went Efate-->Espiritu Santo-->Lunga. But I cheated forward a bit and am trying to seize Lunga before Espritu is fully developed.
You don't have to follow history exactly, but you'll want to see what locations can be developed into a decent airfield (in () ) and those should be focus points. You hop from point to point. You know that the end-game will involve deploying bombers over homeland Japan to end the war, so that is one objective. You also have a victory point track, too, to keep it "gamey." But anyway, I've never fought all the way into 1943, so I really don't know how the end game plays out in the game.
For now, my goal is to secure the Solomons just like was done historically, and then I'll figure out what to do from there.
I don't know any easy way to show a range of what you can cover with a captured island. You just have to figure out what you're going to station there and see what their range is to figure that out.
Quote from: SgtRock on May 09, 2014, 09:48:05 AM
Cargo Transports
- Supplies & Cargo (supply, fuel, oil, resources)
- Transport & Cargo Taskforces/ship types (AK, TK, AKL, OL, LB)
Troop Transport
- Transport (AK, AKL, LB's, AD, ADV) - Troops must be in Strat Op mode
- Used to move troops to/from Large ports, otherwise it will take forever to unload at a small port
Amphibious
- Always start with AP, APA, AD, LST, (troops) then add AK's (for equipment & supplies)
- Troops must be in Combat Op mode, Troops should be trained for target for assaults
- Used to assault enemy islands or used to move troops to small ports
- Japan can use just AK's for Amphibious for the first 6 months of the war.
Fast Transport
- Fast unload of troops and supplies
- Troops must be combat Op mode
- Japan can use CS, CA, CL, DD, AD, AV
- Allies can use ADP, AD, AV
This to me is what's wrong with the game, in fact most of Grigsby games, nothing is obvious or even remotely intelligible without an enormous amount of work. He delves into such micro minutiae that the system disappears up its own arse. The detail would be fine and I like it, but he is just not capable of building the systems or interface to support it. Couple that with the fact that most of his games end up having more addendum to the original manual than the size of the original manual they rapidly become unplayable to all but the most dedicated.
I have WITP AE and every time I start it I just sit there going WTF do I do now ?
I love the concept but to me with other things to do in life even remotely playing this game in any sensible way is an impossibility.
Quote from: Zulu1966 on May 10, 2014, 03:40:51 AM
This to me is what's wrong with the game, in fact most of Grigsby games, nothing is obvious or even remotely intelligible without an enormous amount of work. He delves into such micro minutiae that the system disappears up its own arse. The detail would be fine and I like it, but he is just not capable of building the systems or interface to support it. Couple that with the fact that most of his games end up having more addendum to the original manual than the size of the original manual they rapidly become unplayable to all but the most dedicated.
I have WITP AE and every time I start it I just sit there going WTF do I do now ?
I love the concept but to me with other things to do in life even remotely playing this game in any sensible way is an impossibility.
I totally agree with the sentiment. The level of minutiae is incredible. Coupled with the unnecessarily unwieldy user interface, the amount of
work required to perform the simplest tasks is doubled. It takes years to play primarily because of the wretched user interface and not necessarily the level of detail. You get the feeling that you are personally putting gas into every plane and ship with a hand-cranked pump.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 10, 2014, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 10:20:47 PM
Ok, I might have salvaged this. Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army. Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.
They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga. The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon. I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment.
It's going to be close...
lol
For the record I don't think there was ever ANY military person from ANY arm of the military that I met that didn't bellyache. It's part of your training!
Why do you think they call them Grunts? Or why do you think they are called infantry, which comes from the word "infant"?
Quote from: Herman Hum on May 10, 2014, 04:38:02 AM
I totally agree with the sentiment. The level of minutiae is incredible. Coupled with the unnecessarily unwieldy user interface, the amount of work required to perform the simplest tasks is doubled. It takes years to play primarily because of the wretched user interface and not necessarily the level of detail. You get the feeling that you are personally putting gas into every plane and ship with a hand-cranked pump.
Sums up my feelings as well. The GG games go "all in" on minutiae and the micro level of detail, and then the UI and presentation of information get short shrift. It gives rise to that classic situation: "In theory, it's an absolutely amazing game. In practice however..." At least WITP has some quirky visual charm to it, and manages to create a really immersive experience in some ways. WitE on the other hand... one of the most antiseptic, uninspired, clumsy, frustrating UIs I've ever come across, making the game all but unplayable for me.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 10, 2014, 04:52:42 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 10, 2014, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: Toonces on May 09, 2014, 10:20:47 PM
Ok, I might have salvaged this. Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army. Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.
They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga. The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon. I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment.
It's going to be close...
lol
For the record I don't think there was ever ANY military person from ANY arm of the military that I met that didn't bellyache. It's part of your training!
Why do you think they call them Grunts? Or why do you think they are called infantry, which comes from the word "infant"?
Les enfants
Cops (2 things cops hate are change and the way things are now), nurses and teachers give it a good effort, but no one bitches better than soldiers.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on November 30, 2012, 08:25:42 AM
If you can find a good PBEM opponent who doesn't bail, disappear or slow in returning game turns (not easy to find), the game can be rather fun. I played one guy for about a year and a half. Mostly doing one turn every day. Sometimes 3 or 4 on the weekend.
Really puts you in the boots of the real commanders. You quickly see that the Pacific War was just as much about logistics as it was about combat.
Atilla60 and I are still going strong on our campaign now for the 5th year :), so yeah its timeconsuming
Man alive! I just keep hitting wall after wall after wall.
So in my Guadalcanal scenario, I'm setup (by the designer) with a TF that cannot dock at Noumea. So...I want to load troops right? Send them to Lunga right? Well, I have to dock. So I remove AK's and DD's and undock the TF that's already docked (1 tanker picking up fuel).
So then I dock my Amphib Tf and Select Load Troops - only the only unit to show up is the HQ South Pacific...NONE of the other units on the base.
They are all set to SoPac Rear Area, Op Mode is set to combat and their combat column is set to defend. I can't seem to change that. I did change their Target to Lunga (it was Noumea) but that didn't change anything.
I think someone mentioned the interface here and I was pleased to see that he had a tooltip telling me why I couldn't dock. But clearly the interface is lacking in giving info. I mean - wouldn't it be MUCH better to let me select Load Troops, show me the troops and either a) tell me why I can't load them or b) Let me select them to be loaded and do all the small necessaries to get them loaded?
aaaargh. I can see why no-one bought this off me when I was trying to sell it!
It could be they are in reserve and not available for this scenario. If that's the case, I wish they weren't there.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 10, 2014, 03:12:33 PM
So then I dock my Amphib Tf and Select Load Troops - only the only unit to show up is the HQ South Pacific...NONE of the other units on the base.
They are all set to SoPac Rear Area, Op Mode is set to combat and their combat column is set to defend. I can't seem to change that. I did change their Target to Lunga (it was Noumea) but that didn't change anything.
These other units (that do not appear) belong to Restricted HQs. Therefore, they must first be 'bought out' (transferred) with a payment of Political Points to a non-restricted HQ before they can be loaded upon ships.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 10, 2014, 03:27:57 PM
It could be they are in reserve and not available for this scenario. If that's the case, I wish they weren't there.
Hi Judge
All the troops at Nouma are restricted (R), except the SouthPac HQ.
Restricted units can't be loaded on TFs.
Open the LCU (Land Combat Unit) overview (click the button with the flag - left side menu).
The list shows all LCUs, note that there's a "(R)" after their names.
Like
Herman Hum said, you'll have to reassign them to a unrestricted HQ.
Which, by the way, is a costly affair (Political Points wise).
And I can't do - so it's as I thought - I can't use these units in the Guadalcanal campaign - presumably because of it's limited scope. So I've spent an absolute shed load of time trying to work out how to get ships docked so I can move troops that aren't actually in play
lol
Thanks HH and Atilla60
I think I'll go back to WitE. As sterile as the interface is for that, at least you can click a unit and move it or attack with it. You don't have to do a whole lot of figuring out (though I'll likely lose without knowing all the nuances)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 10, 2014, 04:21:23 PM
And I can't do - so it's as I thought - I can't use these units in the Guadalcanal campaign - presumably because of it's limited scope. So I've spent an absolute shed load of time trying to work out how to get ships docked so I can move troops that aren't actually in play
You are mistaken. Those forces are meant for use in the Guadalcanal scenario. You simply have not accumulated sufficient Political Points to purchase them. You start with only a few hundred points and get about 50 additional points daily. Some of those units need over 1000 points to acquire. By the end of the scenario, you should be able to buy every Restricted (R) unit in the scenario and have access to it.
My bad. I presumed the Guadalcanal scenario was sufficiently short that I wouldn't accumulate enough PP
I, too, was surprised at the length of the scenario especially since the description says it runs from about August 4, 1942 - Feb 7, 1943. However, the scenario does not actually end until April 30, 1943. IMHO, it is virtually impossible for the Allies to lose this scenario.
QuoteI love the concept but to me with other things to do in life even remotely playing this game in any sensible way is an impossibility.
It's been said many times, WITP/AE isn't a game, its a second career. You could likely get a degree from the military war college in less time than completing a couple of WITP/AE games! ;D
Quote from: Greybriar on November 29, 2012, 11:48:26 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 29, 2012, 11:03:17 PM
whats stopping me???
not being retired mostly.
I am retired and even I won't devote the time necessary to play that monster. I'm getting old and life's too short to spend so much of it on one game.
I have the WitP version, and whilst it's fun, I really have do have to agree with Greybriar. So many games, so little time.... ::)
Quote from: SgtRock on May 10, 2014, 05:07:30 PM
QuoteI love the concept but to me with other things to do in life even remotely playing this game in any sensible way is an impossibility.
It's been said many times, WITP/AE isn't a game, its a second career. You could likely get a degree from the military war college in less time than completing a couple of WITP/AE games! ;D
I find the game intriguing at all levels. I've taken a break for a bit, but now I'm heading back in. I'm doing a few things to cut my time investment:
1) not being the Japanese (trying to get their economy to work and trying to get pilots trained and so on, isn't easy)
2) Not designing my own scenarios and ships and planes
3) But since I'm the allies in May '42, I added some gratuitous French and British ships and fighter squadrons so I have something to do while the Japs try to continue to run amok (paradoxically WitPAE is a game where having a few more planes and squadrons to loose can actually speed up the game).
For me, the biggest stumbling block with WitP:AE isn't the amount of detail and information per se. It's that the game doesn't do nearly enough to help you organize and keep track of the information, and more importantly, keep track of *your long term plans*.
This is fundamentally a flaw of the user interface. For me, no matter how intriguing WitP is, no matter how well it recreates the challenges (above all logistical challenges) of the PTO, the full campaign is simply unplayable. "3rd Party applications" like WitP-Tracker and WitP-Staff attempt to make things more manageable, and they succeed to some extent. But the fact that the functionality they provide isn't integrated into the game itself is a serious problem.
I can't think of another (relatively) recent PC game that forced me to work out so much of what I wanted to do with pen and paper. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the case. The stuff I had to keep track of in notebooks -- which at bottom amounted to "Getting specific units and material from Point A to Point B so that I can build up for an eventual attack on Point C" -- was pretty basic stuff. Not easily organized stuff -- and there's the rub -- but basic stuff in order to carry out operations in the pacific. The fact that the game does almost nothing to help you organizationally is why I can only ever get to about Spring '42 before I call it quits.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 10:32:13 AM
I can't think of another (relatively) recent PC game that forced me to work out so much of what I wanted to do with pen and paper. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the case. The stuff I had to keep track of in notebooks -- which at bottom amounted to "Getting specific units and material from Point A to Point B so that I can build up for an eventual attack on Point C" -- was pretty basic stuff. Not easily organized stuff -- and there's the rub -- but basic stuff in order to carry out operations in the pacific. The fact that the game does almost nothing to help you organizationally is why I can only ever get to about Spring '42 before I call it quits.
A fundamental and primary logic of using computers to play wargames instead of boards is (supposedly) allowing the machine to handle all the details and minutiae. Unfortunately, when a game forces a player to use the same amount of pencil and paper tracking (or more), it fails from the outset. All the support programs like WitP Tracker are basic features and functions that desperately need to be incorporated into the game.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 10:32:13 AM
For me, the biggest stumbling block with WitP:AE isn't the amount of detail and information per se. It's that the game doesn't do nearly enough to help you organize and keep track of the information, and more importantly, keep track of *your long term plans*.
Well, it would be very nice if the game had a planning and tracking layer of some kind, but it doesn't. One has to play with the games that are available and WitPAE is what stands at the end of a long line of games on the topic (Guadalcanal, WitP and all the patches and "official betas" of WitPAE)...since I've played all of those and have around a decade of experience, I'm resigned for better or worse to keeping about a page per move of notes, and losing the game eventually. It seems unlikely that there will be a more comprehensive game about the war in the Pacific any time soon, so, sadly, that's the picture.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 10:32:13 AM
For me, the biggest stumbling block with WitP:AE isn't the amount of detail and information per se. It's that the game doesn't do nearly enough to help you organize and keep track of the information, and more importantly, keep track of *your long term plans*.
This is fundamentally a flaw of the user interface. For me, no matter how intriguing WitP is, no matter how well it recreates the challenges (above all logistical challenges) of the PTO, the full campaign is simply unplayable. "3rd Party applications" like WitP-Tracker and WitP-Staff attempt to make things more manageable, and they succeed to some extent. But the fact that the functionality they provide isn't integrated into the game itself is a serious problem.
I can't think of another (relatively) recent PC game that forced me to work out so much of what I wanted to do with pen and paper. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the case. The stuff I had to keep track of in notebooks -- which at bottom amounted to "Getting specific units and material from Point A to Point B so that I can build up for an eventual attack on Point C" -- was pretty basic stuff. Not easily organized stuff -- and there's the rub -- but basic stuff in order to carry out operations in the pacific. The fact that the game does almost nothing to help you organizationally is why I can only ever get to about Spring '42 before I call it quits.
