New! v1127 Public Beta Available

[RangerJoe]

Another issue I see with the new map. Keep in mind I am still in early Jan 42 (the 6th), so this may change. I am sending ships to ENGLAND to ship supplies BACK TO EASTERN USA.

This seems... Ahhh...

Wrong.

The beta game that I am playing I did not have to do that nor does it appear that I will have to do that either.

[joey]

So we are stuck with a feature some of us do not like - because of a vote. It sounds like the government!

You dont like being able to change your default from "normal" to something else? Then whats the problem? Just leave it at "normal" (which is the way Don wanted it to be anyway).

I was speaking of the Y/N with respect to disbanding. At my age, my fingers don't work as well, but I can still use the mouse. You would not believe how long it took me to type this post.

[Meaneye]

Ahh, ok. My error. The "vote" I was talking about was the default on the screen when you create a TF - Normal Safe Safer Direct. ALL of the testers (without exception) used "direct" and having to change from normal to direct for every single TF was a bit annoying. I was really happy when Bill put the "coastal" option in. Saved me tons of time having to assign way-points.

Actually even at that, the Y/N box on the disband is kind of pointless because none of the options around it has a Y/N box associated with it... So if you see the box when you didnt select "disband" should tell you that you clicked the wrong thing. And if you do see it when you are disbanding, it probably wont make you stop and go, "gee, do I REALLY want to disband this TF?" either. So as I said, personally I dont see it as anything but annoying. Maybe the best change is to put a message in the box - something to effect: You are disbanding TF xxx. Check your commander.

I dont have a lot of experience playing allies, soo... take that for what its worth.

[Meaneye]

sup.png (130.92 KiB) Viewed 1511 times

7 Jan 42. FAR more supplies in England than anywhere else. Only reason I have so much at Bataan/Clark Field is I recaptured Manila from the Japanese and sucked the supplies in.

The AI moved NE from Manila (chasing one of my armor units) and didnt go into Clark from Manila, so I just simply moved into an ungarrisoned Manila behind it.

[RangerJoe]

So we are stuck with a feature some of us do not like - because of a vote. It sounds like the government!

You dont like being able to change your default from "normal" to something else? Then whats the problem? Just leave it at "normal" (which is the way Don wanted it to be anyway).

I was speaking of the Y/N with respect to disbanding. At my age, my fingers don't work as well, but I can still use the mouse. You would not believe how long it took me to type this post.

Well then, here is a suggestion for you:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/win ... 033fa5689f

Edit for this:

There is a way to disband a TF without using the disband function however.

Also, if you have arthritis in your fingers, pm me for some suggestions that might help.

[Meaneye]

Question: Rather than continuing to put lipstick on this, why not just start over. Keep the parts that work and toss the stuff that doesnt work?

I mean the hard parts are done. Artwork, maps, OBs. Stuff I (personally) would toss:
1) The arctic. For the most part neither side did anything up here because of the Seattle - Vladivostok lend lease route. The allies didnt want the Japs interfering with it so they didnt commit more than they needed to keep an eye on things, and the Japs didnt want to provoke the Russians. Remove it.

2) China. The Japanese pushed as far into China as they wanted and basically stopped advancing in China after Dec 41. With 1 exception, the 1944 I-GO operation which over ran the southern parts of China to push back the B-29 bases. The ease of Japans success in this operation shows the Japanese could have done it any time they wanted, but they simply didnt want to. And maintaining an ongoing bombing offensive out of China wasnt a realistic option for the allies either as the sheer cost in fuel and supplies to bring the necessary supplies into China. So again, it doesnt add anything, so remove it.

3) Most commanders and ALL pilots. Basically it boils down to this: are you the over-all commander (Nimitz/Tojo) or the bureau of naval personnel? It adds color, sure, but in the grand scheme of things its needless clutter. Dump it. (Not to mention the amount of time we spent chasing bugs in this area).

4) Small stuff. PTs, local minesweepers, mine tenders, ect. Make them an intrinsic part of naval base forces with a range of effect. Again, needless clutter. The grand scheme of things they dont add anything to the game.

