War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition Manual Preview

[Kull]

This next stuff is basically looking for the nits that ride on nits.....

6) On page 10, "14.2.2. Gameplay" has a period after the second "2" (inconsistent with the format used elsewhere on the page)

7) Other "Contents Section" inconsistencies include (using examples from page 10, although you can find them everywhere):
- Some headings end with a colon, others don't (Ex: 14.2.3 Repair Types: )
- Some heading have a space before the first period while others don't (Ex: "14.2.1 Damage and Repairs ....." versus "15.1 Supply Operations......."

8) There's a numbering problem on Page 9 of the Contents. Section 9.4 has two subsections, 9.4.1 and 9.5 (should be 9.4.2?). There is also a section 9.5, so one of them is wrong.

9) At the bottom of Page 9, subsection 14.1.2 should be indented to match 14.1.1

[Sardaukar]

See, just give us the manual....and we'll proofread it for Matrix! [:D]

[Kull]

More nit-nits:

10) On page 76, "Surface Combat" section, line 2: The sentence uses TF's (possesive). Apostrophe isn't needed (and is inconsistent with the spelling elsewhere on the page).
- Same problem on page 96, line 7.
- Same problem with the title of section 6.2.11 on page 104 (and the title error is repeated on page 7 of the Contents).
- Same problem on page 217, line 21.

11) On page 77, "Sub Transport" section, line 3: The last sentence reads "Maximum of 25 ships per TFs". ("s" not required)

12) On page 99, line 8: The sentence reads "These sea connections only become available after May 14th1943" Need a space between "14th" and "1943".

13) On page 102, section 6.2.10.6 Panama", line 1: The sentence ends with "...one at each end of the Panama canal." Need to capitalize "Canal".

14) On page 102, section 6.2.10.6 Panama", line 9: The sentence ends with "...movement to a new destination ." There's a space between "destination" and the period.

Edit: Added another "TF's" item.

[Kull]

The nit-nits continue (all except #16 - that might be "bad information"):

15) On page 218, line 5: The sentence uses MDL's (possesive). The incorrect use of apostrophes in this part of the manual (to include "DL's") is at least consistent (i.e. all plurals use the apostrophe), but it should follow the same pluralization rules used for TF and CAP, among others.
- Same issue in multiple places on page 220.
- Same issue with "LMG's" on page 315.

16) On page 223, section "13.2.2.7 Armaments Factories", line 4: The sentence reads, "If this requirement is met, the number of armaments factories are added to the armaments pool and this number of heavy industry points are expended from the pool (at a rate of 6 heavy industry points per armament point created)." Is it really adding factories to the pool, or should that be "points"?

17) On page 310, line 8: "...expect a noticable reduction of force levels..." Obvious typo (i.e. should be "noticeable").

18) On page 317, section "21.4 Map Team Design Notes", line 1: The sentence begins with "For the Admiral’s edition of War in the Pacific,..." Need to capitalize "Edition".

19) On page 322, one of the Business Development Managers is listed as "Karlis Rutins". Mispelled "Erik".

Edit: Edited the edit

[Kull]

Some Index Section typos:

20) On page 324: "Designerís Notes 308". Need an apostrophe, not the accented "í".

21) On page 326: "Loading and Troop Carrying Details by Class Type Table\ 118" Delete the "\".

22) On page 327: "Controlled TFís 104". Delete the accented "í" (do NOT replace it with an apostrophe!)

23) On page 328: "Special Coast Defense Units ñ Convoys 180". Replace the accented "ñ" with "and"?

[Kull]

That's about it. There are a few inconsistencies here and there such as TOE versus TO&E (both are used) and "off-map" versus "offmap" so you might consider imposing a unitary approach there. Otherwise it looks pretty good. Personally I'm glad the team is more focused on gameplay and bug fixes than formatting and typos!

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Anything that should be corrected (hopefully there won't be much!) we'll correct in the PDF version that comes in the gold master.

A few minor items:

1) There's a typo on the table on Page 99. The left side of the table has a listing for "Panams (Cristobal)".

2) On page 309 (Maneuver System), the text reads:
An aircraft that once dominated at all levels has been modified to, under the right
circumstances, be able to surprise an erstwhile superior opponent by maximizing its potential
in a band of altitude where it excels.
The statement is essentially meaningless unless reworded to indicate that inferior aircraft types have the ability to surprise superior opponents.