Quote from: Herman Hum on May 14, 2014, 10:41:46 AM
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 10:32:13 AM
I can't think of another (relatively) recent PC game that forced me to work out so much of what I wanted to do with pen and paper. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the case. The stuff I had to keep track of in notebooks -- which at bottom amounted to "Getting specific units and material from Point A to Point B so that I can build up for an eventual attack on Point C" -- was pretty basic stuff. Not easily organized stuff -- and there's the rub -- but basic stuff in order to carry out operations in the pacific. The fact that the game does almost nothing to help you organizationally is why I can only ever get to about Spring '42 before I call it quits.
A fundamental and primary logic of using computers to play wargames instead of boards is (supposedly) allowing the machine to handle all the details and minutiae. Unfortunately, when a game forces a player to use the same amount of pencil and paper tracking (or more), it fails from the outset. All the support programs like WitP Tracker are basic features and functions that desperately need to be incorporated into the game.
From 6 years playing only this and been an active member on the Matrix Witp forum, for every one of your complaints, i will find you 10 saying 'i frikking love that im playing a game that needs me to take notes on my plans, how immerssive and awesome is that?!?!'
Coupled with many shots of peoples bedrooms with 2 monitors side by side, one with the game, one with a word document with all the notes. If youre not loving the logistics and plan making and note writing and sticky notepad element of the game, youre not playing it right.......
.........they would say
Quote from: Herman Hum on May 14, 2014, 10:41:46 AM
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 10:32:13 AM
I can't think of another (relatively) recent PC game that forced me to work out so much of what I wanted to do with pen and paper. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the case. The stuff I had to keep track of in notebooks -- which at bottom amounted to "Getting specific units and material from Point A to Point B so that I can build up for an eventual attack on Point C" -- was pretty basic stuff. Not easily organized stuff -- and there's the rub -- but basic stuff in order to carry out operations in the pacific. The fact that the game does almost nothing to help you organizationally is why I can only ever get to about Spring '42 before I call it quits.
A fundamental and primary logic of using computers to play wargames instead of boards is (supposedly) allowing the machine to handle all the details and minutiae. Unfortunately, when a game forces a player to use the same amount of pencil and paper tracking (or more), it fails from the outset. All the support programs like WitP Tracker are basic features and functions that desperately need to be incorporated into the game.
I just don't experience my games in that way, ie as failures from the outset. I take copious notes on lots of games, computer and otherwise. I don't expect everything to be self-evident all the time and WitPAE is an interesting experience in non-self-evidence -- that's for sure.
I'm not necessarily against the minutiae...but it is very confusing, when working with a computer game, which bits the user has to do and which the computer will do. You only find this out as you go through the game and end up realising it IS down to you to make note of this or that...and by then you've "thumbed" the manual so much and searched so much that you're almost fed up with it.
Lack of knowledge leads to a lack of understanding which leads to frustration...in any walk of life.
I don't think anyone is arguing that, unless a game "makes everything self-evident all the time," it's a failure. But surely it should be one of the main goals of the game's user interface to facilitate gameplay as much as possible. There's just no question in my mind that the Grigsby games do not meet this very important criterion.
By comparison, I do resort to pen-&-Paper in playing OOTP on occasion. But I actually think OOTP has a superb UI, one that is amazingly flexible and functional, allowing the player to organize a s**tload of information and organizational complexity. It's a masterpiece, in my view. Obviously, the sheer amount of information and detail in a WitP makes creating an effective UI very difficult indeed. But the game as it stands -- and no doubt will stand, for the remainder of its days -- falls well short of the mark.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 11:29:07 AM
I don't think anyone is arguing that, unless a game "makes everything self-evident all the time," it's a failure. But surely it should be one of the main goals of the game's user interface to facilitate gameplay as much as possible. There's just no question in my mind that the Grigsby games do not meet this very important criterion.
By comparison, I do resort to pen-&-Paper in playing OOTP on occasion. But I actually think OOTP has a superb UI, one that is amazingly flexible and functional, allowing the player to organize a s**tload of information and organizational complexity. It's a masterpiece, in my view. Obviously, the sheer amount of information and detail in a WitP makes creating an effective UI very difficult indeed. But the game as it stands -- and no doubt will stand, for the remainder of its days -- falls well short of the mark.
I agree, ideally a game should let you know a lot more about what your options are and how to manage them than WitPAE does. On the other hand there is a lot in WitPAE that is automated. You can let the Japanese economy run as it is set up to run for example. You can leave bases on autofortify and let upgrades happen automatically. You can even let subs patrol on autopilot and let searches all be 360 degrees.
In some ways the choices in WitPAE are ideal for tantalizing the player: you can try to micromanage, hoping it works as planned and/or that the enemy falls for it somehow, so everything is a bit of a gamble (though when the shit hits the fan it can be hard to tell what went wrong or right -- so you never really know -- you don't even know what damage you did to the enemy most of the time).
If you redesigned the interface, a lot of that uncertainty would be buried so to speak -- for example your planning would assume what? A perfect staff and perfect coorperation? Whereas we know (for example) as the Guadalcanal campaign got underway, many levels of Japanese and US planning, recon, and logistics were in fantastic disarray. How would a good interface represent mind-boggling ineptitude on both sides?
I can easily imagine the nasty comments from a cottage industry that would emerge in hating such a game -- a game where your reasonable plans turned into complete chaos for reasons that it would take many pages of notes to discover.
At least WItpAE short-curcuits all that -- the idiocy is all there to see if you take your notes and see what you thought you were doing. It's painful, but in some ways much more understandable than a planning layer that generates realistic idiocy not of your own making.
Quote from: MengJiao on May 14, 2014, 11:45:49 AM
How would a good interface represent mind-boggling ineptitude on both sides?
;D That's an interesting point!
Still, I'm not wishing for 100% total control over things so that I can pull off my plans flawlessly. In fact, if there's one thing I do wish for in a strategic WW2 game, it would be for things like Fog of War, C&C, lines of communication, intelligence gathering etc. to play a greater role so that the player has much *less* of a clear picture of what's going on all the time. I can't think of a WW2 game that really captures the sheer uncertainty that commanders confronted in trying to id the locations, dispositions, movements of enemy forces. Hell, CINCPAC had a hard enough time keeping tabs on their own forces! ("Where is Task Force 34 the world wonders").
But my complaint is not really that WitP should do a better job of helping you coordinate your forces from a C&C standpoint. It's that it should do a much better job of just helping you organize the basics of "Get Unit X from point A to B by Means Y on or about Date Z". One of the few ways I've found to use the UI to this effect -- and it's pretty meager at that -- is to use the "Set Future Objective" for units so that I remember where I eventually want to move them. But in general, the game does precious little to help you *plan* anything.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on May 14, 2014, 11:45:49 AM
How would a good interface represent mind-boggling ineptitude on both sides?
;D That's an interesting point!
Still, I'm not wishing for 100% total control over things so that I can pull off my plans flawlessly. In fact, if there's one thing I do wish for in a strategic WW2 game, it would be for things like Fog of War, C&C, lines of communication, intelligence gathering etc. to play a greater role so that the player has much *less* of a clear picture of what's going on all the time. I can't think of a WW2 game that really captures the sheer uncertainty that commanders confronted in trying to id the locations, dispositions, movements of enemy forces. Hell, CINCPAC had a hard enough time keeping tabs on their own forces! ("Where is Task Force 34 the world wonders").
But my complaint is not really that WitP should do a better job of helping you coordinate your forces from a C&C standpoint. It's that it should do a much better job of just helping you organize the basics of "Get Unit X from point A to B by Means Y on or about Date Z". One of the few ways I've found to use the UI to this effect -- and it's pretty meager at that -- is to use the "Set Future Objective" for units so that I remember where I eventually want to move them. But in general, the game does precious little to help you *plan* anything.
I agree, whatever it is that WitPAE is doing (and it is hard to pin that down really -- do China and Russia really need to be in the game at all?)
it is doing a very odd job of it.
On the other hand, there are the usual problems with what exactly a player's role is in a strategic war game. Is he Admiral King? Is he all Allied commanders? And as usual I have to say that for me an ideal war game would make that very clear. You would be for example Ghormley and (as your interface options would allow), find a good dentist and kick the Free French out of a nice HQ, get off the Argonne, attend the conference before Savo island and get yourself blown up if necessary.
But given how games have not-quite clarified such things, WitpAE does allow you some interesting (if irritating and frustrating and confusing) experiences. If the interface were set up as simply a perfect planning mechanism somehow perfectly coordinating all forces (including shooting McArthur if necessary), this would be a huge problem and if it were an imperfect mechanism it would be an even bigger problem
I suppose some kind of highly variable staff mechanism might do both but that would hint at the need to clarify who the player is. Which always seems to me to be the real problem.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2014, 10:32:13 AM
FI can't think of another (relatively) recent PC game that forced me to work out so much of what I wanted to do with pen and paper.
I'm running with only about two
small sheets of notes per move so far == and one gets tossed when executed == so I won't quite be able to read where I went wrong.
War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral%27s.Edition) is on sale for 50% off until 10 August 2015.
Quote from: Greybriar on August 08, 2015, 02:19:43 PM
War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral%27s.Edition) is on sale for 50% off until 10 August 2015.
And it's playable under Linux!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3908238
Paging Huw! Paging Huw the Poo! Just one day left!
Kind of stupid, that they don't make that the 'new' price.. I mean the game is 6 years old!!!.. and if you count the fact that it's really just an 'upgrade' of an even older game, the regular price is kind of ridiculous right now!
It's not stopping me, damnit! :knuppel2:
Seriously,though, its that time again; the 'Let's learn this monster'-itch has returned.
The last few days most of my spare time has been devoted to watching YT videos (not many out there, but some are pretty good, eventhough none tell a complete tutorial) and browsing through the manual taking notes.
I have played Coral Sea to its conclusion. It ended in a draw. I believe due to the fact that the Japanese managed to make a big attack with their large carrier TF in the last two days of the scenario causing lots of damage to my ships.
I did prevent them from getting near to Port Moresby though.
Seeing the amount of aircraft they brought with them, I am wondering how one could ever turn this into a win, without just running circles with your Carrier groups hoping the Japanese will follow them instead of invading Port Moresby before the timer runs out.
This scenario doesn't even involve production and supply, but its there with a lesson I would say. It just seems like your tools are pretty limited.
Is a draw a common result? Did I do well with a draw? Should I continue to Guadalcanal?
Quote from: Yskonyn on October 20, 2015, 11:04:38 AM
It's not stopping me, damnit! :knuppel2:
Seriously,though, its that time again; the 'Let's learn this monster'-itch has returned.
The last few days most of my spare time has been devoted to watching YT videos (not many out there, but some are pretty good, eventhough none tell a complete tutorial) and browsing through the manual taking notes.
I have played Coral Sea to its conclusion. It ended in a draw. I believe due to the fact that the Japanese managed to make a big attack with their large carrier TF in the last two days of the scenario causing lots of damage to my ships.
I did prevent them from getting near to Port Moresby though.
Seeing the amount of aircraft they brought with them, I am wondering how one could ever turn this into a win, without just running circles with your Carrier groups hoping the Japanese will follow them instead of invading Port Moresby before the timer runs out.
This scenario doesn't even involve production and supply, but its there with a lesson I would say. It just seems like your tools are pretty limited.
Is a draw a common result? Did I do well with a draw? Should I continue to Guadalcanal?
I think Guadalcanal is better for 'learning' the game, as you'll be dealing with more aspects. Loading troops, dealing with supplies, searching for the Enemy, etc...
Man - every time someone "resurrects" these monster game threads, it puts me in the mood for one.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 20, 2015, 11:41:16 AM
Man - every time someone "resurrects" these monster game threads, it puts me in the mood for one.
Me too. Haven't played if for years, but it's going back on my HD today. It'd be great if Grigsby updated the UI and graphics to match War in the West/East.
Quote from: IronX on October 20, 2015, 11:56:27 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 20, 2015, 11:41:16 AM
Man - every time someone "resurrects" these monster game threads, it puts me in the mood for one.
Me too. Haven't played if for years, but it's going back on my HD today. It'd be great if Grigsby updated the UI and graphics to match War in the West/East.
Strange timing...I just re-downloaded the initial non-AE version today and started to give it another go.
For those feeling the WitP itch -- I can't recommend Chemkid's glorious modded WitPAE maps strongly enough:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3696410 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3696410)
Completely transformed the game for me. I know it doesn't give as precise an indication of terrain types as the vanilla map (although you can always toggle the map terrain -- F6? or something) -- but it is *so* much more pleasing to the eye and atmospheric / reminiscent of WW2-era cartography than vanilla that I could never go back.
Very nice. I'll definitely give them a try.
Heh. I was thinking about re-installing this game today as well. Tremor in the force or something I guess.
Just be aware that it can be a bit tricky to run well on Win 8/10 if that's what you have. There was about a five second delay between clicking on something and getting a response for me. I played around with some of the switches in the shortcut and managed to get it to work well (see Matrix forums).
Quote from: IronX on October 20, 2015, 04:54:49 PM
Just be aware that it can be a bit tricky to run well on Win 8/10 if that's what you have. There was about a five second delay between clicking on something and getting a response for me. I played around with some of the switches in the shortcut and managed to get it to work well (see Matrix forums).
Yeah there is a switch to fix that..
Here is the command line I have on my son's laptop (which he took to school)
"C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -deepColor -cpu4 -skipVideo -px1366 -py768
I think the -deepColor is the 'fix'
Thanks for the heads up on that- I do have Win 10.