5) Some of the off map areas. Sure having England on the map looks good, but honestly what (should) it add to the game? Jamacia? Alexandria? If it isnt needed to actually play the game, then why?

6) A lot of the rear area supply stuff can be abstracted. Players dont want to be Capt Torry (John Wayne from In Harms Way for those of you too young to understand that one) and sit around "counting the ink stains on the blotter", they want to be ADMIRAL Torry, "using men and ships in action". This would also speed up the game.

Just a start to get your gears churning.

[btd64]

Meaneye, If you're so upset about the game, Don't play it. Move on to something else....GP

[RangerJoe]

Question: Rather than continuing to put lipstick on this, why not just start over. Keep the parts that work and toss the stuff that doesnt work?

I mean the hard parts are done. Artwork, maps, OBs. Stuff I (personally) would toss:
1) The arctic. For the most part neither side did anything up here because of the Seattle - Vladivostok lend lease route. The allies didnt want the Japs interfering with it so they didnt commit more than they needed to keep an eye on things, and the Japs didnt want to provoke the Russians. Remove it.

2) China. The Japanese pushed as far into China as they wanted and basically stopped advancing in China after Dec 41. With 1 exception, the 1944 I-GO operation which over ran the southern parts of China to push back the B-29 bases. The ease of Japans success in this operation shows the Japanese could have done it any time they wanted, but they simply didnt want to. And maintaining an ongoing bombing offensive out of China wasnt a realistic option for the allies either as the sheer cost in fuel and supplies to bring the necessary supplies into China. So again, it doesnt add anything, so remove it.

3) Most commanders and ALL pilots. Basically it boils down to this: are you the over-all commander (Nimitz/Tojo) or the bureau of naval personnel? It adds color, sure, but in the grand scheme of things its needless clutter. Dump it. (Not to mention the amount of time we spent chasing bugs in this area).

4) Small stuff. PTs, local minesweepers, mine tenders, ect. Make them an intrinsic part of naval base forces with a range of effect. Again, needless clutter. The grand scheme of things they dont add anything to the game.

5) Some of the off map areas. Sure having England on the map looks good, but honestly what (should) it add to the game? Jamacia? Alexandria? If it isnt needed to actually play the game, then why?

6) A lot of the rear area supply stuff can be abstracted. Players dont want to be Capt Torry (John Wayne from In Harms Way for those of you too young to understand that one) and sit around "counting the ink stains on the blotter", they want to be ADMIRAL Torry, "using men and ships in action". This would also speed up the game.

Just a start to get your gears churning.

https://archive.org/details/msdos_Gary_ ... c_War_2000

[Meaneye]

Meaneye, If you're so upset about the game, Don't play it. Move on to something else....GP

Umm, isnt that what I suggested? I mean seriously, this thing has been out 15 years and still has bugs I reported 15 years ago. The engine isnt 20 years old btw, its closer to 45 years old. It dates back to Guadalcanal Campaign copyright 1981.

Maybe its time for a new engine?

[RangerJoe]

Meaneye, If you're so upset about the game, Don't play it. Move on to something else....GP

Maybe he needs to start writing what he wants and then code it all but without using any information from this game nor any previous games.

[btd64]

Meaneye, If you're so upset about the game, Don't play it. Move on to something else....GP

Maybe he needs to start writing what he wants and then code it all but without using any information from this game nor any previous games.

Agreed....GP

[Platoonist]

Question: Rather than continuing to put lipstick on this, why not just start over. Keep the parts that work and toss the stuff that doesnt work?

I mean the hard parts are done. Artwork, maps, OBs. Stuff I (personally) would toss:
1) The arctic. For the most part neither side did anything up here because of the Seattle - Vladivostok lend lease route. The allies didnt want the Japs interfering with it so they didnt commit more than they needed to keep an eye on things, and the Japs didnt want to provoke the Russians. Remove it.

