Spence is correct in that small ships have a much lower experience cap (without combat) than larger ships. I think only US DDs and larger can get to 65 EXP without combat while some small minesweepers top out at 25 EXP. There are a few steps in between for slightly larger ships.ORIGINAL: rustysi
-The WitPTracker is used by a lot of people to get a hold of the Japanese economy, even very experienced Japanese players. I think that speaks volumes on how the difficulties on getting an oversight of the economy ingame. You'd need something like the tracker at a minimum.
I never use tracker, and I have no problem.
Training ships: As things stand pilots can be trained "to brush their teeth 3 times a day" and gain experience doing it but a ship can be spend a whole year at sea continuously and gain no crew experience whatsoever. In particular this seems that this applies most particularly to small Allied combatants which mostly perform ASW/escort type missions. Given hindsight the Japanese have the ability to emphasize and improve on their historically accurate lack of emphasis/training/equipment for ASW but the Allies who historically sank about 1000 enemy submarines (German, Italian and Japanese) during the war are stuck with the same bunch of bumbling fools for 4 years.
This is just not true. All ships will 'train' to a certain crew level just by being 'at sea'. For Japan that level is 45, other nations have their own national level IIRC. To go beyond that 'training' level requires combat.
What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: cardas
Damn, I was all ready to go ranting about this and that!Also, try to keep away from the play balance debate if you please!Guess you are talking mainly about the interface then which is, without a doubt, an area that could be improved upon. Designing a good UI is a difficult thing to though.
Here's a few I can think of, I'm sure there's plenty more.
LCU:
-Combat potential. The game does a lousy job in communicating how good the ground units actually are. It mainly shows the AV values, a very crude indicator at best on how well LCUs stack up against each other in combat. Someone who's played a bit learns how good different LCUs are by experience but for a new player this is a big pitfall.
I don't think i can agree.
I think one of problems with game is too little fog of war even in own side. I mean how much precision IRL a commander have that an unit is X good?
Or why we think we can rate Yamamoto or any other commander with a precise X in aggressive and a precise Y in experience? I think there is a field here for the famous Grisby odds and this should not be hard values.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Or why we think we can rate Yamamoto or any other commander with a precise X in aggressive and a precise Y in experience? I think there is a field here for the famous Grisby odds and this should not be hard values.
If not then how do you put their values into the matrix. I mean I know all such values are subjective to one point or another, but what other method would you suggest to use the inputs of leaders?
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
I think only US DDs and larger can get to 65 EXP without combat while some small minesweepers top out at 25 EXP. There are a few steps in between for slightly larger ships.
I could be wrong, but from what I see these 'larger' ships may come in with higher experience levels, but don't 'train' to them. That is without combat. I'll have to look closer to be sure.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
-
geofflambert
- Posts: 14887
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
- Location: St. Louis
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: Zorch
In the beginning the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and then there was WitP:AE, and it was good. [:D]ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Repeat after me: There is War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition. There is only War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition. There are no other games than War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition. Nothing came before War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition and nothing will follow War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition.
No one would have believed in the early years of the Twenty-First century that War in the Pacific: Admiral’s Edition was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns such as logistics and pilot training they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro across the map about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over the Pacific. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Gorn, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this War in the Pacific: Admiral’s Edition with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the Twenty-First century came the great disillusionment.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Have the Gorn met the Martians?ORIGINAL: geofflambert
ORIGINAL: Zorch
In the beginning the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and then there was WitP:AE, and it was good. [:D]ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Repeat after me: There is War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition. There is only War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition. There are no other games than War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition. Nothing came before War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition and nothing will follow War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition.
No one would have believed in the early years of the Twenty-First century that War in the Pacific: Admiral’s Edition was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns such as logistics and pilot training they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro across the map about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over the Pacific. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Gorn, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this War in the Pacific: Admiral’s Edition with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the Twenty-First century came the great disillusionment.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: rustysi
Or why we think we can rate Yamamoto or any other commander with a precise X in aggressive and a precise Y in experience? I think there is a field here for the famous Grisby odds and this should not be hard values.
If not then how do you put their values into the matrix. I mean I know all such values are subjective to one point or another, but what other method would you suggest to use the inputs of leaders?