The problem with WitP:AE is that it's so bloody long. On the one hand it can be kind of groovy to have such control over every aspect of fighting the Pacific war. I suppose there was a point where I would have desired it. But at this point I simply don't have the stamina to devote so much of my gaming time to a single game. And that really is what it takes if you want to get anywhere with it. There are simply way too many excellent games out there waiting to be played to invest all of my time in WitP.
And further, I agree that the UI is simply painful to use. Again, there was a time where it didn't bother me as much but the endless clicking on those little buttons, and all the idiosyncrasies that occur when going through the screens, it's all just too much.
What I think I'd prefer at this point is more of an operational level game. I'd like to have various campaigns to play through using the WitP engine; not just Guadalcanal but others, even fictional ones.
It's hard to admit it's just too much game, especially as I'm such a Pacific war fanboy. But I don't know that I'll ever get around to really immersing myself in the grand campaign again this lifetime.
Quote from: Herman Hum on November 29, 2012, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: Toonces on November 29, 2012, 10:30:14 PM
AE is just plain hard
Unnecessarily so, IMO. Personally, I find the interface time-consuming and arduous. Most of my time is wasted hunting down commands and clicking a zillion times to accomplish the simplest tasks. :(
^ This.
Quote from: Toonces on October 20, 2015, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Herman Hum on November 29, 2012, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: Toonces on November 29, 2012, 10:30:14 PM
AE is just plain hard
Unnecessarily so, IMO. Personally, I find the interface time-consuming and arduous. Most of my time is wasted hunting down commands and clicking a zillion times to accomplish the simplest tasks. :(
^ This.
How many clicks did it take to resurrect that response? :P
The interface lag doesn't get fixed by the -DeepColor switch.
Its a combination of -dd_sw and -multiaudio that did the trick for me.
Also the -SingleCpuStart combined with the -cpu# switch (use a number for the #) helped spreeding up the game.
But the readme has info on what and why all the switches.
Bottomline: the game runs fine on W10.
Too bad most of you don't go into detail about my questions. :) I'll just be moving on to Guadalcanal.
Some quys on the matrixforums wrote that any outcome as a draw without losing carriers should be considered a win in Coral Sea. The Japanese can't take Port Moresby of course.
Quote from: Toonces on October 20, 2015, 07:23:25 PM
Thanks for the heads up on that- I do have Win 10.
The problem with WitP:AE is that it's so bloody long. On the one hand it can be kind of groovy to have such control over every aspect of fighting the Pacific war. I suppose there was a point where I would have desired it. But at this point I simply don't have the stamina to devote so much of my gaming time to a single game. And that really is what it takes if you want to get anywhere with it. There are simply way too many excellent games out there waiting to be played to invest all of my time in WitP.
And further, I agree that the UI is simply painful to use. Again, there was a time where it didn't bother me as much but the endless clicking on those little buttons, and all the idiosyncrasies that occur when going through the screens, it's all just too much.
What I think I'd prefer at this point is more of an operational level game. I'd like to have various campaigns to play through using the WitP engine; not just Guadalcanal but others, even fictional ones.
It's hard to admit it's just too much game, especially as I'm such a Pacific war fanboy. But I don't know that I'll ever get around to really immersing myself in the grand campaign again this lifetime.
What do you mean it takes a long time to play. Atilla60 and I just finished our PM game after only 4½-5 years. stop being whiney
Was that for a scenario covering just the early war, or was it the whole thing ?
(And I'm assuming the whole thing doesn't include the Japanese war in China in the mid-thirties).
Quote from: IronX on October 20, 2015, 11:56:27 AM
It'd be great if Grigsby updated the UI and graphics to match War in the West/East.
I actually think the UI in WitE/W is considerably worse than WitPAE's. In fact, I can't think of a game whose UI I despise more than WitE's.
WitPAE's UI leaves *a lot* to be desired, that's for sure (hence the need to supplement the game with 3rd party apps like WitP Tracker and Combat Reporter). But for all the frustrations, it has a kind of quirky endearing quality to it. WitE's UI is a soulless abomination. I'm still dumbfounded, all these years later, at how bad it is. I have made numerous attempts to 'get over it' to play the game, but to me it's an insuperable obstacle to enjoyment.
(...as you can see, I have some strong feelings on this subject ;))
I was thinking about this thread some more today.
I think what this game would benefit from (which it won't, but maybe a future game?) is a reduction in scope. There is just too much information that needs to be managed for one person.
My idea for a game like this would be to borrow some ideas from the board game Pacific War. Specifically, rather than fighting the whole game out over the whole map using every unit I would compress things down into operations. The player could pick or design the operation they wanted to conduct, the units he wanted to use form those that are available, and then the game would scope to that area. Units would flow into or out of the operational area as required, handled by the AI.
Maybe the way I would design this would be to separate the map into subsets. The player would pick his subset area (Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Midway, Philippines, etc.) and then pick an objective from a list- seize Port Moresby, seize Manilla, etc. A list of available forces would be generated from the database dependent on what had happened previously, or what is not being used by the AI at a strategic "off map" level that the player wouldn't control. He would allocate those forces in broad ways and then the game would start with the units on the map and the game would run until the objective was met, or not met over some given time.
I'm not talking about a scripted campaign, but more where the player directs operational objectives and the game scales down to whatever he dictates. Meanwhile the AI handles higher level strategic moves and the war evolves on those lines. Perhaps the player gives broad strategic objectives from a list, and the game does macro-level wargaming under the hood that influences the rest of the game.
Anyway, the idea is to make the game more manageable at a level consistent with a single commander. Even current WitP would work if it would automate and streamline much of the work. Things like building task forces, training units, describing search arcs, resupplying outer areas, ASW patrols, heck even submarine warfare; there is a lot that is just too in the weeds.
Quote from: Toonces on October 21, 2015, 02:31:17 PM
I was thinking about this thread some more today.
I think what this game would benefit from (which it won't, but maybe a future game?) is a reduction in scope. There is just too much information that needs to be managed for one person.
My idea for a game like this would be to borrow some ideas from the board game Pacific War. Specifically, rather than fighting the whole game out over the whole map using every unit I would compress things down into operations. The player could pick or design the operation they wanted to conduct, the units he wanted to use form those that are available, and then the game would scope to that area. Units would flow into or out of the operational area as required, handled by the AI.
Maybe the way I would design this would be to separate the map into subsets. The player would pick his subset area (Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Midway, Philippines, etc.) and then pick an objective from a list- seize Port Moresby, seize Manilla, etc. A list of available forces would be generated from the database dependent on what had happened previously, or what is not being used by the AI at a strategic "off map" level that the player wouldn't control. He would allocate those forces in broad ways and then the game would start with the units on the map and the game would run until the objective was met, or not met over some given time.
I'm not talking about a scripted campaign, but more where the player directs operational objectives and the game scales down to whatever he dictates. Meanwhile the AI handles higher level strategic moves and the war evolves on those lines. Perhaps the player gives broad strategic objectives from a list, and the game does macro-level wargaming under the hood that influences the rest of the game.
Anyway, the idea is to make the game more manageable at a level consistent with a single commander. Even current WitP would work if it would automate and streamline much of the work. Things like building task forces, training units, describing search arcs, resupplying outer areas, ASW patrols, heck even submarine warfare; there is a lot that is just too in the weeds.
Guadalcanal is a very nice size for someone who does not want to get overwhelmed by Grand Campaign. It's a lot longer than Coral Sea!
Quote from: Tuna on October 21, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
Guadalcanal is a very nice size for someone who does not want to get overwhelmed by Grand Campaign. It's a lot longer than Coral Sea!
Also a great PBEM scenario. I used to just play this one to death. It's like a sequel / remake of Uncommon Valor.
Quote from: jomni on October 21, 2015, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: Tuna on October 21, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
Guadalcanal is a very nice size for someone who does not want to get overwhelmed by Grand Campaign. It's a lot longer than Coral Sea!
Also a great PBEM scenario. I used to just play this one to death. It's like a sequel / remake of Uncommon Valor.
How close is the comparison? I have a copy of UV somewhere I found on a store bargain bin a decade ago (
yes kids, once upon a time Matrix games were also sold in mall stores) and if it would make a good intro I'll install it before trying out a turn or two of WITP:AE.
I stopped playing AE because the AI simply can't handle the GC and I don't have the will to play it via email. I am not going to play the damn thing daily for the next six years it would take to play it that way.
I very much enjoyed the game after I got over the learning cliff and early game micromanagement mess. Unfortunately as I played I began to realize the AI was not putting up a decent fight and mismanaging its resources. I loaded my save for the other side and have never played the game again. The AI was just doing extremely dumb stuff. I will not invest that much time into a game with a flawed AI.
Swatter that raises my eyebrows, cause the most common thing I read about playing the AI is that it absolutely aces at logistics handling and due to the scope of the game playing against a Human opponent who leaves gaps here and there makes for a more Dynamic game.
Did you play on anything other than historic difficulty?
Quote from: Staggerwing on October 21, 2015, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: jomni on October 21, 2015, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: Tuna on October 21, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
Guadalcanal is a very nice size for someone who does not want to get overwhelmed by Grand Campaign. It's a lot longer than Coral Sea!
Also a great PBEM scenario. I used to just play this one to death. It's like a sequel / remake of Uncommon Valor.
How close is the comparison? I have a copy of UV somewhere I found on a store bargain bin a decade ago (yes kids, once upon a time Matrix games were also sold in mall stores) and if it would make a good intro I'll install it before trying out a turn or two of WITP:AE.
Basically the same gamepaly wise. UV has more scensrio variants. But AE sure has better graphics and more realistic results. The sunk carriers and other ships in UV respawns.
I don't have the AE edition but do have the original. Both are suffering some Windows 10 issues that are covered on the Matrix forums. For some reason there is a long 5-6 second delay from when you click a button to when the next window opens or order is issued. It permeates all aspects of the game. To myself, and some others, it makes the game unplayable. The solutions posted on the Matrix forums require some sort of manually inputted code changes that I just couldn't make sense of (yes, I am quite unskilled in this regard). Hopefully a future patch will fix this issue, but for now it remains unplayable for me.
I've always said the making AE with out the friendly AI controled zones was a huge mistake. I often think about firing up old witp because it has this feature, but then I miss out on the AE improvements. I would play this game to death if you could automate everything and get good results, leaving the player to focus on combat operations.
Quote from: Rayfer on October 22, 2015, 08:15:40 AM
The solutions posted on the Matrix forums require some sort of manually inputted code changes that I just couldn't make sense of (yes, I am quite unskilled in this regard).
It's pretty straight forward.
1. Make a new shortcut from the game file. That is, right click on the .exe file and select Shortcut.
2. Right click on the shortcut and select Properties.
3. Select the Shortcut tab.
4. In the box labelled Target:, add a space at the end of the line "War in the Pacific.exe" and type -deepColor
That should fix the lag issue.
You can add other switches such as screen resolution e.g., -px2048 - py1152 and so on with a space between each switch.
I've always found i need to set the CPU affinity also to get it to run smoothly.
Quote from: Yskonyn on October 22, 2015, 01:57:17 AM
Swatter that raises my eyebrows, cause the most common thing I read about playing the AI is that it absolutely aces at logistics handling and due to the scope of the game playing against a Human opponent who leaves gaps here and there makes for a more Dynamic game.
Did you play on anything other than historic difficulty?
The computer handles logistics. I wouldn't say it handles it better than humans, because humans have a better idea where not to send convoys. Humans react much faster to threats to supply lines and find alternate routes much better. The AI I played against lost many cargo ships because it couldn't react fast enough to bases that it lost that were across its supply line. There are tons of cargo ships, though, which is why most people overlook deficiencies in AI logistics handling.
In WitP:AE, taking bases in most cases requires a substantial combined arms operation. You must have airpower to cover the landings. You must have transports to haul the troops. You must have surface groups that cover the landings. You must have follow on convoys to keep everything supplied. And you must have the supply line afterwards under some sort of air umbrella that prevents that supply line from being cut off by air. The AI only gets the transports and cargo ships together, it doesn't coordinate those elements with air cover.
In my game the Allied AI attempted a historical invasion of Guadacanal (Yay for historicism!) where over a period of two months attempted to land perhaps 3 divisions on there. Fortunately, I already took the island and had surface ships waiting in harbor and substantial land and carrier based airpower in the region. They didn't support their landing with either surface combatants or air power. None. They lost everything. Anyone who has played AE knows just how many transports and support ships it takes to support a 3 division operation. They lost every single ship.
Finally, after the battle was decided (all ground forces were destroyed), the AI then sent in battleships, cruisers, and destroyers (unsupported by air) to contest control of the seas around Guadacanal. They lost it all. After the huge slaughter, I loaded up the save from the allied side to see where his carriers were. The AI had 5 USN heavy fleet carriers in freaking India.
Edit- You took issue with my use of the word "resources". I meant resources as in combat forces.
i think even the AI designers have said they can only write scripts that say 'go take Rabaul', or 'go take Darwin' and ramp up the aggression to make it harder - but if youre there first the AI is stuck in the script trying to take Rabaul/Darwin
on the flip side
THAT is the reason i play PBEM because a human is far better at it as youve alluded to - theres no time limit to get dragged down by - why 6 years? KyzBP and me are currently scheduled to be done in 12 years - if were both still alive and the skynet hasnt taken us over whats the problem - i really like the thought of one of those long drawn out chess play by mail games that takes 2 old friends 30 years to do - were just doing it with a PC game
The caveat being that your opponent knows what he is doing. Tuna and I started playing a PBEM game of the Guadalcanal campaign but I wasn't familiar enough with amphibious operations and simply could not get my troops to load (still have no idea how to get landing craft across an ocean) and I ended up conceding early out of sheer frustration. Sorry about that Tuna. I've been playing against the AI at my own pace and slowly learning (still can't get my Pt. Moresby invasion force on the transports though).