2) China. The Japanese pushed as far into China as they wanted and basically stopped advancing in China after Dec 41. With 1 exception, the 1944 I-GO operation which over ran the southern parts of China to push back the B-29 bases. The ease of Japans success in this operation shows the Japanese could have done it any time they wanted, but they simply didnt want to. And maintaining an ongoing bombing offensive out of China wasnt a realistic option for the allies either as the sheer cost in fuel and supplies to bring the necessary supplies into China. So again, it doesnt add anything, so remove it.

3) Most commanders and ALL pilots. Basically it boils down to this: are you the over-all commander (Nimitz/Tojo) or the bureau of naval personnel? It adds color, sure, but in the grand scheme of things its needless clutter. Dump it. (Not to mention the amount of time we spent chasing bugs in this area).

4) Small stuff. PTs, local minesweepers, mine tenders, ect. Make them an intrinsic part of naval base forces with a range of effect. Again, needless clutter. The grand scheme of things they dont add anything to the game.

5) Some of the off map areas. Sure having England on the map looks good, but honestly what (should) it add to the game? Jamacia? Alexandria? If it isnt needed to actually play the game, then why?

6) A lot of the rear area supply stuff can be abstracted. Players dont want to be Capt Torry (John Wayne from In Harms Way for those of you too young to understand that one) and sit around "counting the ink stains on the blotter", they want to be ADMIRAL Torry, "using men and ships in action". This would also speed up the game.

Just a start to get your gears churning.

Over the years I've noticed a lot of people claim to love all that detail. Or love/hate anyway.

I suppose you could always try the newer and simpler game WarPlan Pacific. It takes most of the Arctic out of the equation as well as the pilots, captains, tenders, ac engines, Jamaica, rear area supply stuff, Y/N boxes, etc. You still have to contend with China tho.

WarPlan Pacific.jpg (191.5 KiB) Viewed 1364 times

[darbygray]

WITP is FAR superior to that piece of crap, WarPlan Pacific...

[orabera]

https://archive.org/details/msdos_Gary_ ... c_War_2000

Loved this game when it came out. For me a perfect Pacific game would be something between this and WitP, a bit closer to WitP.

Actively taking the role of every staff officer who participated on the Allied side during the war is just a bit much.

But I'm not a game designer so I enjoy what's available.

If we're mentioning what we'd like to see, I'd like to see a Pacific game that actually uses a globe model. Computers are advanced enough now this should be possible for many of the strategic game Matrix releases. Someone just needs to do it first.

[RangerJoe]

https://archive.org/details/msdos_Gary_ ... c_War_2000

Loved this game when it came out. For me a perfect Pacific game would be something between this and WitP, a bit closer to WitP.

Actively taking the role of every staff officer who participated on the Allied side during the war is just a bit much.

But I'm not a game designer so I enjoy what's available.

If we're mentioning what we'd like to see, I'd like to see a Pacific game that actually uses a globe model. Computers are advanced enough now this should be possible for many of the strategic game Matrix releases. Someone just needs to do it first.

To use a globe model would require a different engine in all probability. I like the flat map, trying to figure out things like the Great Circle route for all of the ships and aircraft would be a little too much for me.

But that is the game that brought me here. Then I was reading about a man from Italy with some unique spelling abilities who invaded Hokkaido in 1944 and I was hooked into buying this game.

[Yaab]

Didn't he invade Cock's Bazar earlier?

[Zovs]

Well its been exactly one year since the beta was released, from what I have read and seen there were many bugs listed, but no patches that made corrections to rectify them. Where is the 'beta' now after one year? When will it be official? What is the latest corrected version?

[btd64]

Well its been exactly one year since the beta was released, from what I have read and seen there were many bugs listed, but no patches that made corrections to rectify them. Where is the 'beta' now after one year? When will it be official? What is the latest corrected version?

Sorry for the delay. We are a small team. Good news is that we are almost ready....GP

[Zovs]

Well its been exactly one year since the beta was released, from what I have read and seen there were many bugs listed, but no patches that made corrections to rectify them. Where is the 'beta' now after one year? When will it be official? What is the latest corrected version?

Sorry for the delay. We are a small team. Good news is that we are almost ready....GP

Awesome!

[actrade]

I've been quietly lurking over the last year wanting to wait until the new update is published before starting a GC...good to hear!