Values can stay as a loose reference, there would be small odds that the commander is a dud, that outperforms the odds and values in between. I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Fredendall was put in command of a Corps. This was Eisenhower about him: in notes dictated to Harry C. Butcher on December 12, 1942, said, "…Patton I think comes closest to meeting every requirement made on a commander. Just after him I would, at present, rate Fredendall, although I do not believe the latter has the imagination in foreseeing and preparing for possible jobs of the future that Patton possesses." He was wrong on second place.
We know how good a commander is based on information we have after the conflict we are about to begin play. But IRL a commander doesn't have such hard values about a person, and a person changes with time, and subordinates he choose(or are given to him) also matter. So while we can't erase what we know - good example the ASW japanese effort - i think future wargames should have more randomness regarding commanders capabilities. Same is valid for units. Even better if wargame occurrences can affect "personality".
As it is choosing a commander is just a matter of looking at hard values and that is it, combat feedback does not matter. I don't think it gives much value to the wargame. We can't make same mistake Eisenhower made.
-
InfiniteMonkey
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
/agreeORIGINAL: RichardAckermann
This thread is pure gold!
So many good ideas. I love it.
-
InfiniteMonkey
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
A good thread to start since RichardAckermann and I are both working on new games that will cover the PTO.ORIGINAL: Rogue187
Hey everyone! Since my other thread about WITP3 became a study in game balance, it made me wonder, what would you want in an updated version of the game? I'm sure other wish lists exist, but I will add mine. Please keep in mind, I have not played the game until the end, and I am still new. Also, I am not a developer and have no idea how hard any of this would be to implement. Also, try to keep away from the play balance debate if you please!
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
I don't want a new WITP
I do want matrix to re do it so it loads on Windows ten with no extra computer skills needed
other than ïnstll"
I do want matrix to re do it so it loads on Windows ten with no extra computer skills needed
other than ïnstll"
big seas, fast ships, life tastes better with salt
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
My previous joke aside...how about a tweak to objective preparation time? Preparation points advance a point a day to the best possible 100 points. I find this to be inordinately long, especially considering some historical examples during the PTO campaign. How to address this? Maybe linking the following on a given objective: DL, aerial recon, landing of (scouting) LCU's (good case for USMC Raiders, UDT's, Alamo Scouts), aerial bombardments/strafing (gun camera footage), naval bombardments. All of this would collect intel on the objective and speed preparation for those LCU's assigned to assault.
Rangers Lead The Way!
Sua Sponte
Sua Sponte
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
How about linking this to strategic leadership. That would seem logical. The overall Theater leader would have access to all the various intel on various objectives obtained by whatever means and also would be able to reconcile that with future needs. Hate to say it but since the Japanese had quite a long lead time to plan their war plans (and then decided to commit sepoku anyways) Nimitz/MacArthur should be significantly better able to adjust priorities than Yamamoto et al.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
While we are on the subject it would be nice if there was a scenario that didn't "gift" the sinking of the POW and Repulse and the taking of Wake Island to the Japanese. While I agree that the Brits/Churchill did require POW/Repulse to sail to their doom on the 9th of December 1941 it seems to me that the Japanese invasion of Wake was: a) scheduled with much too small of a force initially and b: was scheduled without any thought to enemy defenses (dumb commander) and c: the Allied commander has no hope of surviving until Dec 22 1941 because he'll run out of supplies (and the means to resist) long before that date.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Some ideas:
1) Refocus on the player as a theatre commander
Remove any and all functionality that would be far below the level of the player. For example:
- if a task force is to bombard at night on the 24th/25th, don't require me to work out which hex it needs to be in on the 24th, let the Admiral decide
- have regiment commanders automatically assigned, then if the unit fights well award recognition points to its commander. When a new Division arrives assign a recognised, experienced commander without any player involvement
- don't order a squadron to sweep enemy airfield with 40% of its planes at 12,000 feet. Order a base to use its air assets to aggressively gain air superiority.
2) Have higher level formations
Let the player combine units into Armies to carry out offensives. Let an Army be loaded into transports, fitting its units as best possible for smallest load space or fastest offload.
Let the player decide by region \ high level formation how aggressive to be, what types of enemy to target etc.
3) Better convoys and submarines
Let the player assign convoy routes, escorts, air cover etc, then automate their use. Essentially have a convoy command that takes responsibility not just for moving resources but also for deploying air cover and hunter killer ASW groups. Then for submarine forces, have an automated command to deploy (spare) submarines, and only have submarines in enemy waters report in every few days for new manual orders and contact reports.
