Admiral's Edition General Thread

[Roger Neilson II]

I had a sneaky feeling that you would be somewhere in there Woos, your contributions and presence on the forum have been very little for a while. I was concerned that you'd given up and what you'd done so far was great.

Thanks

Roger

[Andy Mac]

Leaders may not be promoted and will not suffer penalties for innapropriate use.

There are 2 exceptions to this

1. Some HQ level leaders who later went on to command Corps will at start be set in the editor to command Divisions i.e Frank Messervey, Montagu Stopford, Leslie Morshead when removed from their Divisional command they revert to being HQ leaders and cannot be re appointed to Divisonal leadership but become available to command HQ's there are about 5 or 6 of these I think mostly US and CW - they are not promoted in game instead we have temporarily demoted them to serve as Divisional leaders

2. Fleet Admirals I believe can command either TF's or HQ's i.e. Admiral Bruce Fraser arrives at the same time as BPF at Sydney he is allowed to command the HQ or ifd the player chooses command the BPF at sea.

By squashing the leader bug we hope to avoid issues about innapropriate commanders in charge of HQ's 

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Woos

I can confirm the latter statement as I'm currently fighting with that format (with support from Matrixgames). If I managed to wrestle it down, there will be a witpDecoder version for the Admirals Edition. That version will have limited support for plugins so user will be able to extend the functionality of the "Map overview" tab.

This just keeps getting better and better! [&o][&o][&o]

[duckenf]

I haven't seen this addressed, perhaps I missed it, but if the hex size is being reduced from 60 to 40 miles and the screen resolution isn't changing AND if the pixel-size of hexes remains unchanged, doesn't this mean that the map area on the screen is going to shrink?
 
I always thought it was a HUGE error in the original design for the program not to adjust to the user's screen resolution and the rapid growth in monitor sizes just makes that even more obvious.  I'm not a programmer, but it seems odd to me that rescaling the screen-size of the UI could be all that difficult compared with some of the other reworkings of the engine that are going on.  At the least creating a third (or fourth, one can dream) larger screen option would be a nice addition for those with large monitors.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: 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.

A good compromise might be a toolbar-icon-selected auxiliary map, similar to the current strat map or Ai/Player control map, but full-sized with terrain graphics pulled off. This map could show all the zone lines, dots, national borders, etc. in full, scrollable size but without the terrain tilesets. The "Civilization" series of games has done this for a decade or more through pull-down menus. Very useful to see objectives and enemy dispositions without all the grass.

Maybe in a patch . . .

Fot that matter, the WITP2 team could get a lot of great ideas on presenting large amounts of city/production/consumption data from the Civ games. Use of color, symbols, and sideways-scrolling through the list make managing/balancing production a snap. WITP's Japanese production system, where all city access is up&down from the map/city to the factories is torture to use. I gave up on my lone Japanese AI game after a year of game time because the production system was more like work than my real job.

[Gunner98]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No. We decided that the Pacific OOB was more than big enough by itself, and it didn't need to be 200-300% bigger...[;)]

Thanks, quite understandable! What is the main purpose of the off board movement ability then if it is not to shift units from one theatre to the next? Is it simply to provide more ship yards for repair? Sort of assumes no damaged ships in the ETO...[&:]

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: medck

I haven't seen this addressed, perhaps I missed it, but if the hex size is being reduced from 60 to 40 miles and the screen resolution isn't changing AND if the pixel-size of hexes remains unchanged, doesn't this mean that the map area on the screen is going to shrink?

No. The graphical representation of the hexes will not change, just the area that they cover.

[EDIT: Sorry, I read your post wrong. You're right ...]

[Bahnsteig]

I have to ask again.

Will the Political Points still be for all allied troops or divided between all fractions?
If there will be still one big pool, the British won't have any disadvantages for not sending ships back home.
The same if the Dutch abandon their colonies, the Chinese fighting in Burma and so on...
Some years ago I found this in a thread and someone mentioned that this is possible in the game, but would have been impossible in history.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Just to check something I think I am reading between lines in press release and your answers here...


Can player in WitP-AE "command" the amount of supplies and fuel in his bases without fearing that AI would move it around (using internal transportation grid) on its own whim?

In other words are there user selected dials in Base properties GUI that would exactly reserve the amout of suplies / fuel he wants to have in a base?


IMHO that was one of the most sought improvements from current WitP that many players (including me [:)]) have voiced over the years... [:D]


Thanks in advance!

The "WSVG" just pointed me to Any Mac's post on Page1 of "Land Thread for WitP-AE":

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Supply movement is going to be better than stock but will still have some limits.

You will be able to increase for each base the required supply level up to the bases requirement + 0 - 25,000 supplies

Thus bases will try to draw excess supplies and store them - small bases still have large wastage numbers so universal use of this tool has real consequences and will quickly drain supplies.

But in prinicpal yes you can have more control about setting supply levels at internal bases without needing a command HQ there to draw the extra supply.

i.e. Mandalay has a requirement for 10,000 supply points I know I am going to lose Rangoon soon so I increase the supply draw of Mandalay to 35,000 supply and the computer will try to fill up to 35,000 supply at Mandalay.

Andy

BTW, I did see the small knob showing ">" near the "Required Supply" on a screenshoot of base for upcoming WitP-AE!


