Is anyone interested in an update for AE?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

I suppose there will be a healthy dose of Matrix saying "This is what we are willing to do based on the interest/feedback gents" and we will have to live with it. On the other hand, I am OK with that; 100% of 50% scope is better than 0% of 100% of scope to me.

Overall, I would really enjoy some "help" in slogging through all those thousands of units that need orders on December 8th.
To me this translates into:
- better User Interface and ease in recognition and speed of feature usage while giving orders
- a whole slew of automation and "task stacking" tools that allow coordination w/o having to remember everything turn to turn or 7 turns later
- improved player feedback on actions taken in the interface and local repercussions perhaps

I am a bit concerned about whether Matrix/Slitherine can find the right programming folks to pick WITP:AE up and run with it, but I suppose if they are taking this seriously (it sounds like it so far) that they have considered that already?

Before you start coding a game engine, you have to settle on game design. This would be like setting out the design criteria for a new building before asking architects to submit their designs for it.

The problem here is that the basic design of the game with all its combat resolution and movement algorithms and databases comes from one Mr. Gary Grigsby, who has ownership of the game design and has already said he would never do another game like WITP-AE because of the complexity it presented. So if he is not on board, the first step would be buying the rights to the game design from him. After that the tweaks to game design we have been talking about could be dealt with and put in the programming specification.

The alternative to this is to abandon Gary Grigsby's approach and design the game quite differently - which would make it a new and unfamiliar game. I don't think most of the current game's fans would want a complete new approach.

[Moltrey]

Yeah, I can appreciate that BBfanboy.

That all points back to my first sentence. We (the players) don't know a lot of things, both internal to the game code and external.
I don't particularly want or see a change to Gary's signature design platform as necessary or in anyone's best interest. However, the problem is we are in the dark as to whether any of our requests can be accomplished within the current Grigsby structure or not.
Frustrating to a degree, but I think we still need to go through the exercise if only to relay our basic wants and needs to Matrix.

At the end of the day we might not get what the majority are looking for in a new upgraded version. Or- perhaps we will. Too many parties involved to sort it out.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

I suppose there will be a healthy dose of Matrix saying "This is what we are willing to do based on the interest/feedback gents" and we will have to live with it. On the other hand, I am OK with that; 100% of 50% scope is better than 0% of 100% of scope to me.

Overall, I would really enjoy some "help" in slogging through all those thousands of units that need orders on December 8th.
To me this translates into:
- better User Interface and ease in recognition and speed of feature usage while giving orders
- a whole slew of automation and "task stacking" tools that allow coordination w/o having to remember everything turn to turn or 7 turns later
- improved player feedback on actions taken in the interface and local repercussions perhaps

I am a bit concerned about whether Matrix/Slitherine can find the right programming folks to pick WITP:AE up and run with it, but I suppose if they are taking this seriously (it sounds like it so far) that they have considered that already?

Before you start coding a game engine, you have to settle on game design. This would be like setting out the design criteria for a new building before asking architects to submit their designs for it.

The problem here is that the basic design of the game with all its combat resolution and movement algorithms and databases comes from one Mr. Gary Grigsby, who has ownership of the game design and has already said he would never do another game like WITP-AE because of the complexity it presented. So if he is not on board, the first step would be buying the rights to the game design from him. After that the tweaks to game design we have been talking about could be dealt with and put in the programming specification.

The alternative to this is to abandon Gary Grigsby's approach and design the game quite differently - which would make it a new and unfamiliar game. I don't think most of the current game's fans would want a complete new approach.

That what happen to Hearts of Iron II, there were few games such as Iron Cross, Darkest Hours, etc. Somehow the players or fans manage to buy the license and got this rolling and selling it on the market.

They did however manage to improve the game in some ways. For example, Darkest Hours were a little more complex and many zones were placed.