4) More Planning tools
Have new planning tools to help the player. For example:
- Task force tools to identify when a convoy can reach varying ports, when will multiple convoys arrive at a port, compare multiple task force planned paths to see where perhaps my outbound carriers will catch up with and overtake their tankers?
- when will ships in repair yards be repaired? when will bases be repaired by (if not hit again)?
- what assault value is marching to a friendly base, or preparing to invade an enemy base?
5) Smarter Intelligence Gathering
The current system fails to represent data being built up over time. By all means keep the current reports, but add in recon flights, known facts etc to produce an intelligence picture.
So don't just tell the player on this turn that IJA 2nd Infantry Division is planning for Wake Island. Let the player step through the intelligence reports for the past month to see that no other units, not even a base force are preparing for that base. Let the player see that a recon flight spotted that division 9 days ago at George Town. Or perhaps there are 3 divisions and base force preparing for Wake, no IJN CV has been spotted in 2 weeks and an Allied sub attacked a large group of tankers heading east from Marcus Island yesterday?
1) Refocus on the player as a theatre commander
Remove any and all functionality that would be far below the level of the player. For example:
- if a task force is to bombard at night on the 24th/25th, don't require me to work out which hex it needs to be in on the 24th, let the Admiral decide
- have regiment commanders automatically assigned, then if the unit fights well award recognition points to its commander. When a new Division arrives assign a recognised, experienced commander without any player involvement
- don't order a squadron to sweep enemy airfield with 40% of its planes at 12,000 feet. Order a base to use its air assets to aggressively gain air superiority.
2) Have higher level formations
Let the player combine units into Armies to carry out offensives. Let an Army be loaded into transports, fitting its units as best possible for smallest load space or fastest offload.
Let the player decide by region \ high level formation how aggressive to be, what types of enemy to target etc.
3) Better convoys and submarines
Let the player assign convoy routes, escorts, air cover etc, then automate their use. Essentially have a convoy command that takes responsibility not just for moving resources but also for deploying air cover and hunter killer ASW groups. Then for submarine forces, have an automated command to deploy (spare) submarines, and only have submarines in enemy waters report in every few days for new manual orders and contact reports.
4) More Planning tools
Have new planning tools to help the player. For example:
- Task force tools to identify when a convoy can reach varying ports, when will multiple convoys arrive at a port, compare multiple task force planned paths to see where perhaps my outbound carriers will catch up with and overtake their tankers?
- when will ships in repair yards be repaired? when will bases be repaired by (if not hit again)?
- what assault value is marching to a friendly base, or preparing to invade an enemy base?
5) Smarter Intelligence Gathering
The current system fails to represent data being built up over time. By all means keep the current reports, but add in recon flights, known facts etc to produce an intelligence picture.
So don't just tell the player on this turn that IJA 2nd Infantry Division is planning for Wake Island. Let the player step through the intelligence reports for the past month to see that no other units, not even a base force are preparing for that base. Let the player see that a recon flight spotted that division 9 days ago at George Town. Or perhaps there are 3 divisions and base force preparing for Wake, no IJN CV has been spotted in 2 weeks and an Allied sub attacked a large group of tankers heading east from Marcus Island yesterday?
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
i think future wargames should have more randomness regarding commanders capabilities.
This should be taken care of in the combat algorithms. Knowing Grigsby and his games I would be surprised if it weren't.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
-
mind_messing
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
To be perfectly honest, UI improvements to the current game would make the game for me.
Drag-and-drop boxes, hyperlinks, better interface with pilot pools and so on.
A bunch of QoL improvements would take a large degree of the tedium right out of this game.
Drag-and-drop boxes, hyperlinks, better interface with pilot pools and so on.
A bunch of QoL improvements would take a large degree of the tedium right out of this game.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Easier way to add art. This is probably the biggest problem area for modders....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330
AKA General Patton
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
SCW Manual Lead & Beta Support Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
AKA General Patton
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
SCW Manual Lead & Beta Support Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Voice commands. Such as "Open the pod bay doors."
