A remake???

[Enforcer]

Is there any plans for a NEW War in the Pacific game?

[Anachro]

Gary is on record as saying he would never make another WitP - too complex. Maybe someone else will make the equivalent of an upgraded remake eventually.

[patrickl]

Ah sad. 1993 to 2017 - Pacific War, Uncommon Valor, War in the Pacific and Admiral's Edition. Not enuff. We want more.[:D]

[LeeChard]

+1

[GetAssista]

I for one welcome our WITP:AE overlord.
I do not see how turn based PBEM wargame about Pacific War can be made better than what it is. Combined arms behavior and interaction is a thing of beauty on the strategic level, and pretty nice on tactical one. More details will only drive it into an unmanageable clickfest. Well, AI part is certainly lacking more sophisticated strategic engine, but this hardly quilifies as a new game. Anyway I can live with what is there. Wish I had more regular life to be able to play PBEM.

[InfiniteMonkey]

I've thought on occasion about doing something. There's a lot of modern technology that could be applied to improve the game interface (WEGO, integrated Tracker/intel monkey type functionality, better reporting/sorting/filtering, etc.), the AI, and certain aspects of the game mechanics. Overall though, the model is pretty solid. I'd rather take WitP:AE to WitP:AE2 than start fresh.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

I for one welcome our WITP:AE overlord.
I do not see how turn based PBEM wargame about Pacific War can be made better than what it is. Combined arms behavior and interaction is a thing of beauty on the strategic level, and pretty nice on tactical one. More details will only drive it into an unmanageable clickfest. Well, AI part is certainly lacking more sophisticated strategic engine, but this hardly quilifies as a new game. Anyway I can live with what is there. Wish I had more regular life to be able to play PBEM.

+1
The user interface could be friendlier, though.

[dr.hal]

I could envision the next generation of this game would discard the hex based system and work more along the lines of actual distances, capabilities, etc. Thus a reduction in abstraction with a corresponding increase in realism. This would require a far more complex system along the lines of the follow-on Harpoon systems. Now THAT would be a complex game!!! I would also think that it could be broken down into more than three pulses in a day (if so desired or the tactical situation dictated)... thus LOTS of moves. But hopefully less clicks! My wrist already hurts.

[Denniss]

One of the major changes required would be to use a generic database for all scenarios (like WitE and newer) so if you have to fix/modify an aircraft/tank/device/shipy/etc you have to do it only once and not repeat it in each scenario.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

One of the major changes required would be to use a generic database for all scenarios (like WitE and newer) so if you have to fix/modify an aircraft/tank/device/shipy/etc you have to do it only once and not repeat it in each scenario.

Different scenarios specifically change stats on devices, ships, planes, TOEs, etc., etc. to reflect the designer's estimation of the capabilities. I'll bet that John 3rd and other scenario designers would not appreciate having someone else mucking around with the stats of the planes and ships in their scenarios with no ability to control it. What we need instead is a scenario editor that can more easily do bulk editing of data and perform tedious tasks with fewer clicks.

[Denniss]

WitE and later still retain the option of scenario-only data changes, called 'locked generic data'. This is mostly used for custom mods.

[Pilsator]

for me it would be enough to use the Windows 10 text size changing option so I can read the texts better.

Ah, and an auto adjust to the screen resolution.


And maybe solving the win 10 lag thing.

[Panther Bait]

To me, the most interesting direction to go would be to add something like a CMANO type of interface/world model to the existing game model.

Mike

[Rafid]

I think the game engine is very mature and would also be afraid, that additional detail would become unmanagable. But interface changes would be high my list, as the game is technically very outdated:

1. Scalable interface: Better scaling with different and modern resolutions, setable and scaling font size.
2. Better window handling (allow multiple open windows for comparison & dragable windows; want to recheck the air group, while the pilot window is open? Just drag it aside).

Since this would most likely require a full interface rewrite using modern technology anyways we might as well do it right and add:

3. A command console like structure for interface commands and then allow (xml based?) user writen addons. This would allow features like an ingame tracker in which you can directly give commands. Some games (e.g. World of Warcraft) do it this way. You can say a lot of negative things about WoW, but the interface and with its easy modability is freacking perfect as a few thousand mods out there can testify.

Since the interface is the most important part of communication with the operating system. I have high hopes, that this would also cure most if not all of the problems we have seen in recent Windows versions.

[mind_messing]

I think the greatest QoL change would be clickable links in the Ops and Combat Report.

Sub spotted in 75,33. CV Kaga callsign reported in 121,42

If I could click on 75,33 or 121,42 and jump right there, it would save hours. Ditto for air groups taking replacements, ships completing upgrades and so on.

[RogerJNeilson]

You need to think of the economics of this. Its a niche market and could not justify the expenditure to a developer. Look at the direction of travel of gaming - if it don't work on a tablet its not any use..... sadly.


Roger

[rustysi]

OK, enough. Here's about the only way I can see that anything gets done on this 'project' and even then there's no guarantee that you will be satisfied with the end result. Someone has to do the cost estimate of such an undertaking. Then we need to sell 'x' number of copies at such and such a price to guarantee a recoup and some profit. Then everyone up to the number of copies needs to pony up the cash and wait 3-5 years for the product to reach fruition. Any takers????[:D] I didn't think so.[:'(]

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

You need to think of the economics of this. Its a niche market and could not justify the expenditure to a developer. Look at the direction of travel of gaming - if it don't work on a tablet its not any use..... sadly.


Roger

If I were to work on a WitP style game, there would be a subscription cost, not a purchase price. The subscription cost would largely go towards supporting some fraction of a programmer to maintain the game and pay for hosting costs. No subscription = no play.

Games like these will never support enough players to make them economically feasible without an ongoing revenue stream. Given how much time we all spend on the game, spending $10-15 per month to support its ongoing development and maintenance is nothing. Frankly, michaelm's efforts are very much appreciated, but we need a model for supporting the game that helps pay for the resources to improve the game over time.

[Numdydar]

If you want to see this in action head over to the World in Flames forum [:)]

A very complex code (going back to the late 90's, worked on by one developer (with a lot of help from beta testers, etc.) and the game is still in beta with bugs and issues almost three years after 'release'. No Ai either I should point out. Personally I have no issue with the current game state as it is still playable solitaire with you being both sides and NetPlay is getting there, but many others are very upset about it.

IIRC, AE took four years to develop AE from the original WitP code. So I would expect a redesign to take even longer. Some of us will not live that long lol.

Someone a while back wanted to invest some money to improve the game. When they found out what it would cost just to do the modifications, they bailed.

So the ONLY way a WitP v2 will be created in a timely manner is if a) someone on this forum gets a windfall of cash and b) has nothing better to do with it than spend about $1M USD to get it developed.

There is an old (outdated now) adage that there are three constraints to any undertaking, Cost, Quality, and Time (i.e. speed of the endeavor). You get to pick two of the three. The other is unbound. In other words, there is no limit of the remaining constant.

In World in Flames situation, Cost and Quality were chosen, so three years later, the game is still being developed. With no end in sight.

So without an AE v2 'sugar daddy' showing up, we will just have to live with what we have. As it is not going to get any better anytime soon.

Totally OT: Btw there actually is a site sugerdaddy.com Maybe someone could post there. I'd do it but my wife might (actually will) take a dim view of my activities regardless of the why [X(]

[pontiouspilot]

I'm going to run out and buy an extra lottery ticket with this in mind!!...that or take my empties in for a refund.