Nope, I have to disagree with you Kull. What this sentence means is that aircraft are now rated for their abilities at different altitudes. Formerly, they were given their best performance ratings, so an aircraft that performed exceptionally at 16,000 feet but miserably at 30,000 feet, for example, can now be more easily defeated by an aircraft whose best performance was less, but now outperforms the other at 30,000 feet.

See... there's no easy way to say it... it's a complicated process that required a complicated explanation...

[Sardaukar]

*The proofreading thread* [:D]

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Nope, I have to disagree with you Kull. What this sentence means is that aircraft are now rated for their abilities at different altitudes. Formerly, they were given their best performance ratings, so an aircraft that performed exceptionally at 16,000 feet but miserably at 30,000 feet, for example, can now be more easily defeated by an aircraft whose best performance was less, but now outperforms the other at 30,000 feet.

See... there's no easy way to say it... it's a complicated process that required a complicated explanation...

I agree that it's tough to explain something complicated in a sentence or two. However, my concern was that an aircraft described as "dominat(ing) at all levels" is now getting a boost at certain elevations so that it can outperform an "erstwhile superior opponent". Meaning, in effect, that it did NOT dominate at all levels. I think we all know what was meant, but the explanation could be a little clearer.

[Anthropoid]

How about
 
"In AE, aircraft now have optimum altitude ranges, so for example -insert plane name A- enjoys peak ability between 10,000 and 15,000 ft ASL, where as -insert plane name B- enjoys peak ability between 14,000 and 20,000 ft ASL. In contrast to vanilla WiTP, few planes are now able to dominate at all altitudes, so paying attention to the optimum operational altitude ranges for your aircraft is now very important."

[tondern]

Hey Kull,

Great nit picking (i.e., editing, a real skill). Are you a pro?

Sorry Bradfordkay, but I agree with Kull that the sentence about the "dominant" aircraft becoming more able than a "superior" aircraft is logically incoherent. Did they perhaps intend "inferior" instead of dominant?

I also agree that Matrix should give the ENTIRE manual to us and let us comb it for edits/ needed clarifications. {Erick, aka Karlis, are you listening?} {BTW, Eric, thanks. Your efforts are appreciated.}

Kull, my high opinion of your abilities has been further elevated.[&o]

Yours,
Johnny

[Terminus]

What do you mean, "Erik aka Karlis"? They are two different people, you know...

[Grotius]

My only proofreading suggestion has already been raised: please fix all the incorrect uses of "it's." It's is a contraction of "it is." ("It's a nice day for an air raid.") Its is the possessive. ("The Zero fired its guns at the B-17.") This happens to be one of my pet peeves, so I cringed when I saw it used incorrectly in the manual!

My other pet peeve is spelling "lose" as "loose", but I didn't see that in the manual. (One can "lose" a game. If you're not careful, a knot can come "loose.")

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

My only proofreading suggestion has already been raised: please fix all the incorrect uses of "it's." It's is a contraction of "it is." ("It's a nice day for an air raid.") Its is the possessive. ("The Zero fired its guns at the B-17.") This happens to be one of my pet peeves, so I cringed when I saw it used incorrectly in the manual!

My other pet peeve is spelling "lose" as "loose", but I didn't see that in the manual. (One can "lose" a game. If you're not careful, a knot can come "loose.")

I frequently make both these spelling errors, and plenty of others as well. But then, I'm just a gamer.

[m10bob]

Ever since the era of "Kennedy-inspired" speed reading, I just look for nouns and verbs.

Each "proof-reading correction delays the game, ya'know, and the greedy id will not tolerate this.

Besides....maybe I just never learned to read, and expect local bimbos to do my reading for me?[:)]

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What do you mean, "Erik aka Karlis"? They are two different people, you know...

Actually tondern gets the "Proofing Easter Egg" prize. I threw in the "Karlis" bit just to see if anybody was actually reading those posts! [;)]

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: erstad
Many, many occurrences of "it's" instead of "its" (OK, that's nit-picky)

There are nits aplenty to pick with this manuscript. Some are even as big as gnats. Heck, a lot of 'em are newt-sized. You could even nuke it and start fresh...

OK, my vote is on NOT starting over [:)]

Thanks for sharing this much, I am already reading it !

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

See, just give us the manual....and we'll proofread it for Matrix! [:D]

Great idea. [;)]

[Cerix]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ever since the era of "Kennedy-inspired" speed reading, I just look for nouns and verbs.

Each "proof-reading correction delays the game, ya'know, and the greedy id will not tolerate this.

Besides....maybe I just never learned to read, and expect local bimbos to do my reading for me?[:)]

[ETF]

Double post sorry.