Admiral's Edition General Thread

[Ian R]

WITP-AE
CPU: 2.0 Ghz minimum, 3.0 Ghz recommended
Video/Graphics: 128M minimum, 256M recommended
RAM: 512MB minimum, 1GB recommended
 
Well that puts me out, unless I buy a new computer.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

WITP-AE
CPU: 2.0 Ghz minimum, 3.0 Ghz recommended
Video/Graphics: 128M minimum, 256M recommended
RAM: 512MB minimum, 1GB recommended

Well that puts me out, unless I buy a new computer.

Sorry, but AE is a more-of-everything release. Smaller map scale means a lot more hexes, more units, move aircraft and ships, more features. It all adds up to more CPU cycles, more memory, more calculations, more, more, more.

Christmas is coming, try dropping a few hints.

If that doesn't work, wait until the after Christmas sales. PCs continue to get faster, better featured, and cheaper. The top end machine of a couple of years ago is a middling system today. Also, the rule that a wonderful new feature or significant price reduction will be announced immediately after one buys a system is still in effect.

[Grotius]

I HATE those on-map symbols. Make my head hurt. The simpler the map, the better

While I do like Subchaser's map symbols, I do agree that too much info makes my head hurt too. I don't want a lot of malaria lines or control-zone lines or HQ borders or whatnot. I just liked seeing oil and resources at a base on Subchaser's map -- his use of those little colored dots was pretty unobtrusive. Dots I like; lines I don't.

[klhbekool]

Looks like I'll have do a little memory upgrade. I can't wait for AE to come out
Give us a little demo for Christmas---if not then send Lauren Conrad, what am I saying send both you can send LC wearing nothing but an AE t-shirt. I probably have gone too far
but its my Christmas wish.

[Ian R]

But I can wait awhile because in one of the other threads patches were mentioned [:'(]

[Brady]

I know we cant ask specific questions, but:



Was: Name This...(462)

SBC ,With VMO-151, Pictured Patroling off American Samoa for Sub's in Early 42, acording to Image source

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Can we get real OOBs ? I mean the ones with stock WITP were so inaccurate....
...
Bombers: Philipines /Hawaii
B-17Ca B-17Da 35 12
B-18A 18 33
A-20Aa 0 12
A-27 9 0
B-10B 12 0
...
Fighters:
P-40Ca 0 12
P-40Ba 0 87
P-40Eb 107 39
P-36A 0 14
P-26A 16 0
P-35A 52 0
.Misc. (Incl. Obsn, Cargo, etc.) 24 34
22
...
TOTAL 277 231

Hi, time to come out and say hello.
Well, I did the aircraft generally for the USA (for a very distinguished member of this community), all those types were accounted for. I can't speak for the finalized OOB - so we'll see.

B

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

WITP-AE
CPU: 2.0 Ghz minimum, 3.0 Ghz recommended
Video/Graphics: 128M minimum, 256M recommended
RAM: 512MB minimum, 1GB recommended

Well that puts me out, unless I buy a new computer.

It's a good thing I traded in my old abacus for a new computer. [:D]

[MineSweeper]

Any new Weather related changes ?...Typhoons....Monsoons.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

(1) Why 40? Well we wanted 30 or even 20 .. but Andrew made the call based on estimate of amount of work required and amount of resources available. The 40 mile map is about twice as much art and data as the 60 mile map. It took about 15 man months to key in the new PWHEX file. Making the map 30 mile hexes would have doubled this again. We would not have had the resources to get it done in the time available.

With the decrease in hex size and corresponding increase in the number of hexes, is there be sort of zoom function planned (apart from the existing mini-map)??

Or will that require a reworking of the UI which you have already stated that you are not going to touch??

[WingedIncubus]

I have two questions about leaders and rank :

1- Will something be done to make rank something to take into account? I always found weird that it is possible to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity, without penalty in political points. In real life, if a commander-in-chief would choose to place a Colonel to command a Corps HQ, he would logically have to expend a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing over senior officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Any new Weather related changes ?...Typhoons....Monsoons.