-
FlyByKnight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:00 pm
- Location: West Coast
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Add more ships that can be renamed. Later on, the Allied player gets many US destroyers that are named after people who died under very specific circumstances that wouldn't occur in-game (same goes for Destroyer escorts, but I think there's some leeway there because they're mostly named after lower-ranking servicemen). In addition, CVL-28 Langley can't be renamed on the off chance the allied player preserves AV Langley.
Also worth noting is that many of the Naval officers the aforementioned Destroyers are named after do not exist in the game files. Or they are not in command of the ships they were on historically at the game start.
It's rather odd to see people who were noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry not appear in-game and have some nobody in their place.
These two are things one can add to the game database themselves, but I'm guessing not many people would go through the effort.
Some kind of 'theater system' for Leaders, or some varying delay for when a leader takes command of a unit to simulate the time it takes for them to transfer.
The option to set how many aircraft are given to a squadron when it receives an upgrade, possibly based on pilots, so that you don't send 25 precious fighters to a group when you have a thin replacement pool.
Order settings for surface TF's so that they're not as likely to bumble into an unwinnable engagement (leader ratings would determine how much these orders are followed).
Some way of showing ship formations in battle, a way to set them up beforehand (Like the formation the Japanese had at Tassafaronga-one destroyers out in front as a picket or something like that).
More ship XP values than Day/night. AA, ASW, etc.
A production/R&D system for both players (IE, Allied player wants to speed up production of the Alaska-class ships, Japanese player can dedicate some not-insubstantial amount of resources to developing an improved mid-range AA gun that's better than the Type 96 25mm).
More variables for the Captain of a ship or TF leader perishing than the ship sinking, like a lucky hit to the bridge.
The game tracks fighter pilot kills, so how about a system that lets players see any famous pilots who landed good hits on enemy ships?
A system for damaged planes to land at airfields en route to their destination and possibly appear as fragments, and for planes to be intercepted en route rather than over their destination hex by fighters flying from other places.
The chance for ships in a captured base to not be scuttled and placed into enemy service (Like USS Stewart AKA PB-102).
Also worth noting is that many of the Naval officers the aforementioned Destroyers are named after do not exist in the game files. Or they are not in command of the ships they were on historically at the game start.
It's rather odd to see people who were noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry not appear in-game and have some nobody in their place.
These two are things one can add to the game database themselves, but I'm guessing not many people would go through the effort.
Some kind of 'theater system' for Leaders, or some varying delay for when a leader takes command of a unit to simulate the time it takes for them to transfer.
The option to set how many aircraft are given to a squadron when it receives an upgrade, possibly based on pilots, so that you don't send 25 precious fighters to a group when you have a thin replacement pool.
Order settings for surface TF's so that they're not as likely to bumble into an unwinnable engagement (leader ratings would determine how much these orders are followed).
Some way of showing ship formations in battle, a way to set them up beforehand (Like the formation the Japanese had at Tassafaronga-one destroyers out in front as a picket or something like that).
More ship XP values than Day/night. AA, ASW, etc.
A production/R&D system for both players (IE, Allied player wants to speed up production of the Alaska-class ships, Japanese player can dedicate some not-insubstantial amount of resources to developing an improved mid-range AA gun that's better than the Type 96 25mm).
More variables for the Captain of a ship or TF leader perishing than the ship sinking, like a lucky hit to the bridge.
The game tracks fighter pilot kills, so how about a system that lets players see any famous pilots who landed good hits on enemy ships?
A system for damaged planes to land at airfields en route to their destination and possibly appear as fragments, and for planes to be intercepted en route rather than over their destination hex by fighters flying from other places.
The chance for ships in a captured base to not be scuttled and placed into enemy service (Like USS Stewart AKA PB-102).
ORIGINAL: Big B
The obvious question is - "Will each shell do at least 0ne Million Dollars worth of damage?" If not, someone needs to look at this again and rethink it.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
so how about a system that lets players see any famous pilots who landed good hits on enemy ships?
At Midway, Ltjg Dusty Kleis, flying an SBD, hit the HIJMS Kaga with his bomb in the morning then hit HIJMS Hiryu with his bomb in the afternoon. He got transferred after the battle to training new SBD pilots.
Since IJN pilots, in general, only got out of combat duty by going home in a box (of ashes) I would imagine that they had several of their own "ace" dive bomber pilots (given their actual historical statistics I'd be skeptical about saying the same about torpedo bomber pilots).