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 22, 2015, 03:30:14 PM
The caveat being that your opponent knows what he is doing. Tuna and I started playing a PBEM game of the Guadalcanal campaign but I wasn't familiar enough with amphibious operations and simply could not get my troops to load (still have no idea how to get landing craft across an ocean) and I ended up conceding early out of sheer frustration. Sorry about that Tuna. I've been playing against the AI at my own pace and slowly learning (still can't get my Pt. Moresby invasion force on the transports though).
No problem I was just as noobish as you.. We were both asking a lot of questions.. I really thought you were kicking my ass Carrier wise.. a lot of my carriers were at Davey Jones Locker or hurting puppies... But it was a good 'learning' experience. I probably should've hit the AI after as well (Stupid World or Warships sucked me away!).
Quote from: Rayfer on October 22, 2015, 08:15:40 AM
I don't have the AE edition but do have the original. Both are suffering some Windows 10 issues that are covered on the Matrix forums. For some reason there is a long 5-6 second delay from when you click a button to when the next window opens or order is issued. It permeates all aspects of the game. To myself, and some others, it makes the game unplayable. The solutions posted on the Matrix forums require some sort of manually inputted code changes that I just couldn't make sense of (yes, I am quite unskilled in this regard). Hopefully a future patch will fix this issue, but for now it remains unplayable for me.
It is not a Windows 10 issue, I was getting it on Windows 7. It happens after you end the turn and combat is resolved and another turn begins. All you do is save the game right after the new turn begins and reload that save. The UI reaction speed then returns to normal.
Quote from: Swatter on October 22, 2015, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: Rayfer on October 22, 2015, 08:15:40 AM
I don't have the AE edition but do have the original. Both are suffering some Windows 10 issues that are covered on the Matrix forums. For some reason there is a long 5-6 second delay from when you click a button to when the next window opens or order is issued. It permeates all aspects of the game. To myself, and some others, it makes the game unplayable. The solutions posted on the Matrix forums require some sort of manually inputted code changes that I just couldn't make sense of (yes, I am quite unskilled in this regard). Hopefully a future patch will fix this issue, but for now it remains unplayable for me.
It is not a Windows 10 issue, I was getting it on Windows 7. It happens after you end the turn and combat is resolved and another turn begins. All you do is save the game right after the new turn begins and reload that save. The UI reaction speed then returns to normal.
Swatter....it happened to me right out of the gate, first turn of the tutorial, without ever ending a turn. Everything I clicked on took 5-6 seconds to open. Perhaps yours was a different issue?
Quote from: IronX on October 22, 2015, 11:35:58 AM
Quote from: Rayfer on October 22, 2015, 08:15:40 AM
The solutions posted on the Matrix forums require some sort of manually inputted code changes that I just couldn't make sense of (yes, I am quite unskilled in this regard).
It's pretty straight forward.
1. Make a new shortcut from the game file. That is, right click on the .exe file and select Shortcut.
2. Right click on the shortcut and select Properties.
3. Select the Shortcut tab.
4. In the box labelled Target:, add a space at the end of the line "War in the Pacific.exe" and type -deepColor
That should fix the lag issue.
You can add other switches such as screen resolution e.g., -px2048 - py1152 and so on with a space between each switch.
Thanks ironx....I'll give it a try. I remember the Matrix posters talking about switches but I have no idea what one is. Your steps seem pretty straight forward.
It seems my issue is different then. Sorry to hear, because the UI lag was very annoying until I figured out my simple work around.
I got bad UI lag when attempting to run Uncommon Valor on Vista years ago. Pretty much unplayable.
WitP-AE didn't have that on the pair of Win7 machines I tried it on, but I wouldn't have been surprised if it did. The terrible UI always had somewhat sluggish performance, too, no matter what it was running on.
Quote from: Rayfer on October 22, 2015, 04:08:34 PM
Quote from: IronX on October 22, 2015, 11:35:58 AM
Quote from: Rayfer on October 22, 2015, 08:15:40 AM
The solutions posted on the Matrix forums require some sort of manually inputted code changes that I just couldn't make sense of (yes, I am quite unskilled in this regard).
It's pretty straight forward.
1. Make a new shortcut from the game file. That is, right click on the .exe file and select Shortcut.
2. Right click on the shortcut and select Properties.
3. Select the Shortcut tab.
4. In the box labelled Target:, add a space at the end of the line "War in the Pacific.exe" and type -deepColor
That should fix the lag issue.
You can add other switches such as screen resolution e.g., -px2048 - py1152 and so on with a space between each switch.
Thanks ironx....I'll give it a try. I remember the Matrix posters talking about switches but I have no idea what one is. Your steps seem pretty straight forward.
Excellent....it worked...!
So here is a question (possibly dumb) - if you paradrop or amphibious assault an underdeveloped island (port size 0), how do you then get the troops off the island?
You can drop off and pick up stuff on non-base hexes, its just very slow. Loading and unloading troops isn't too bad, depending on what you are using, but unloading supplies takes forever.
Quote from: Swatter on October 25, 2015, 09:50:38 PM
You can drop off and pick up stuff on non-base hexes, its just very slow. Loading and unloading troops isn't too bad, depending on what you are using, but unloading supplies takes forever.
When I try to pick up troops I get the message that the TF has to be docked which is an issue with the level of port. For a level 1 port I was able to send some barges in to pick up my paratroops. Am I missing something? The manual mentions TFs can load/unload cargo without being docked at any level port (at a reduced rate), but does this apply to troops?
edit:
I may have this figured out. I just tried loading with an xAKL, and was able to begin the loading process. Not sure why I was having problems before. I appreciate the reply.
Not all ship types Carry troops. Perhaps you tried an incompatible ship?
Quote from: Yskonyn on October 26, 2015, 12:24:03 AM
Not all ship types Carry troops. Perhaps you tried an incompatible ship?
I'm not really sure what happened. I'm still working on my Day 1 turn and was running a few turns out, experimenting with ASW patrol arcs and ASW TFs, when I decided to try out some paradrops and air supply drops. Got to wondering how long it would take to pluck them off with an underdeveloped (or non-existent) port, and I *thought* I tried to pick them up with a diverted invasion TF which had room to load a couple hundred troops.
Anyway, all seems well now, though I may regret giving the US AI "the good stuff", with respect to their torps, at the start of the war. It's going to take some time to train up my pilot's ASW skills - I'm hoping I can just kind of disrupt them enough with the TFs to buy me that time. I'm going to try a few sub chasers with a DD sprinkled in to share some fuel so they can remain on station longer. Should be interesting.
The port rules (docking, rearming, and repairing) are very detailed. Just understand you will not learn everything at once, nor is it required that you do. You can pick up things a little at a time and still effectively conduct the war.
As for the torpedo rule- switching to the non-historical setting will give you problems you don't need early in the game. You will be struggling with so many details in the beginning that you won't need allied submarines contributing to your woe. I'm not sure if you can switch it back once the game has started, but it you have a choice you should turn it to unreliable.
I know you have invested much money in the game, but read my post about the AI I wrote earlier. The AI doesn't handle its carriers well as the Allies. The AI is probably better at playing Japan.
Quote from: Swatter on October 26, 2015, 05:04:40 PM
The port rules (docking, rearming, and repairing) are very detailed. Just understand you will not learn everything at once, nor is it required that you do. You can pick up things a little at a time and still effectively conduct the war.
As for the torpedo rule- switching to the non-historical setting will give you problems you don't need early in the game. You will be struggling with so many details in the beginning that you won't need allied submarines contributing to your woe. I'm not sure if you can switch it back once the game has started, but it you have a choice you should turn it to unreliable.
I know you have invested much money in the game, but read my post about the AI I wrote earlier. The AI doesn't handle its carriers well as the Allies. The AI is probably better at playing Japan.
I'm hoping for a tough game. I dislike investing a significant amount of time into a playthrough (and this is about as epic as it gets) only to find I've got a certain path to victory. I would much prefer a crushing defeat that I can learn from. I imagine that if I played as the Allies, I would have to have some house rules about 4E bombing to avoid crushing the AI.
I may have to do the same sort of thing here as Japan, we will see. I am going to use a CS to resize a couple float squadrons for ASW duty, though I'm not going to go whole hog gamey. Your post about the AI's lack of coordination wrt it's carriers is worrying though. What version were you running when it occurred?
I'm currently playing on Hard and planning on switching to Very Hard for a day or two each month. I recall reading somewhere that technique seemed to be a decent middle ground in terms of giving the AI a boost. I'm probably going to get stomped pretty hard. If thing are going especially poorly I will try flipping the torps back to historical. In one of my test runs I did lose an oiler to sub attack right off the bat, ug. Well... Damn the torpedoes. Four bells! heh.
edit: forgot a question I was going to ask - I'm now thinking of some of my ASW TFs as like 2-3 subchasers with a high endurance PB as it seems a better match in terms of speed and the DD is probably better used elsewhere. Is this a common ASW TF? I presume the PB will be able to share some fuel with the chasers as the DD did.
If only hermann could fix it..... :uglystupid2:
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on October 26, 2015, 06:48:05 PM
If only hermann could fix it..... :uglystupid2:
If only Hermann was 'fixed'. I hate to imagine another generation of wargamers having to deal with HH 2.0
Judging by the robot voice in his Youtube videos, he'll likely outlast the cockroaches.
Quote from: Dread Rlyeh on October 26, 2015, 05:42:34 PM
Quote from: Swatter on October 26, 2015, 05:04:40 PM
The port rules (docking, rearming, and repairing) are very detailed. Just understand you will not learn everything at once, nor is it required that you do. You can pick up things a little at a time and still effectively conduct the war.
As for the torpedo rule- switching to the non-historical setting will give you problems you don't need early in the game. You will be struggling with so many details in the beginning that you won't need allied submarines contributing to your woe. I'm not sure if you can switch it back once the game has started, but it you have a choice you should turn it to unreliable.
I know you have invested much money in the game, but read my post about the AI I wrote earlier. The AI doesn't handle its carriers well as the Allies. The AI is probably better at playing Japan.
I'm hoping for a tough game. I dislike investing a significant amount of time into a playthrough (and this is about as epic as it gets) only to find I've got a certain path to victory. I would much prefer a crushing defeat that I can learn from. I imagine that if I played as the Allies, I would have to have some house rules about 4E bombing to avoid crushing the AI.
I may have to do the same sort of thing here as Japan, we will see. I am going to use a CS to resize a couple float squadrons for ASW duty, though I'm not going to go whole hog gamey. Your post about the AI's lack of coordination wrt it's carriers is worrying though. What version were you running when it occurred?
I'm currently playing on Hard and planning on switching to Very Hard for a day or two each month. I recall reading somewhere that technique seemed to be a decent middle ground in terms of giving the AI a boost. I'm probably going to get stomped pretty hard. If thing are going especially poorly I will try flipping the torps back to historical. In one of my test runs I did lose an oiler to sub attack right off the bat, ug. Well... Damn the torpedoes. Four bells! heh.
edit: forgot a question I was going to ask - I'm now thinking of some of my ASW TFs as like 2-3 subchasers with a high endurance PB as it seems a better match in terms of speed and the DD is probably better used elsewhere. Is this a common ASW TF? I presume the PB will be able to share some fuel with the chasers as the DD did.
The higher endurance vessels (patrol boats) should be used for convoy escort if you want to minimize the destroyers you use. Sub chasers are good ASW vessels, but generally have short endurance and require micro-management. My advice would be to create ASW chokepoints with naval vessels like Sub Chasers and liberally use your super long range aircraft for ASW patrols. It takes awhile to setup, but checking a few choke points each turn is better than scouring the map. You will see that a "super highway" naturally evolves as you play the game, cover that as much as possible with aerial ASW.
This might be very interesting :
Trailer for a War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition PBEM matchup : The Historical Gamer vs BalooganCampaign
Starting december 6 they will play the full campaign on a day by day basis (hoping they'll end in a year or five .. - hence the name : refering to a slow moving glacier)
Great if we live long enough. O0
I for one am really looking forward to the links and the start of this venture. Bring it on!
And so it begins ...
And the website : www.operationglacier.com
Does the AE edition have the option for longer game turns, i.e. 2 days, 3 days per turn, rather than the 1 day per turn being used in Operation Glacier? I believe the original WitP did. Ps. great website link, put it on my favorites to follow this unfolding aar. Thanks.
Quote from: Rayfer on December 08, 2015, 09:11:04 AM
Does the AE edition have the option for longer game turns, i.e. 2 days, 3 days per turn, rather than the 1 day per turn being used in Operation Glacier? I believe the original WitP did. Ps. great website link, put it on my favorites to follow this unfolding aar. Thanks.
yep! Witp-ae does have the same days per turn modes. You can change between 1,2 and 3 days per turn.
Cheers!
Thanks CK. So, I've been thinking of taking advantage of the Matrix holiday sale and buying this game. Perusing through their forums I see there is an in-game tracker that can be downloaded that helps manage the game, but to do so seems quite complicated. Am I over-reacting or does it require a degree in computer science to get it working? Thanks.
Quote from: Rayfer on December 08, 2015, 03:16:30 PM
Thanks CK. So, I've been thinking of taking advantage of the Matrix holiday sale and buying this game. Perusing through their forums I see there is an in-game tracker that can be downloaded that helps manage the game, but to do so seems quite complicated. Am I over-reacting or does it require a degree in computer science to get it working? Thanks.
If you love the topic, it might be worth it. I was still learning critical game mechanics 200+ hours into a campaign. I still had more to learn. I ultimately stopped playing because I was dissatisfied with the AI and I didn't want to engage in a MP game that lasted for years. If your only interested in playing as the Allies, the AI can probably do a better job. It ultimately suffers from not knowing how to properly conduct combined arms operations. The AI is not bad, its just the game is so complex.
edit- Ah, you were talking about Tracker. Tracker is not in-game. Its also a Java program, which means you need to install the Java platform. It also stopped working for me after a time. After the first couple of weeks of play, you will understand how supplies and fuel are flowing. Tracker is more useful for the Japanese player, who has a much more complicated set of decisions to make than the Allied player.
Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition is currently on sale for $39.99 U.S. (50% off) at Matrix Games (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral's.Edition).
Not a bad deal. It would certainly make the purchase decision more palatable for someone with more marginal interest in the conflict.
Quote from: Greybriar on December 09, 2015, 06:07:50 AM
Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition is currently on sale for $39.99 U.S. (50% off) at Matrix Games (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral's.Edition).
That is literally
years worth of gaming for under $40. It's a steal.
Is Operation Glacier still alive and well or has it been abandoned? The website's last update was the 1/29/1942 turn.
KyzBP and UnderCoverGeek have a great AAR running on our forum here. They've only made it to April 1942, but it seems to be running strong! Check out the thread (or at least, the Allied side of it) at http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0 (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0)!
One other question for folks here: Does anybody know if this game runs on Windows 10? I'm definitely buying it the next time it goes on sale, but not if it won't run on my machine... :o
It runs on my Windows 10 laptop. I did have to fiddle with the colour settings a bit to get it to work though.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on March 15, 2016, 12:39:47 PM
KyzBP and UnderCoverGeek have a great AAR running on our forum here. They've only made it to April 1942, but it seems to be running strong! Check out the thread (or at least, the Allied side of it) at http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0 (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0)!
One other question for folks here: Does anybody know if this game runs on Windows 10? I'm definitely buying it the next time it goes on sale, but not if it won't run on my machine... :o
Thanks FarAwaySooner...I have been following the aar in these forums and learning from it. I just got this game during the last holiday sale. The Operation Glacier ongoing aar (the link is posted earlier in this thread) was quite well done but seems to be in a hiatus or something. Regarding Windows 10....I'm running the game on Windows 10, it required inputting some 'switches' in the .exe file to fix an issue many of us had with the screens taking 4-5 seconds to open and close during gameplay. There is a long thread in the Matrix forums on how to do this. I'm computer handicapped but was able to do it relatively easy. Since then the game has run very well.
I have had a hankering to fire this bad boy up again. I am downloading from Matrix and installing on my laptop...will I have the stamina to stick with it?
There just isn't another game that does the Pacific as well as WiTP:AE.
Quote from: Toonces on June 13, 2017, 08:11:42 PM
I have had a hankering to fire this bad boy up again. I am downloading from Matrix and installing on my laptop...will I have the stamina to stick with it?
Are you really asking this question? :P
Quote from: Bison on June 13, 2017, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: Toonces on June 13, 2017, 08:11:42 PM
I have had a hankering to fire this bad boy up again. I am downloading from Matrix and installing on my laptop...will I have the stamina to stick with it?
Are you really asking this question? :P
The question is will he have uninstalled it before the weekend?
Quote from: mirth on June 13, 2017, 08:28:04 PM
Quote from: Bison on June 13, 2017, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: Toonces on June 13, 2017, 08:11:42 PM
I have had a hankering to fire this bad boy up again. I am downloading from Matrix and installing on my laptop...will I have the stamina to stick with it?
Are you really asking this question? :P
The question is will he have uninstalled it before the weekend?
I say no, because he hasn't made any scotch fueled posts about the game's complexity.
Is there any fuel greater than scotch?
Quote from: bbmike on June 13, 2017, 08:30:10 PM
Is there any fuel greater than scotch?
Scotch that is drank from a pair of Uggs.
Toonces has a better chance of running the Patriots offense than figuring out WitP:AE.
That sounds like a PBEM challenge.
If I survive Origins and you're still playing the game, we can talk about it.
GAME ON!!!! \m/
I wonder if it will be cheaper on steam? Wait it's not on steam. War in the East is.
Is this WEGO. Or do ships get to evade each other by taking turns that let the chase become less dynamic?
I want to get this as a mate really wants opponents for it in his time zone here down under.
Hope the steam sales somehow make this one cheaper.
Quote from: Destraex on June 14, 2017, 04:57:35 AM
I wonder if it will be cheaper on steam? Wait it's not on steam. War in the East is.
Is this WEGO. Or do ships get to evade each other by taking turns that let the chase become less dynamic?
I want to get this as a mate really wants opponents for it in his time zone here down under.
Hope the steam sales somehow make this one cheaper.
It is WEGO. Play the smallest possible scenarios to get a feel for it before you get into the whole war.
HOLY MOLY. Next time this is on special. BAM! (I probably asked that question before... long week)
Quote from: Destraex on June 14, 2017, 05:14:48 AM
HOLY MOLY. Next time this is on special. BAM!
Yes, this is the Dr Shivago of military warfare sims
Quote from: Destraex on June 14, 2017, 04:57:35 AM
I wonder if it will be cheaper on steam? Wait it's not on steam. War in the East is.
Is this WEGO. Or do ships get to evade each other by taking turns that let the chase become less dynamic?
I want to get this as a mate really wants opponents for it in his time zone here down under.
Hope the steam sales somehow make this one cheaper.
WitP:AE is a very hard, very time-consuming game. It has a horribly antiquated UI, doing simple things takes many clicks. It is micro-management hell. It has a lot of very confusing, non-intuitive rules for just about everything.
It is a fantastically ambitious and rewarding game, but it is not for the feint of heart, and it requires a certain amount of commitment to learn the rules and suffer through the UI in order to get at the gem underneath.
I have seen it on sale a number of times. Hold out for one of the big Matrix sales and it will almost certainly be 30-50% off.
I've always just jumped in on the Grand Campaign. I wish someone had finished the AI for the May 1942 start, which was my favorite in vanilla.
I'm thinking this time around to just go with Guadalcanal. That's still a good 200 turns, but with the smaller amount of map and forces I might be able to complete it over the summer.
It's like hiking the Appalachian trail. Many start but few finish and it takes forever (or like mirths sex life)
Uncommon valor is another older version of WITP with smaller scenarios (think coral sea etc) you might find that available cheaper to get a feel for the game
Con
I really liked Uncommon Valor. I gave my copy away to...ah I can't remember his name anymore, but he always had a baseball player as his avatar. Anyway, WitP Original had some smaller scenarios, and so I felt that really made Uncommon Valor redundant. I kind of wish I had held onto it now, though. It's a much more manageable game for sure.
Sounds like UV needs some workarounds to get working in Windows 10. I might be willing to try that if it goes on sale for $10.
This will get you started : 5 hours and 9 hours video by Herman Humm
Quote from: Toonces on June 14, 2017, 06:55:38 AM
Sounds like UV needs some workarounds to get working in Windows 10. I might be willing to try that if it goes on sale for $10.
And so it begins...or is it ends...
Quote from: Toonces on June 14, 2017, 06:55:38 AM
Sounds like UV needs some workarounds to get working in Windows 10. I might be willing to try that if it goes on sale for $10.
Has anyone tried playing UV or WitP using some flavor of linux and WINE?
I wonder if some of the old-games-on-WIN10 issues could be solved that way, either dual boot or second comp, now that using older versions of Windows has become a big security issue.
Quote from: Pete Dero on June 14, 2017, 07:00:04 AM
This will get you started : 5 hours and 9 hours video by Herman Humm
14 hours of listening to Herman Humm will cause suicide long before mastery of this game.
Quote from: Pete Dero on June 14, 2017, 07:00:04 AM
This will get you started : 5 hours and 9 hours video by Herman Humm
...
:o
Even the newer versions of the game have a scenario that covers the UV game doesn't it? I never played the grand campaign, just the "shorter scenarios. Its been years since I played, but I always think of my friend that spent two years playing the first year of the war.
^ I think so. I just reinstalled, and the latest patch puts some new player-made scenarios in there. I'll check and get back.
LOL, I guess I never did get back...
So I finally got this up and running today. Believe it or not, I've never really played any of the scenarios except the grand campaign. Today I decided to try the Coral Sea scenario (15 turns) just to see what it's like with a tighter focus.
I have to say that it was shockingly fun! While the game really shines in the grand campaign, the nice tight focus of Coral Sea was far more manageable while allowing for a number of important decisions to be made. I managed to knock it out as the U.S. in about 4 hours (fought to a draw).
I have this idea of trying to learn the editor and perhaps making my own small scenario. The game itself has a ton of potential. I'm not sure why more small scenarios, at least those featuring the major carrier battles, don't exist.
Quote from: Toonces on March 01, 2020, 06:07:31 PM
LOL, I guess I never did get back...
So I finally got this up and running today. Believe it or not, I've never really played any of the scenarios except the grand campaign. Today I decided to try the Coral Sea scenario (15 turns) just to see what it's like with a tighter focus.
I have to say that it was shockingly fun! While the game really shines in the grand campaign, the nice tight focus of Coral Sea was far more manageable while allowing for a number of important decisions to be made. I managed to knock it out as the U.S. in about 4 hours (fought to a draw).
I have this idea of trying to learn the editor and perhaps making my own small scenario. The game itself has a ton of potential. I'm not sure why more small scenarios, at least those featuring the major carrier battles, don't exist.
It's a fun game. Maybe too fun. I ended up being Mengjiao because:
1) I tried to edit the Japanese into world dominance with better heavy fighters such as the "Thunderball" a KI-43 (I think) with better everything.
as compensation the Allied player got a lot of Political points ...okay so they always won...
2) I could not find any Japanese poets that I liked as much as Late Tang Chinese (well -- MengJiao in fact)
However, I have given it up because it took way too much of my time. HLL, World of Warships, Attila 1212 and DCS combined take about 20% as much of my time as War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 14, 2017, 07:13:28 AM
14 hours of listening to Herman Humm will cause suicide long before mastery of this game.
:bd: :notworthy:
Quote from: Toonces on March 01, 2020, 06:07:31 PM
LOL, I guess I never did get back...
So I finally got this up and running today. Believe it or not, I've never really played any of the scenarios except the grand campaign. Today I decided to try the Coral Sea scenario (15 turns) just to see what it's like with a tighter focus.
I have to say that it was shockingly fun! While the game really shines in the grand campaign, the nice tight focus of Coral Sea was far more manageable while allowing for a number of important decisions to be made. I managed to knock it out as the U.S. in about 4 hours (fought to a draw).
I have this idea of trying to learn the editor and perhaps making my own small scenario. The game itself has a ton of potential. I'm not sure why more small scenarios, at least those featuring the major carrier battles, don't exist.
I've seen numerous comments over the years that the smaller scenarios are far more manageable (and also/often more fun) than the main campaign. I've almost picked up the game for just those, but it still intimidates the hell out of me. :hide:
By far the best map ever made for this game. Beautiful. Really updated the game for me! If only WITE2 could look like this!!
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4268822
After reading some of the comments above, what do I need to do besides just installing the game? Mods etc?
Quote from: demjansk1942 on March 30, 2021, 04:07:41 AM
After reading some of the comments above, what do I need to do besides just installing the game? Mods etc?
Much free time.
https://sites.google.com/site/witptracker/home (A management tool for Matrix Games' War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition)
https://sites.google.com/site/witpaecombatreporter/ (Combat Reporter for WITP AE. This tool provides real time monitoring of AE reports while playing the game and represents them in an explorer like view to make it easier to find information and to locate information on the map)
A map mod like Tanaka posted.
I use Chem Kid's Topo 2 Map- https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4513694 (you can download all his maps here : https://www.dropbox.com/s/4x7a1687bc1sp9l/ChemKid.zip?dl=0)
That map is pretty alright. I wish I was 21 again so I could give this game another try. ;D
Don't be too intimidated by this game (at least from the Allies side). You can learn as you go and make mistakes in the early part of the game without killing your chances of victory in the end. I only had a very basic understanding of the game when UCG and I did our AAR's ( http://www.grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0 ). As the Allies, the more you surrender to the Japanese the more manageable the game becomes.
What he said......
I feel you can throw everything at the Japanese to slow them down because as the US once the industrial machine gets rolling it's scary
The Japanese have to treat their carriers like gold dust apart from the odd exception when it's gone it's gone - the Japanese also have to take very good care of their industry and airframe production, again these will just pour out of the US in the end
What I loved about our game was your move into the Kuriles - awesome
Quote from: undercovergeek on March 30, 2021, 04:15:48 PM
What I loved about our game was your move into the Kuriles - awesome
You had me on the ropes or on the mat
everywhere. It was a hail Mary.
That was the most fun I've had on the internet, until OnlyFans came along.
REMATCH, REMATCH!!!! :D
Quote from: demjansk1942 on March 30, 2021, 04:07:41 AM
After reading some of the comments above, what do I need to do besides just installing the game? Mods etc?
An opponent.
Without that, WitP is a pretty, impressive knowledge base, but hardly a game, and certainly not an historical experience IMHO.
Now, with one or several opponents, the stakes are, to put it mildly... another challenge altogether. And, to be honest, will turn a great design into, simply put again, a true work of art.
Quote from: Tuna on November 29, 2012, 10:21:20 PM
I have both.. yet to jump into AE, even though I've owned it over a year.. I wish the Non AE version would get the resolution patch.. but it seems like that version is abandoned.. That's too bad, because it is a good stepping stone into WitP
I think you mean Uncommon Valor? Yeah it is also still a great game I too wish they would patch it to run on modern resolutions...
After UV and WITP many years ago finally really diving into WITPAE. After AI play about to start my first PBEM game. Patience and persistence for sure as you never stop learning something new with this one. The worst part is getting through that first turn it is massive especially as the Japanese. Yes it does take a LOT of work to learn but it's a fun journey! And the forum is great!
"What's stopping you?" A full time job? A family? A real life?