[LeeChard]

I agree with BBfanboy about some of the hurdles we would have to clear. I would want to base the new game on
the original design. That way it could possibly use the same stats and bypass the enormous research requirements
and just leave it open to some tweaking or user friendly modding.
My main objectives would be taking advantage of windows to be able to open screens side by side and compare things
before making a change that can't be undone(hmm...should I upgrade or keep producing what's online?).
A new and changeable map for road building and such. Some zoom capability for us old farts who need to plant our
faces about 6 inches from the screen to see some details.
And for players like me, who prefer single player, an improved and adaptable AI. That one seems like the toughest
challenge.
Maybe Grigsby would trade his rights for some royalty agreement. It would be great if he were available to oversee
and have some input but leave him out of the grunt work.

[mind_messing]

As interesting as it is to discuss WITP 2, the topic here is an update for AE as it stands.

I agree with BBfanboy about some of the hurdles we would have to clear. I would want to base the new game on
the original design. That way it could possibly use the same stats and bypass the enormous research requirements
and just leave it open to some tweaking or user friendly modding.
My main objectives would be taking advantage of windows to be able to open screens side by side and compare things
before making a change that can't be undone(hmm...should I upgrade or keep producing what's online?).
A new and changeable map for road building and such. Some zoom capability for us old farts who need to plant our
faces about 6 inches from the screen to see some details.
And for players like me, who prefer single player, an improved and adaptable AI. That one seems like the toughest
challenge.
Maybe Grigsby would trade his rights for some royalty agreement. It would be great if he were available to oversee
and have some input but leave him out of the grunt work.

I don't see the value in this. It was historically very minor and the only major road/rail efforts were in fringe theatres.

If you let players control it then there's min-maxing to connect Malaya to Port Arthur or build a railroad to Darwin, which upsets the strategic balance ahistorically.

Zoom capability and the QoL improevements you suggest would be good.

AI is scripted, and it's not a proper "AI".

[Fishbed]

Actually I am not convinced that hexagones would be the way to go if a remake was to be made. But I would certainly keep WEGO and improve on it (with the possibility of actual TCP/IP WEGO, that is simultaneous turn planning).

And I would gladly also make CBI work in a different, abstracted fashion. An engine running the War at Sea and the Land War both satisfactorily is a big endeavor, and CBI would require so much testing and balancing I am not convinced it would be worth the effort. How many of you actually enjoy the war in China or even in Burma in terms of gameplay, compared to actual PTO action? Overall it would also help to keep the game focused.

[Moltrey]

As interesting as it is to discuss WITP 2, the topic here is an update for AE as it stands.

I don't see the value in this. It was historically very minor and the only major road/rail efforts were in fringe theatres.
If you let players control it then there's min-maxing to connect Malaya to Port Arthur or build a railroad to Darwin, which upsets the strategic balance ahistorically.
Zoom capability and the QoL improevements you suggest would be good.
AI is scripted, and it's not a proper "AI".

__________________________________________________________________________

I agree with mind_messing here. Matrix will have to be very specific about what things are ON or OFF the development "table" for consideration. Scope creep is not something that can be afforded on this project.

I also agree about the building idea, but mostly because we all know (whether we want to admit it or not) that any crack in gameplay that allows player-induced flow will be abused by players, period. Gonna happen, guaranteed. Personally I don't think it matters how many will cross that line. I prefer its inclusion via mods and scenarios.

I risk accusation of being off topic, but would argue that there is always an undercurrent on these and other forums.

Namely, CONTROL.
It is the 800 pound Gorilla in the Wargaming room. How much of it do you allow the gamer? When? -and under what circumstances? Over the years (I am 55) I have seen many games come and go, been on countless forums and discussions. Some things never change. Some wargamers get very irritated when they feel a lack of complete control of their digital pixeltruppen. I suppose at the end of the day it boils down to personal preference and ones life experiences.

Undoubtedly, most of you have already surmised that I am not in this camp. I much prefer to be immersed in the greater personal experience that senior commanders of the day must have lived through. The stress and worry of being a flag rank officer must have been acute and agonizing.

With regard to WITP:AE I almost relish the fog of war component that Grigsby and Henderson Field Designs have presented us. To me, being both enthralled by the possibilities and frustrated by intel that I can't trust IS the game. I feel it is a brilliant design and is what makes War in the Pacific a true classic.