No unfortunately. We had hopes. And we even had a real world weather guy 2stepper signed up to help us at one point but - long story short - didn't happen. But I think some aspects did get pulled out of the code and into the pwhexE.dat file. Andrew is best to answer these questions over on the map thread.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I have two questions about leaders and rank :

1- Will something be done to make rank something to take into account? I always found weird that it is possible to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity, without penalty in political points. In real life, if a commander-in-chief would choose to place a Colonel to command a Corps HQ, he would logically have to expend a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing over senior officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.

[Andy Mac]

I will take the leaders question Joe
 
Currently its the same structure as stock so between 0 and 9 PP's to change a leader.
 
On my little triage listy of things I would like to get fixed after we get the beast out is to make HQ level leaders and Large LCU type leaders cost a lot more in PP terms to change but we had to prioritise to allow us to turn to things like the AI and this was one of the things that didnt make the release cut.
 
I would point out we have more HQ's and we have added more leaders (mostly at HQ level for CW nations and CHinese leaders) to accomodate the new HQ's
 
A single impressive little nugget you can have as many HQ's as you need they are no longer slot dependent
 

[pad152]

1. Spotting

It's hard to hide even a sub in WITP, plus the allied player gets to see way to much info on Japans cities, production, ships/TF's, etc. It seems Russian forces provide spotting before the Russians are even active.

So is anything being done to adjust this super uber spotting? Something a little closer to WPO would make a much more exciting game.

2. Recon

There are several hexes on the map that can't be reconned, one example is Bataan when playing Japan, can you send 100 recon flights and the only info you get is there are 34 units there!

Then there is base/Island recon where all you every get is there just one base unit there, only to invade and find a full division there! I sometimes send a sub with troops (when the sub tranport bug hasn't hit[;)]) to invade/recon just to find out what's really there.

Maybe the ability to land a recon team on an enemy base without trigging a full assault!

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pad152

1. Spotting

It's hard to hide even a sub in WITP, plus the allied player gets to see way to much info on Japans cities, production, ships/TF's, etc. It seems Russian forces provide spotting before the Russians are even active.

So is anything being done to adjust this super uber spotting? Something a little closer to WPO would make a much more exciting game.

2. Recon

There are several hexes on the map that can't be reconned, one example is Bataan when playing Japan, can you send 100 recon flights and the only info you get is there are 34 units there!

Then there is base/Island recon where all you every get is there just one base unit there, only to invade and find a full division there! I sometimes send a sub with troops (when the sub tranport bug hasn't hit[;)]) to invade/recon just to find out what's really there.

Maybe the ability to land a recon team on an enemy base without trigging a full assault!

I must admit I haven't experienced much of what you are referring to here. Perhaps I am mis=understanding.

And I'm not aware that WPO model is different. But WPO pilots are typically in the 30-50 EXP range. That makes a huge difference. In stock once the "ASW Sallys" reach 85+ EXP they will RULE. Same with the 85+ Coronados. Moses is killing me with those in our current game!

The above being said, we have tried to increase FOW across the board. This was a key request from the really long time players.

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I have two questions about leaders and rank :

1- Will something be done to make rank something to take into account? I always found weird that it is possible to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity, without penalty in political points. In real life, if a commander-in-chief would choose to place a Colonel to command a Corps HQ, he would logically have to expend a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing over senior officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.

Let me clarify my request, then.

1- What I meant is that, usually, command of large operational organizations like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs (wither Army or Corps) were given to generals, either fully promoted or breveted. The higher the command, the higher the commander's rank had to be to grant him a legitimate authority over his subordinates and prevent confusion of command.