Quote from: Bamilus on September 04, 2021, 01:13:54 PM
"What's stopping you?" A full time job? A family? A real life?
A real life? I need one of those. Which key do I press for that?
Quote from: KyzBP on March 30, 2021, 02:30:43 PM
Don't be too intimidated by this game (at least from the Allies side). You can learn as you go and make mistakes in the early part of the game without killing your chances of victory in the end. I only had a very basic understanding of the game when UCG and I did our AAR's ( http://www.grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0 ). As the Allies, the more you surrender to the Japanese the more manageable the game becomes.
Nice checking out your AAR. Love your use of screenshots. A lot of the AARs on the Matrix forums are pretty drab looking spreadsheets!
Quote from: bobarossa on September 05, 2021, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: Bamilus on September 04, 2021, 01:13:54 PM
"What's stopping you?" A full time job? A family? A real life?
A real life? I need one of those. Which key do I press for that?
Ctrl Alt Del I think
One of Tanaka's posts in another thread got me checking out the WitP:AE forum over at Matrixgames. It seems that WitP:AE is getting a major update. From what I gathered in the thread, the idea is to incorporate much of the best community work and mods from over the years into the game as standard choices. JWilkerson posted the following:
To clarify the scope of the proposed new release for AE. This is what we're looking at:
1 - New/updated scenarios
2 - New/updated map
3 - Updated manual
4 - A few bug fixes (no enhancements)
That said, we welcome all input and will consider all suggestions. But this is NOT planned as a major redo of AE. This effort is primarily to update the game as sold, because that hasn't really happened in many years.
For things like updated scenarios, I think they're planning to both incorporate some of the new, smaller scenarios that have been created along with new AI scripts that another user has created.
It's pretty exciting stuff to see this old game getting renewed love. It's on sale for a mere $16 on the Matrix site right now although you'll have to do some work to get it to work properly at modern resolutions and other issues with Win10. You can make it work with some command line tweaks, it's not hard, but it might now work with a straight-stick install out of the box.
Tanaka has more info on this than I do so maybe he can chime in and summarize the upcoming changes. I don't spend time on the Matrix forums in general.
Thread in question: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5111183
Another post my AndyMac, who creates scenarios and AI scripts, indicated these are the "new/updated" scenarios being worked on:
I am doing the scenarios so as you would expect I will be polishing the 24 that are more or less done above based on my previous work posted to the forum - its unlikely the abandoned ones will make the cut as its too much work for me to do and get the rest ready
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F11987%2F3387E7B3D7E2495184CBA557F9741E40.jpg&hash=5fef7df49f9ae9c8015354b0e36f0f7d849e88a6)
So the list above is the list I am working on for now if anyone has a scenario they have finished especially more small map scenarios happy to look at them I have 24 more or less done just needing polishing and testing
Andy
Quote from: Toonces on December 20, 2021, 02:28:20 PM
One of Tanaka's posts in another thread got me checking out the WitP:AE forum over at Matrixgames. It seems that WitP:AE is getting a major update. From what I gathered in the thread, the idea is to incorporate much of the best community work and mods from over the years into the game as standard choices. JWilkerson posted the following:
To clarify the scope of the proposed new release for AE. This is what we're looking at:
1 - New/updated scenarios
2 - New/updated map
3 - Updated manual
4 - A few bug fixes (no enhancements)
That said, we welcome all input and will consider all suggestions. But this is NOT planned as a major redo of AE. This effort is primarily to update the game as sold, because that hasn't really happened in many years.
For things like updated scenarios, I think they're planning to both incorporate some of the new, smaller scenarios that have been created along with new AI scripts that another user has created.
It's pretty exciting stuff to see this old game getting renewed love. It's on sale for a mere $16 on the Matrix site right now although you'll have to do some work to get it to work properly at modern resolutions and other issues with Win10. You can make it work with some command line tweaks, it's not hard, but it might now work with a straight-stick install out of the box.
Tanaka has more info on this than I do so maybe he can chime in and summarize the upcoming changes. I don't spend time on the Matrix forums in general.
Thread in question: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5111183
You did a great job pretty much covering it. No better time to get this game $16 is a steal and the last major update coming! This is the best computer game ever made in my opinion and probably the most historically accurate. It was made by a team of experts in every field that will probably never come together again. It blows away WITW and WITE1/2 in all naval and air aspects. There are plane and ship battle animations for every unit. Not just abstract numbers like WITW and WITE. Now if WITPAE had the ground game functions of those two it would be unbelievable.
When was this last updated? 2015?
That's the last update I see on their page. I get the impression there's a beta update somewhere but I'm not sure if that's the 2015 update or if there's another one lurking.
Quote from: Toonces on December 20, 2021, 03:55:34 PM
That's the last update I see on their page. I get the impression there's a beta update somewhere but I'm not sure if that's the 2015 update or if there's another one lurking.
Yes the last major patch done was still in Beta (located in the support forum) so they are going to basically do a remaster and bundle in a lot of the improvements that have been done over the years and fix the last remaining bugs and finalize the Beta into one last official patch...
Ladies and gentleman, if the price was the main issue for you, rejoice! WitP:AE, friendly price edition O0
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
-80%, no less! :D
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 29, 2022, 11:56:37 PM
Ladies and gentleman, if the price was the main issue for you, rejoice! WitP:AE, friendly price edition O0
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
-80%, no less! :D
Wow!!! If you are a computer strategist and have interest in the Pacific War, this is a great deal!!!
Quote from: ArizonaTank on August 30, 2022, 08:15:27 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 29, 2022, 11:56:37 PM
Ladies and gentleman, if the price was the main issue for you, rejoice! WitP:AE, friendly price edition O0
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
-80%, no less! :D
Wow!!! If you are a computer strategist and have interest in the Pacific War, this is a great deal!!!
Having (not necessarily playing) this game should be a requirement of membership at Grogheads. :crazy2:
Does playing the Free demo years ago count? :-[ $16 Is a steal.
:-[
Quote from: Gusington on August 30, 2022, 10:55:43 AM
:-[
I have just corrected this omission for myself. Whether I'll ever play it is a whole other issue...
Never played WitP:AE but I was an alpha and beta tester for War in the East and I own WitE2 so that should qualify me.
The old timers here knew this dark secret about me.
I do wonder if any human has ever actually completed one of the grand campaigns.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2022, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: ArizonaTank on August 30, 2022, 08:15:27 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 29, 2022, 11:56:37 PM
Ladies and gentleman, if the price was the main issue for you, rejoice! WitP:AE, friendly price edition O0
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
-80%, no less! :D
Wow!!! If you are a computer strategist and have interest in the Pacific War, this is a great deal!!!
Having (not necessarily playing) this game should be a requirement of membership at Grogheads. :crazy2:
...and I even had the original manual printed up at Staples with comb binding. :bd:
The sheer length and scope of the game turns a PBEM campaign game into a lifestyle choice.
To make it easier on mere mortals...I am wondering if a Grogheads WitP PBEM relay would work.
The basic idea is that two or more players start a game off (you could in theory split commands...having two Japanese players for example. One taking China and the other the Pacific).
When one of them gets tired, or real life intervenes and they can't continue, they pass their side off to the next player on the waiting roster. Players would constantly be rotating.
Would use a Grogheads forum to regulate. Players could be added or dropped from the roster whenever real life allows.
Players could post ops logs every game week or so, to keep the waiting roster informed.
Would probably have to use three day turns...to keep the game moving.
A version of this method is being done for WitE via Discord, and seems to be successful.
Anyway, just a thought... :dreamer:
Quote from: ArizonaTank on August 30, 2022, 03:11:14 PM
The sheer length and scope of the game turns a PBEM campaign game into a lifestyle choice.
To make it easier on mere mortals...I am wondering if a Grogheads WitP PBEM relay would work.
The basic idea is that two or more players start a game off (you could in theory split commands...having two Japanese players for example. One taking China and the other the Pacific).
When one of them gets tired, or real life intervenes and they can't continue, they pass their side off to the next player on the waiting roster. Players would constantly be rotating.
Would use a Grogheads forum to regulate. Players could be added or dropped from the roster whenever real life allows.
Players could post ops logs every game week or so, to keep the waiting roster informed.
Would probably have to use three day turns...to keep the game moving.
A version of this method is being done for WitE via Discord, and seems to be successful.
Anyway, just a thought... :dreamer:
If you have enough takers, I'll create a subforum in the AAR forum and I thank you for being so kind to volunteer to mod it. :clap:
I have the boxed edition with hardcopy manual. Do I get extra credit? :DD
Didn't we have two members here do a campaign one-on-one a few years back? I remember reading the alternating AAR's and was fascinated by the two strategies used. As I recall, it was jointly called by both participants about 1/3 of the way through? Maybe it wasn't here. It was a ways back.
Quote from: Sir Slash on August 30, 2022, 09:25:56 PM
Didn't we have two members here do a campaign one-on-one a few years back? I remember reading the alternating AAR's and was fascinated by the two strategies used. As I recall, it was jointly called by both participants about 1/3 of the way through? Maybe it wasn't here. It was a ways back.
You mean the one discussed earlier in the thread?
https://www.grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13998.0
That is the very one. Thanks Tanaka. Great match BTW.
I am certainly willing to take on the role of protecting the northern Rim of Fire, from Alaska thru the Aleutians! (Since that has the least forces and despite owning every iteration of WitP I remain an absolute newb at it. ;) )
Quote from: Sigwolf on August 30, 2022, 07:36:24 PM
I have the boxed edition with hardcopy manual. Do I get extra credit? :DD
I do too!
Let's make a club, can't fairly treat them people who had to print the manuals as equals can we :coolsmiley: :))
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 30, 2022, 10:22:02 PM
Quote from: Sigwolf on August 30, 2022, 07:36:24 PM
I have the boxed edition with hardcopy manual. Do I get extra credit? :DD
I do too!
Let's make a club, can't fairly treat them people who had to print the manuals as equals can we :coolsmiley: :))
Well here's #3 then.
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 30, 2022, 10:22:02 PM
Quote from: Sigwolf on August 30, 2022, 07:36:24 PM
I have the boxed edition with hardcopy manual. Do I get extra credit? :DD
I do too!
Let's make a club, can't fairly treat them people who had to print the manuals as equals can we :coolsmiley: :))
:tickedoff:
That's a pretty good idea, Arizona!
I suppose a multiplayer team game would involve, on each side, a team leader who would manage the economic side and give general guidance over plans and development for operations in areas. Then under him would be x-players who each have responsibility for branches of the OOB tree(s) (land/air and naval) in general areas: each commander could in principle send his units anywhere on the map while still under his command but this would become quickly unwieldy, so the commanders would operate with some mutually supporting overlap in various assigned areas, transferring forces (and maybe local resources) to and from his allies' command (with the leader reserving the right to also make such assignments.)
When I've seen it done it's by area/zone - you don't want to over complicate things and certainly don't split it into air sea ground - the sea guy will have a heart attack
I played a 2 x 2 and it was very manageable - he was everything east of the Philippines I was everything west
There is no need to get involved with the US economy side of things that bay the Japanese industrial output
I'm retiring at the end of the year but won't have any time until then. If this idea takes flight then I'd love to be put on a waiting list in case someone drops out.
I'm with UCG on this. The only feasible way, IMO, to run an MP campaign with 2+ players per side would be to divide the theater geographically. Splitting up roles would just take far too long IMO.
A multiplayer team game sounds very interesting and fun. I've played one PBEM game as Japan and it is the first turn that is the biotch having to deal with the Japanese economy and all of the moving parts. I did well everywhere except for the Dutch East Indies where my opponent combined all allied carriers and just sat there offshore waiting to destroy anything that approached. Needless to say this allowed me to run wild everywhere else but without that oil I was toast. Many lessons learned.
If I might suggest a great mod if you do not want to deal with the great beast that is the Japanese economy.
Scenario 061 "Simplified Production"
All Japanese plane models except those using jets, rockets and 'foreign engines' use a generic "engine" device, just like the Allied planes do > no more engine management!
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10688&t=309505
Quote from: The_Admiral on August 29, 2022, 11:56:37 PM
Ladies and gentleman, if the price was the main issue for you, rejoice! WitP:AE, friendly price edition O0
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
-80%, no less! :D
That's a helluva deal even if it just sits on my hard drive without investing any time into it.
Groggy
Quote from: Tanaka on August 31, 2022, 10:47:00 PM
A multiplayer team game sounds very interesting and fun. I've played one PBEM game as Japan and it is the first turn that is the biotch having to deal with the Japanese economy and all of the moving parts. I did well everywhere except for the Dutch East Indies where my opponent combined all allied carriers and just sat there offshore waiting to destroy anything that approached. Needless to say this allowed me to run wild everywhere else but without that oil I was toast. Many lessons learned.
If I might suggest a great mod if you do not want to deal with the great beast that is the Japanese economy.
Scenario 061 "Simplified Production"
All Japanese plane models except those using jets, rockets and 'foreign engines' use a generic "engine" device, just like the Allied planes do > no more engine management!
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10688&t=309505
That's half the fun as the Japanese!!
I prefer a game that asks me to pick which tools I use to tighten the screws on my planes for each individual airbase and carrier. When the Americans get that first impact screwdriver in 1943, it really starts to make a difference.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on September 01, 2022, 11:22:29 AM
I prefer a game that asks me to pick which tools I use to tighten the screws on my planes for each individual airbase and carrier. When the Americans get that first impact screwdriver in 1943, it really starts to make a difference.
And don't forget the ability to choose the option to use a right-handed or left-handed hammer!
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on September 01, 2022, 11:22:29 AM
I prefer a game that asks me to pick which tools I use to tighten the screws on my planes for each individual airbase and carrier. When the Americans get that first impact screwdriver in 1943, it really starts to make a difference.