I am interested in other's point of view regarding this and continued scope discussions.

[DFN]

Am i the only one that realized that the next installment of the series is already unofficially in development for some years now? [&:][&:][&:]

[HansBolter]

A command structure that actually means something would be wonderful.

Both a need and an ability to transfer units to the correct HQs to maximize operations would be wonderful.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: DFN

Am i the only one that realized that the next installment of the series is already unofficially in development for some years now? [&:][&:][&:]

Putting about unsubstantiated rumours is akin to trolling.

Alfred

[Alfred]

Regular as clockwork the ghost of a new iteration of this game gets unwarranted air.  Even though the problems have been explained on every previous occasion, we again have simplistic and unrealistic statements made.
 
1.  The OP has no credibility when it comes to official contacts and developments.  Plank holders will know exactly which misrepresentations have been made in the past.
 
2.  So people here think crowd funding will suffice.  Any of you cared to do the most simple arithmetic.
 
(a) how much do you think a new game iteration would sell for?  $USD 50 perhaps.  Surely $USD 100 would have to be the upper limit.
(b) how much would individuals be willing to donate in a crowd funding exercise?  More than the game's upper sale price limit of $USD 100?  Maybe a few would give $USD 200 or $USD 300 on the basis that even though it is paying well over the odds it is necessary just to get the game made but many more would give less than $USD 100.
(c) how many people wold contribute money?  A hundred forumites perhaps, a number made possible only if a considerable number of lurkers contributed money.  Let's say a great wave of enthusiasm is generated amongst the lurkers and we get financial contributions from 300 lurkers.
 
So a very optimistic scenario results in 300 contributors at an average of $USD 100 each.  That totals $USD 30,000 raised.  How much professional coding time does that buy you?  Answer, not much, certainly a lot less than the coding time involved in developing AE.  I'm not going to repeat, again, the details of how much effort went into AE but it took 4 calendar years and involved more than 4 coders plus researchers plus team leaders.  All up about 18 people, excluding the testers.
 
So what exactly is the point of crowd funding.  You will never raise sufficient funds to professionally fund the R&D.  You don't need to crowd fund if the work is done by volunteers.
 
3.  Matrix will not release a new iteration without it being playable against the AI.  Approximately 80% of sales are made to purchasers who only play against the computer.  As always the most vocal supporters of a new iteration do not play against the computer.  They have no interest in spending their time to develop a new AI module.  AE has been out for 10 years now and in that time no one other than the dev Andy Mac, I repeat no one, has bothered to develop a new AI script.  Every single modder has found it to be much more important to "correct" the hair colour from blonde to brunet of the chorus girl the third from the left in the back row.  This level of insignificance is all that draws the attention of our modders rather than the professional importance of AI.
 
When one is merely tinkering with a private mod which is not sold, one can waste as much time with the appearance of that chorus girl.  However, when producing a professional product which is sold for money, all that non sexy work which cannot be done on the basis of looking up some dubious wiki article, is integral to the R&D.
 
4.  Some on this thread have stated we don't know the parameters which impact the R&D.  They haven't done their research because we know the parameters.  Again just look up all the previous threads on this subject.  Hint in terms of legacy issues too much emphasis is being given to Grigsby/Matrix whereas Henderson Field Design has been neglected.
 
 
 
AE has been out for 10 years.  Every 6 months or so it seems someone opens a thread on this subject.  Why do you think there has been no iteration.  After all, classical WITP was only about 18 months old when AE development began, and AE was released some 5 years after classical WITP.  After release AE still received sustained dev work for another couple of years.  Personally I would be ashamed to show my face in public if I peddled the false hopes which are regularly created on the forum.  There is a way to get a new iteration done but it will never result from these false peddlers who lack the skills to deliver.  My advice instead is to go search for the Maltese Falcon, at least that is the stuff of which dreams are made of. 
 
Alfred   

[witpqs]

Every single modder has found it to be much more important to "correct" the hair colour from blonde to brunet of the chorus girl the third from the left in the back row.

[Admiral DadMan]

And with that, I think we have found our natural stopping point. Thank you everyone.