In stock game, these commands can be given to any officer, regardless of his rank and even his branch. I could even give a LCU Corps HQ to an Air Commander if I wished, when usually such commands would be for Army officers only. Even giving a brigade command to a Colonel without instant promotion to brevet general seems weird. Why, after all, a full general, even a useless slob like Percival, would let a large command go to an Junior Officer, even breveted as Brigadier General, when he as full General could fill that position?

Perhaps certain commands, like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs, should be reserved to leaders holding the rank of General or higher. If the player REALLY wants to give the position to a Colonel, the price in PP should be much higher to simulate the clout a commander would have to put to quell the organisational uproar such a decision would provoke among the more senior commanders who are available for the job. 9 PPs seems much too low.

I hope things are clearer now. [:o]

2- Like I said above, I just ask if leaders will be only assignable to commands within their branch: LCU for Land officers, Air units for Air commanders, and TFs for Navy leaders. In stock game I can assign any officer I want regardless of branch.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
We have instead improved the security of the save file to make cheating significantly more difficult, hopefully impossible for all but the KGB and the NSA.

LOL the easiest way to do that would be to simply have the game execute the turn and save the results when the allied player saves it, but not show him the results. He then mails the finished save to Japan and the witp001 file.

Jim

[Andy Mac]

Err sort of its all defined in the editor
 
Broadly there are 6 categories and the one that causes issues in the HQ one and we have not further restricted it as I said at some stage I want to increas the PP cost to change these leaders specifically.
 
HQ
 
HQ's are one job lot with Admirals commanding Naval HQ's, Air Commodores and AVM for Air HQ's and Corps, Army and Command HQ leaders all together.
These senior officers may all command any national HQ in game there is no restriction - if a player wants to give Admiral mountbatten command of 14th Army he can - he would be an idiiot to overlook Slim but he can.
 
Large LCU
 
Only Lt and Maj Generals unless otherwise set up in editor
 
Small LCU
All other army ranks
 
etc etc
Air Sqn
Naval TF
Ship Captain

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I have two questions about leaders and rank :

1- Will something be done to make rank something to take into account? I always found weird that it is possible to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity, without penalty in political points. In real life, if a commander-in-chief would choose to place a Colonel to command a Corps HQ, he would logically have to expend a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing over senior officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?

2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.

Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.

Let me clarify my request, then.

1- What I meant is that, usually, command of large operational organizations like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs (wither Army or Corps) were given to generals, either fully promoted or breveted. The higher the command, the higher the commander's rank had to be to grant him a legitimate authority over his subordinates and prevent confusion of command.

In stock game, these commands can be given to any officer, regardless of his rank and even his branch. I could even give a LCU Corps HQ to an Air Commander if I wished, when usually such commands would be for Army officers only. Even giving a brigade command to a Colonel without instant promotion to brevet general seems weird. Why, after all, a full general, even a useless slob like Percival, would let a large command go to an Junior Officer, even breveted as Brigadier General, when he as full General could fill that position?

Perhaps certain commands, like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs, should be reserved to leaders holding the rank of General or higher. If the player REALLY wants to give the position to a Colonel, the price in PP should be much higher to simulate the clout a commander would have to put to quell the organisational uproar such a decision would provoke among the more senior commanders who are available for the job. 9 PPs seems much too low.

I hope things are clearer now. [:o]

2- Like I said above, I just ask if leaders will be only assignable to commands within their branch: LCU for Land officers, Air units for Air commanders, and TFs for Navy leaders. In stock game I can assign any officer I want regardless of branch.

Differentiation by "branch" would be nice. Unfortunately I'm not sure that would be sufficiently easy (too many places in the code to change) to make it possible. I do think it is by "nation" at least with IJA and IJN and US Army and USMC being different "nations" in the game. So at least some differentiation. But this is stock and no change for "AE".


The are separate pools for "org size" for LCU command. This is also in stock and not changed to my knowledge. I don't know much about this. Maybe James does. We can ask him over on the land thread.

Bottom line, there are bits and pieces of what you want in stock already. But I don't think we have changed things on these axes much for AE.