When I played, I just modded things to give the Imperial Army, Navy and so on a lot of stuff
including the "Thunderball" Nick-based cure-all fighterbomber (a failure!). To make it fair, I massively upped the political points thing for the Allies
(and added a few things...the Jules Verne CV and such for example) and the Allies crushed
my Imperial stuff pretty fast. I did that 3 times and lost every time (or gave up by the Summer of '42). It's really the political constraints that hobble the Allies,
not the Imperial Ambitions of the Imperial Empire, or
so I concluded. Maybe I was wrong.
There once was a very gamey aar - I'm unsure whether the game ends if the VPs total is achieved - because there is an actual VP goal to achieve - and the player just went for all the scoring targets Sydney, Moresby, Philippines, Singapore, other oz stuff
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 01, 2022, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: Tanaka on August 31, 2022, 10:47:00 PM
A multiplayer team game sounds very interesting and fun. I've played one PBEM game as Japan and it is the first turn that is the biotch having to deal with the Japanese economy and all of the moving parts. I did well everywhere except for the Dutch East Indies where my opponent combined all allied carriers and just sat there offshore waiting to destroy anything that approached. Needless to say this allowed me to run wild everywhere else but without that oil I was toast. Many lessons learned.
If I might suggest a great mod if you do not want to deal with the great beast that is the Japanese economy.
Scenario 061 "Simplified Production"
All Japanese plane models except those using jets, rockets and 'foreign engines' use a generic "engine" device, just like the Allied planes do > no more engine management!
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10688&t=309505
That's half the fun as the Japanese!!
Lol yes it can be but you better have someone that knows what they are doing or you are screwed haha...
I would also recommend using the newest official public beta patch some good new fixes in there:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=386537
Shoot, you guys are starting to get me interested in going back and trying to understand how Radiation Zones affect Logistics in Shadow Empires...
New Beta Patch Now Available:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=389948
V1.01.27– (Game version shown as 1.8.11.27)
1. Ninth Update – This release is a comprehensive release updating all previous versions to v1.01.27
2. Code Changes
1. Naval support not present at 0(0) port once port is built up
2. Another underway ammo replenishment issue if AE unable to reload the biggest weapon on ship
3. Drawing ship a/c from pool at base uses replacement group if nearby
4. Tweak what is an 'instructor' for TRACOM purposes and allow casualties to them
5. Tweak group training mission not getting many op losses for low experience pilots (increased fatigue of low experienced pilots and aircraft)
6. Aircraft upgrading to blank airframe
7. Mines not removed from ships in non-ML taskforce
8. Repair/maint of seaplane not expending supply (1 point per plane from tender supply if more than seaplane support at base). Exceeding support did expend normal supply.
9. Added confirmation to 'Disband TF' button
Quote from: Tanaka on November 11, 2022, 01:08:37 PM
New Beta Patch Now Available:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=389948
V1.01.27– (Game version shown as 1.8.11.27)
1. Ninth Update – This release is a comprehensive release updating all previous versions to v1.01.27
2. Code Changes
1. Naval support not present at 0(0) port once port is built up
2. Another underway ammo replenishment issue if AE unable to reload the biggest weapon on ship
3. Drawing ship a/c from pool at base uses replacement group if nearby
4. Tweak what is an 'instructor' for TRACOM purposes and allow casualties to them
5. Tweak group training mission not getting many op losses for low experience pilots (increased fatigue of low experienced pilots and aircraft)
6. Aircraft upgrading to blank airframe
7. Mines not removed from ships in non-ML taskforce
8. Repair/maint of seaplane not expending supply (1 point per plane from tender supply if more than seaplane support at base). Exceeding support did expend normal supply.
9. Added confirmation to 'Disband TF' button
Do you know if it is compatable with ongoing campaigns? I would it would be. Thanks.
I can't overstate how awesome it is that a game this old is still getting updates...
Quote from: Rayfer on November 11, 2022, 05:29:10 PM
Quote from: Tanaka on November 11, 2022, 01:08:37 PM
New Beta Patch Now Available:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=389948
V1.01.27– (Game version shown as 1.8.11.27)
1. Ninth Update – This release is a comprehensive release updating all previous versions to v1.01.27
2. Code Changes
1. Naval support not present at 0(0) port once port is built up
2. Another underway ammo replenishment issue if AE unable to reload the biggest weapon on ship
3. Drawing ship a/c from pool at base uses replacement group if nearby
4. Tweak what is an 'instructor' for TRACOM purposes and allow casualties to them
5. Tweak group training mission not getting many op losses for low experience pilots (increased fatigue of low experienced pilots and aircraft)
6. Aircraft upgrading to blank airframe
7. Mines not removed from ships in non-ML taskforce
8. Repair/maint of seaplane not expending supply (1 point per plane from tender supply if more than seaplane support at base). Exceeding support did expend normal supply.
9. Added confirmation to 'Disband TF' button
Do you know if it is compatable with ongoing campaigns? I would it would be. Thanks.
No it is not. There are changes to the data, map, scenarios, art etc that are not listed in the patch notes. I've asked for more details...
Quote from: Sigwolf on November 11, 2022, 07:30:36 PM
I can't overstate how awesome it is that a game this old is still getting updates...
It really is quite a tribute to a game that may never be made again!
I'm very impressed that this gem has gotten an update all these many years after it's release.
It's a total gem, one of the best PC war games ever produced and I'm gonna start a new campaign that I hope to finish before my ultimate demise.
Quote from: gregb41352 on November 12, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
I'm very impressed that this gem has gotten an update all these many years after it's release.
It's a total gem, one of the best PC war games ever produced and I'm gonna start a new campaign that I hope to finish before my ultimate demise.
Agreed. I also plan on trying a new campaign when the update is complete. And yes finishing a game like this is quite an accomplishment haha.
Miracle of miracles it is finally here! :uglystupid2:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=407088
What is this Update About?
This update is NOT WITP: AE2. Its goal is a new final official update for WITP: AE.
For years Michael has been making code fixes/enhancements. Those were informally released on the forum as beta builds, but never fully finished or official. Likewise Andy Mac has been making improvements on the scenarios and new scenarios as well and releasing those informally. Similarly, Andrew Brown has been making corrections and improvements to the standard map. Finally, Brian has also made a new updated manual.
So, this update is about releasing that material formally as the official version of AE you would get if you bought it new from Matrix. We're aiming to have this final public beta update hopefully become official and then to remaster the store full installer to this update level.
Details of the update can be found in the readme file and the posted change list.
----------------------
V1.01.28– 21 May 2024 (Game version shown as 1.8.11.28)
1. Tenth Update – This release is a comprehensive release updating all previous versions to v1.01.28
2. Code Changes
01 - Improve/Correct Seaplane Tender supply handling for seaplanes.
02 - Add fatigue for pilot training based on exp level.
03 - Spend supply for air replacements and upgrades.
04 - Adjust training time for pilots due to player pool adjustments.
05 - Update game version
06 - add extra logic to ignore bad upgrade.
07 - check to see if a valid air type and not same as current type for upgrade.
08 - Correct issue with listing scenarios
09 - remove mines from ship if not minelaying mission
10 - correct issue with TF routing to off map home base
11 - add confirm for TF disband
12 - correct issue with ship refueling
13 - correct issue with off map movement
14 - correct issue with drop tank supply consumption
15 - improve handling for altFontSize
Scenario Changes – Changes from the previous beta update to the 2024 update
The following are some of the more significant database changes that have been made to the 2024 version of scenario 1, as compared to the previous beta update. Many minor changes have not been included in this list.
Device changes:
21 - Added the "Aus Fld Eng Section" engineer device for use in Australian forts.
22 - Added name differences the IJA infantry squads and Chinese rifle squads (based on year of introduction)
23 - The "RAF Regt Section" now upgrades to the British infantry section instead of an Indian infantry section.
24 - The Allied AFV Device "Sherman V Tank" has modified Armour, Anti-Soft and Anti-Armour ratings.
25 - Several allied AFVs have had their build rates increased.
26 - The load cost of the Japanese Aircraft Cannon Device "57mm Ho-401 Cannon" set to 300 (was 0).
Base changes:
27 - Daily Supply and Fuel levels of the Eastern USA base have been increased (after being drastically decreased in the first beta).
28 - 100 daily fuel and supplies added to Balboa in Panama.
29 - The Wirraway III factory at Melbourne has been fixed.
30 - A number of bases added in the first beta have had their victory level values corrected (from being set to 0).
31 - Several newly added bases have had their type correctly set to "Airfield" (from being set to the unused "Secondary Airfield" base type).
32 - Japanese Airfield "Tingchow" (duplicated name) in hex 93, 43 renamed to "Tehchow".
33 - The resources value of the new "Bukit Besi" base have been reduced from 600 to 300.
34 - The "airfield build" and "port build" values of a number of bases added in the first beta have been increased from 0, to more closely match values of other bases in similar terrain.
35 - The Australian base "Casino" has been renamed to "Lismore".
36 - The Indian port "Rameswaram" has been added in hex 31,44
37 - The Indian port "Mannar" has been added in hex 30,45
38 - Several Chinese airfields have had their supply caps increased from 0 to 350.
LCU changes:
39 - Chinese Engineer units "CHINESE AF Base Force" and "CHINESE Port Base Force" now have Chinese rifle squads assigned to them.
40 - Seattle now has a USN base force (as well as Bremerton)
41 - The Malaysian Air Wing LCU no longer has Engineers assigned to it.
42 - New Australian Coastal defence unit "Christmas Is. Batty" has been added at Christmas Island (IO).
Ship Class changes:
43 - British CA Ship class "Leander" front 6" ammunition level corrected to 18.
44 - The USS Colorado upgrade available in 4504 now has an upgrade delay of 150.
45 - U.S. Navy Gleaves/Bristol class destroyers can convert to Ellyson class DMS.
46 - Japanese ship mounted radars changed from "Front" to "All Sides" facing.
Ship changes:
47 - Japanese ship mounted radars changed from 'Front" to "All Sides" facing.
48 - U.S. Navy ship USS Boise withdraws (to take part in the invasion of Sicily in the Mediterranean) on 430601 and returns on 431202.
49 - Numerous U.S. Navy DDs have had their arrival dates adjusted to more accurate dates.
50 - Several U.S. Navy Gleaves/Bristol class DDs changed to appear as Ellyson class DMS: USS Harding, Carmick, Doyle, Endicott, McCook, Fitch.
51 - A number of U.S. Navy DDs that historically withdrew from the theatre now have historic withdrawal dates set (mostly Somers, Gridley, Clemson, Porter class DDs).
52 - A number of U.S. Navy Fletcher class DDs modified to appear on the map at the correct upgrade level.
53 - U.S. Navy AO USS Sepulga added, en route to Pearl Harbor.
54 - U.S. Navy AG USS Boreas added.
55 - U.S. Navy AVD USS Gillis added.
56 - U.S. Navy class "LST Type-II" ships left side 20mm Oerlikons corrected (also for several Mt. Hood class AEs, and .303 cal Lewis MGs on Manoora class AMCs).
57 - U.S. Navy Gleaves/Bristol/Ellyson class DDs added: USS Eberle, Plunkett, Kearny, Woolsey, Ludlow, Edison, Ericsson, Mervine, Quick, Davison, Nelson, Cowie, Knight, Doran, Earle, Butler.
58 - U.S. Navy Benson class DDs added: USS Boyle, Champlin, Murphy, Parker, Coghlan, Kendrick, Laub, MacKenzie, McLanahan, Nields, Ordronaux.
59 - U.S. Navy Benham class DDs added: USS Mayrant, Rhind.
Aircraft changes:
60 - Dutch Fighter aircraft "Brewster B-339D" renamed to "B-339D".
61 - US Army Fighter aircraft "P-40B Tomahawk" renamed to "P-40B Warhawk".
Leader changes:
62 - A number of duplicated leaders have been "de-duplicated".
63 - US Army Large Ground Unit Leader MGEN - Allied Army "Gerhardt, C.H" has been added.
64 - U.S. Army Large Ground Unit Leader MGEN - Allied Army "Almond, Edward M." has been added.
65 - New Zealand Ship Leader CPT - USN "Bevan, R H" has been added.
Pilot changes:
66 - A number of pilots have had their arrival dates changed to match the arrival dates of the air groups they arrive with.
70 - A number of Allied ships that were undergoing refit or repair on 7th December 1941 have had various levels of 'damage' added to them to simulate their conditions and the time needed to compete their refits or repairs. This includes USS Pennsylvania, which is in the Pearl Harbor shipyard on 411207.
71 - USS Nevada withdraws in 430615 for duty in the Atlantic, before returning on 441121.
72 - HMS Prince of Wales – if it survives – withdraws on 430401 for hypothesized duty supporting operations in the Mediterranean, returning on 440901 (The Royal Navy were frequently shifting assets from theatre to theatre as needed. If HMS Repulse survives it does not leave the map, however).
Map Changes – 2024 Map
The following changes have been made to the 2024 map, as compared to the official 2009 map:
80 - A more extensive depiction of the effects of the flooding caused by the diversion of the Yellow River (Huang He) in China. The flooding that resulted from the diversion of the Yellow River is represented by the following changes:
81 - The following hexes are now swamp hexes: 89,44, 88,45, 89,46, 88,47, 89,47, 89,48, 90,48, 89,49, 90,49, 91,49, 92,50.
82 - The railway line and road between hexes 88, 43 and 88,44 (Chengchow) are both cut
83 - The railway line between hexes 88,43 and 89,44 (Kaifeng) is cut
84 - The railway line between hexes 90,49 and 90,50 is cut
85 - The road between hexes 90,46 and 89,48 is cut, and the remainder downgraded from primary to secondary road
86 - Cut rail lines retain their 'track' status for non-rail transport
87 - The destruction of the Peiping-Hankow railway bridge across the Yellow River is now represented as a break in that railway NE of Chengchow.