GREAT stuff - thanks guys!!! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

[duckenf]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: medck

I haven't seen this addressed, perhaps I missed it, but if the hex size is being reduced from 60 to 40 miles and the screen resolution isn't changing AND if the pixel-size of hexes remains unchanged, doesn't this mean that the map area on the screen is going to shrink?

No. The graphical representation of the hexes will not change, just the area that they cover.

[EDIT: Sorry, I read your post wrong. You're right ...]

This seems to me something that makes the inability to have a higher resolution for large monitors even more of a problem. If the geographic area we can see is now going to shrink even further, that makes playing WitP as a strategic game even more difficult. I like the 40 mile hexes, that sounds fine, but it needs to be coupled with some ability to see a bigger geographic area if you do have a larger screen. Back in 1991 I had a game on my Mac SE called Straetgic Conquest and my brother and I hooked his Mac II up with my SE and I had huge envy (and huge disadvantage in gameplay) in that his CRT monitor was a larger than my built-in Mac monitor. When hex-basedwargames like Tillers' HPS series and TOAW III adjust to a bigger resolution the gamer can see more of the geographic space than he can on a smaller monitor at lower resolution. That's helpful. If you're stuck with a set size, that really sounds like the DOS-based games like Third Reich than one a decade or so into a Windows enivronment.

I don't mean to be negative, I love WitP, but it is a problem. I understand that adjusting to every conceivable screen resolution is probably too much, but if you could do the two sizes currently available, couldn't there be a "small" fix like coming up with a larger standard size (like 1680x1050 or some other variant)? I know that would mean a lot to gamers with larger monitors.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: medck

I don't mean to be negative, I love WitP, but it is a problem. I understand that adjusting to every conceivable screen resolution is probably too much, but if you could do the two sizes currently available, couldn't there be a "small" fix like coming up with a larger standard size (like 1680x1050 or some other variant)? I know that would mean a lot to gamers with larger monitors.

Joe posted this on the first page of this thread:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

No, changing the resolution was an "Engine" change and this bordered on a "start over again" rewrite, so this got axed fairly on. Note that AE is "not" to be considered the sometimes mentioned "WITP_II" in the sense that WITP_II usually means a complete re-write. For AE we are sticking with the original WITP engine(which means "UI" in witp code speak) but just adding piles and piles of enhancements to the game code. Some of us still have the idea of doing a WITP_II one day, but wanted to first crawl (do some patches) then walk (do this enhancement add-on pack) then run (do WITP_II).

I'd love to play WitP with a larger resolution too, but apparently it's just not going to happen.

[Captain Cruft]

The game UI is basically a port of DOS code to DirectX, which originated with the BoB game. I would guess that the entire thing is hard-wired to a surface of 1024x768. So it is not just a matter of setting a couple of variables but (as stated) re-writing every single routine that displays anything. Even then, all you could do is hard-wire it to a single bigger surface size, which would disadvantage those running at 1024x768, who would see a jaggy version like the old UV 800x600 mode.

At least that's my theory

[Bane_MatrixForum]

But for those of us w/ monitors that won't go below 1280 x 1024 that possess a problem [:(]

[wworld7]

I accept that the display issue will not be "improved" until the possible WITP2.

That said, I hope AE WITP is a success so that WITP2 actually happens.

At which point my eyes if they still work will be HAPPY.

Note: If WITP2 never happens I will be more than sad...

[Captain Cruft]

I agree it's a problem, but it's not going to be fixed for AE. End of story.

If you want someone to blame it's the original creators of the thing not the current guys.

Disclaimer: I speak for no-one but myself

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I agree it's a problem, but it's not going to be fixed for AE. End of story.

If you want someone to blame it's the original creators of the thing not the current guys.

Disclaimer: I speak for no-one but myself

I am not blamming anybody. I worked at a software company for almost ten years. Nobody is ever 100% satisfied. That is the nature of the animal called "software".

[Captain Cruft]

Yes I know that. What I can't understand is why people continue to ask the question in the face of an unequivocal statement saying no.

Anyway, enough from me on this topic.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: 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.

jwilkerson - I'm a long time player from day one and would suggest you get a hold of War Plan Orange, you will be shocked by the Fog of War compared to WITP!

Why does the allied player get the benifit of Russian air assets before they are active?
How else can the allied player see a ship/TF sailing out of Sapporo where there are no allied ships or US aircraft within a 1000+ miles!

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: pad152
jwilkerson - I'm a long time player from day one and would suggest you get a hold of War Plan Orange, you will be shocked by the Fog of War compared to WITP!

I can speak for Jwilkerson here..., he is a long-time player of WPO as well as WITP.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: thinz2
My machine has an Intel Core 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13 Ghz. I noticed in MS Flight Simulator X that the software in configuring itself tended to underrate the processing capacity of dual CPUs because of their lower clock speeds.
So would my system be considered optimal for AE?

Absolutely - the "GHz" rating is really somewhat misleading, but there are few better methods out there. I think it's probably fair to say that when we say 2GHz, we mean "2GHz back from when the first processors hit 2GHz". That means a new dual core like the 6400 is probably more equivalent to 4-5GHz in those terms.

Regards,

- Erik

Does this mean that AE will be compiled to take advantage of multiple cores?