88 - All road and railway bridges across the Yangzte River between Hankow (85,50) and the coast have been removed.
89 - Some new atolls – all very small in size – have been added in the Caroline Islands:
90 - Puluwat (hex 108,107)
91 - Namonuito (hex 110,105)
92 - Hall Islands (hex 113,106)
93 - Scawfell Island (small island) added in hex 95,148 (just off the coast of Queensland, Australia).
94 - The island of Rendova (large island) in the Solomons now gets its own hex (110,135). It was formerly on the border between that hex and hex 111,134 (part of New Georgia).
95 - The Paracel islands, a very small atoll, has been added in hex 71,67.
96 - The island of Pulo Condore (medium island) has been added in hex 59,75.
97 - The 'Adams Bridge' stretching between India and Ceylon now includes an island (medium sized) in hex 31,44 (Pamban Island) and the railway that connected it to the Indian mainland.
98 - A minor railway line has been added in Burma from Lashio (hex 62,46) to the adjacent hex 61,45. The latter is the location of the Bawdwin mine, which was a significant source of metals. To make use of this addition a scenario will need to include a base in hex 61,45.
99 - Most of the road between Shwebo (hex 59,45) and Myitkyina (hex 64,42) has been downgraded from a secondary road to a track (coincident with the railway between the towns)
100 - A portion of the Ledo Road has been removed between Bhamo (hex 63,44) and Myitkyina (hex 64,42). The Ledo Road was not completed until late 1944.
101 - A missing railway line has been added in Malaya between Kualar Lumpur (hex 49,79) and the adjacent hex 48,79. To make use of the railway line a scenario will need to include a base in hex 48,79 (Port Swettenham).
102 - Several minor inconsistencies between map art and map data for railway lines in China have been corrected, by changing the map data to match the map art. These are mainly railway 'stubs' that have been cleaned up.
103 - The map text for the base 'Manado' changed to 'Menado'.
104 - The map text for the following Soviet bases have been corrected:
105 - Kysyl to Kyzyl
106 - Choybalsan to Choibalsan
107 - The terrain art in hexes 80,13, 81,14 and 81,15 changed from Clear to Forest+Rough so that the map art matches the existing map data.
108 - Some of the terrain in Northern Australia has been changed to increase map accuracy and reduce the large expanses of clear terrain:
109 - Hexes 72,127 and 72,128 changed to rough
109 - Hexes 73,127 and 74,127 changed to rough
110 - Hex 70,129 changed to rough
111 - Hexes 77,127, 77,128 and 78,128 changed to rough
112 - Hexes 78,127, 79,127, 79,128 and 81,128 changed to jungle+rough
113 - Hexes 81,135, 81,136, 82,136 and 81,137 changed to rough
114 - Hexes 83,141, 83,142 and 83,143 changed to rough
115 - Hex 76,128 (Katherine) changed to cultivated
116 - Hex 86,147 (Winton) changed to cultivated
117 - Hexes 91,146 and 91,149 changed to cultivated
118 - The map text for the base 'Anking' shifted a little so that the road underneath it is not obscured.
119 - The map data for the Skeene River between Prince Rupert and Terrace now matches the map art.
120 - The one hex long stub of road leading north from Fort St. John in Canada (hex 203,34) has been removed. This was part of the ALCAN Highway which was not constructed until after the start of the Pacific War.
121 - Most of the roads between Edmonton (hex 210,35) and Fort St. John (hex 203,34) have been downgraded from Primary to Secondary roads.
122 - The roads to the hex locations of the Canadian towns of Hay River (hex 201,24) and Yellowknife (hex 199,21) have been removed. Apparently these were 'winter roads' and construction of proper roads only started at the end of WW2.
123 - The hexsides of hex 211,22 have been modified to match the map art (changed W and SW hexsides to Land).
124 - The Richardson Highway between Valdez and Fairbanks in Alaska has been downgraded from a Main to a Secondary road.
125 - The one-hex long portion of the Glenn Highway that existed between Anchorage and Palmer (hex 181,35) at the start of the Pacific war has been added as a Secondary road.
126 - Several minor fixes to railway map data in China to ensure map data matches map art.
127 - The island of Kalao in the DEI (66,110) has had its map data corrected so that amphibious assaults of the hex are now allowed.
128 - Hex 84,110 has been changed from a land hex to a coastal hex to match the map art.
129 - The rail line on Shikoku Japan, between Takamatsu (hex 107,59) and hex 107,60 has been removed.
130 - A minor railway line has been added connecting the railway in hex 106,59 and Kochi (hex 106,60).
131 - The data for the secondary road between Takamatsu (hex 107,59) and Kochi (hex 106,60) has been corrected.
132 - A phantom river has been removed from the hexside between hexes 75,128 and hex 74,127 in Australia.
133 - A phantom river has been removed from the hexside between hexes 211,26 and hex 210,27 in Canada.
134 - River hexside data added for the river hexside between hexes 90,114 and 89,113 in Dutch New Guinea.
135 - Mildura (hex 80,164) is now connected by railway to hex 79,165.
136 - Canberra (hex 87,169) is now connected by railway to hex 88,168.
137 - The map data for the road leading west from Kendari has been added in hex 70,106 to match the map art.
138 - Phantom river hexsides removed from the E and SE sides of hex 62,55 (near Luangprabang).
139 - A number of Ocean hexes in the Gulf of Carpentaria have been changed from Deep Ocean to Shallow Ocean to match the map art.
140 - The Ocean hexes 50,54 and 51,54 have been changed to Shallow Ocean to match the map art.
141 - Missing map data for secondary roads added to hex 90,5.
142 - Missing map data for trail added to hex 57,36.
? Map data added or updated in hexes 58,2 and 57,3 (Peshawar) to match the Secondary road map art.
143 - The hexside between hexes 79,75 (Lingayen) and 79,74 changed from Land to Ocean+Land to match the map art.
144 - The hexside between hexes 82,75 and 83,74 changed from Land to Ocean+Land to match the map art.
145 - The map data for hex 56,54 corrected from Forest to Jungle.
V1.01.27– 05 March 2022 (Game version shown as 1.8.11.27)
1. Ninth Update – This release is a comprehensive release updating all previous versions to v1.01.27
2. Code Changes
1. Naval support not present at 0(0) port once port is built up
2. Another underway ammo replenishment issue if AE unable to reload the biggest weapon on ship
3. Drawing ship a/c from pool at base uses replacement group if nearby
4. Tweak what is an 'instructor' for TRACOM purposes and allow casualties to them
5. Tweak group training mission not getting many op losses for low experience pilots (increased fatigue of low experienced pilots and aircraft)
6. Aircraft upgrading to blank airframe
7. Mines not removed from ships in non-ML taskforce
8. Repair/maint of seaplane not expending supply (1 point per plane from tender supply if more than seaplane support at base). Exceeding support did expend normal supply.
9. Added confirmation to 'Disband TF' button
Wow, that's quite a list. I'm never going to play this multiplayer, so I'm curious if anyone knows if they ever got the AI going to sleep issue worked out? If by some miracle I ever am able to grok it enough to get deep into a campaign, I'd love to know that I wouldn't be wasting my time.
The archaic interface and micro-management is WAY TOO MUCH. Can't believe people have played this for years !!!???
Quote from: bruce205 on November 08, 2024, 04:04:06 PMThe archaic interface and micro-management is WAY TOO MUCH. Can't believe people have played this for years !!!???
Unless you're an archaic interface micro managing fan of course
Quote from: smittyohio on November 08, 2024, 10:35:13 AMWow, that's quite a list. I'm never going to play this multiplayer, so I'm curious if anyone knows if they ever got the AI going to sleep issue worked out? If by some miracle I ever am able to grok it enough to get deep into a campaign, I'd love to know that I wouldn't be wasting my time.
The AI has gotten quite a lot of work in the new betas...
Quote from: undercovergeek on November 08, 2024, 04:28:27 PMQuote from: bruce205 on November 08, 2024, 04:04:06 PMThe archaic interface and micro-management is WAY TOO MUCH. Can't believe people have played this for years !!!???
Unless you're an archaic interface micro managing fan of course
Welcome to Gary Grigsby games! You either love them or hate them! I have never been able to get into any of the others but this one has my heart!
Quote from: Tanaka on November 08, 2024, 05:31:33 PMQuote from: undercovergeek on November 08, 2024, 04:28:27 PMQuote from: bruce205 on November 08, 2024, 04:04:06 PMThe archaic interface and micro-management is WAY TOO MUCH. Can't believe people have played this for years !!!???
Unless you're an archaic interface micro managing fan of course
Welcome to Gary Grigsby games! You either love them or hate them! I have never been able to get into any of the others but this one has my heart!
They always looked intimidating to m, but i tried War in the East last year and found I absolutely loved it. Despite having many many units that have to be micromanaged, I have found Grigsby games are otherwise not that complex to learn - there's a lot of "it", but the "it" is not inherently more complicated than what you'll find in most other wargames from a mechanics perspective. And what I absolutely love about it is the insane level of detail under the hood that you can drill down to IF YOU WANT TO- but you can also opt to keep all that under the hood if you so choose and just want to focus on the high level. I find quite a compelling and powerful game system, and having subsequently dabbled in some of his other games (including WITP) I think they're all cut from that same cloth.
WitE 1 Is one of my favorites. I played WitP but found it too much of a Time-Magnet for me to learn to play it well. There will never be games like these anymore, sad to say.
Quote from: CaptainKoloth on November 09, 2024, 02:35:49 AMQuote from: Tanaka on November 08, 2024, 05:31:33 PMQuote from: undercovergeek on November 08, 2024, 04:28:27 PMQuote from: bruce205 on November 08, 2024, 04:04:06 PMThe archaic interface and micro-management is WAY TOO MUCH. Can't believe people have played this for years !!!???
Unless you're an archaic interface micro managing fan of course
Welcome to Gary Grigsby games! You either love them or hate them! I have never been able to get into any of the others but this one has my heart!
They always looked intimidating to m, but i tried War in the East last year and found I absolutely loved it. Despite having many many units that have to be micromanaged, I have found Grigsby games are otherwise not that complex to learn - there's a lot of "it", but the "it" is not inherently more complicated than what you'll find in most other wargames from a mechanics perspective. And what I absolutely love about it is the insane level of detail under the hood that you can drill down to IF YOU WANT TO- but you can also opt to keep all that under the hood if you so choose and just want to focus on the high level. I find quite a compelling and powerful game system, and having subsequently dabbled in some of his other games (including WITP) I think they're all cut from that same cloth.
Yes it's interesting a lot of players are more comfortable with WITE over WITP. I am the opposite. Maybe it is the history you are more comfortable with. I look at the set up for Barbarossa and my eyes glaze over. As opposed to WITP I know exactly what to do and what needs to be done. I also love that there are battle animations for everything. You can watch each individual combat with each individual pilot. No other game does this. Just amazing.
Now you did it.
Downloading the beta update...
Regarding WITP vs WITE, I think the key is one is WEGO and the other is IGUGO. With WITEx you get instant feedback/gratification while WEGO makes you wait until you've made all your moves. I've trying starting WITP but it takes forever to finish 1st turn moves. I can't keep the motivation up that long 😴
Note I loved the predecessor Uncommon Valor probably because the limited scope made turn input tolerable.
Do I try to install it on my Macbook?
The chances that I would actually play it would go up.
Quote from: bobarossa on November 09, 2024, 08:30:52 PMRegarding WITP vs WITE, I think the key is one is WEGO and the other is IGUGO. With WITEx you get instant feedback/gratification while WEGO makes you wait until you've made all your moves. I've trying starting WITP but it takes forever to finish 1st turn moves. I can't keep the motivation up that long 😴
Note I loved the predecessor Uncommon Valor probably because the limited scope made turn input tolerable.
a week, maybe 10 days is the usual amount i spend on japanese turn 1
Quote from: bobarossa on November 09, 2024, 08:30:52 PMRegarding WITP vs WITE, I think the key is one is WEGO and the other is IGUGO. With WITEx you get instant feedback/gratification while WEGO makes you wait until you've made all your moves. I've trying starting WITP but it takes forever to finish 1st turn moves. I can't keep the motivation up that long 😴
Note I loved the predecessor Uncommon Valor probably because the limited scope made turn input tolerable.
Fair point! And yes the biggest hurdle IMO is that first turn especially for Japan. Once you get that going things get much easier!
Quote from: undercovergeek on November 09, 2024, 08:36:33 PMQuote from: bobarossa on November 09, 2024, 08:30:52 PMRegarding WITP vs WITE, I think the key is one is WEGO and the other is IGUGO. With WITEx you get instant feedback/gratification while WEGO makes you wait until you've made all your moves. I've trying starting WITP but it takes forever to finish 1st turn moves. I can't keep the motivation up that long 😴
Note I loved the predecessor Uncommon Valor probably because the limited scope made turn input tolerable.
a week, maybe 10 days is the usual amount i spend on japanese turn 1
Yep same here a week for that Japanese first turn is pretty standard...
Get it for $16!
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
Quote from: Tanaka on November 29, 2024, 12:56:38 PMGet it for $16!
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
This might be useful :
Those Strategy Gaming Dojo tutorials on the Grigsby games are classic. He really breaks the game down and explains every single detail. Fantastic for those learning the game (even some vets looking to brush up on their skills). Sadly the Gaming Dojo seems to have vanished from the internet. I know he and his wife were expecting a baby....I hope everything is alright with the guy. I was a big fan.
Yeah, I haven't seen anything new from him in forever.
Quote from: Pete Dero on November 29, 2024, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Tanaka on November 29, 2024, 12:56:38 PMGet it for $16!
https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition
This might be useful :
Also:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=385422
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFaQGFlikmS-YBA8-dINks0Q9HG1hSiAG