Quick update on development progress.

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Mr.Frag »

I look at it this way; I may never need to buy another game....

Interesting point. I know I have had to turn down 3 other beta requests because I just don't have the time. Apart from Sierra's Homeworld 2 (which took the weekend to play and cost $69) there has really been nothing else. There are only two games installed on my machine and that is pretty scary. HTTR & WitP. HTTR is my stress relief when WitP gets to me and I need a break. I don't see anything else coming out this year that interests me at all. I'll check out 2by3's WoW, but it's probably not my cup of tea.
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25433
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Interesting point. I know I have had to turn down 3 other beta requests because I just don't have the time. Apart from Sierra's Homeworld 2 (which took the weekend to play and cost $69) there has really been nothing else. There are only two games installed on my machine and that is pretty scary. HTTR & WitP. HTTR is my stress relief when WitP gets to me and I need a break. I don't see anything else coming out this year that interests me at all. I'll check out 2by3's WoW, but it's probably not my cup of tea.

And HTTR's child Create Invasion (is it due this year)? [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
John B
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:22 pm

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by John B »

$70 (about, what, £40 here in the UK?) seems about right to me. We are very much a niche market in the world of PC gaming as a whole, and no company catering for us if ever going to get the mass sales which others do. Someone made a good point about how many games most of us are likely to buy in the course of a year. In my case WiP will be the first this year, and speaking from memory of what other new games are likely this year, I only see myself buying "Battles in Normandy" and maybe "Rome Total War", if my PC specs are up to that. So taken as part of my total likely spending in 12 months, the price isn't bad at all.

John
John
kev_uk
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:36 am
Location: South Wales, UK
Contact:

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by kev_uk »

I guess it pretty good. Even UV was not that expensive (well not here in UK), just really a top priced game.
My biggest worry is a poor AI, but I am just getting into PBEM with UV and its a lot of fun.
User avatar
dwesolick
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by dwesolick »

ORIGINAL: denisonh


And at least for initial distribution, the "average guy" ain't it.
[/quote]

The "average guy" isn't even aware that there was a (real) War in the Pacific.
"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: rawink

I consider myself a gamer.. I like Flight Sims.. I don't pay more than $49 for one.. regardless of how good, because a newer, better one will be out next year. In the past few years eye candy has become more important than physics and long term playability. Random mission generators don't make it anymore.. so you geta linear campaign that is played out after you learn the tricks and puzzle solving of the campaign. Sure that impossible mission is a pchallenge the first 3 times.. but then it's cake. I HATE that. Janes Longbow 2 had a dynamic campaign where what you did affected the campaign in real time. Ala Falcon 4.0.. Falcon was worth $100 in it's day.. "Generic flgiht Sim 2004" isn't worth it..

I have all 3 of the Steel Panthers games.. the first is bit dated now, and doesn't appear on the hard drive now.. but 2 and 3 both do. But my favorite Steel Panthers game is the Steel panthers: MBT hack done by SP-Camo I literally play 40 hours a month on it. All for free.. it's about the experience and REPLAY ability to me. I have started maybe 200 games of UV.. finished maybe 30 of them in the last few years. It has INFINITE replay ability. I have no doubt I will be playing WITP in 5 years, unless they come out with a world wide version covering the globe with all Navies and air forces!!! (DROOL)!

So paying $100 or even a bit more for that kind of replay ability to me is a great bargain! 3 games at $49 that will bore me in 3 months.. vs $100 for a game I will play 80-100 hours a month for 6 months straight? what a bargain!

Pretty good take here. Yes, it has always been the "REPLAYABILITY" that gives value to a game, IMHO. And for those of us that do not typically participate in the multi-player arena, the AI makes or breaks the "replayability" of a game. For most turn based wargames, once you make through a scenario the first time, that's pretty much it. You have the AI completely figured out. The computer is pretty much going to send the same forces, configured the same way, to the same places at about the same time every time through the scenario. For me, that was UV. The enemy carriers ALWAYS show up with a CV, CV, CVL configuration in roughly the same place at the same time every time. So once you figure that out, you sit a 4 CV "death star" in that spot and wait. You also know the AI is ALWAYS going to send those little bombardment TF's to Lunga (American computer) or PM (Japanese Computer) every week or so, so you just position a CV, CVL TF and sink them every time until they run out of surface ship! And then go about winning the scenario. BORING!!! No replayability at all once you figure the AI out.

The saving grace with this game is that it is simply so vast that replayablity will probably not be an issue. Playing maybe 20 hrs a week might take a year to get through the major campaign just one time! And we have been assured that this AI is MUCH LESS predictable and repetative than the UV AI. In otherwords, the testers have told us that, for instance, the Japanese AI will not necessarily attempt to take Java on the same date with the same TF structure every time through and doesn't always send the carrier TF's to the same place at the same time with the same TF configuration every time through the same scenario. I hope that proves to be true.
User avatar
Toro
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2002 6:33 pm
Location: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Toro »

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

...UV. The enemy carriers ALWAYS show up with a CV, CV, CVL configuration in roughly the same place at the same time every time. So once you figure that out, you sit a 4 CV "death star" in that spot and wait.

Zoomie, you do know that super CV fleets are penalized in WitP? A good thing, of course.

Pricing: I consider the drivel I've paid $50 for in the last few years, only to sell them on Half.com or pitch them a few weeks (days?) later. For something that I truly expect to be excellent, and actually PATCHED as we go forward, $70 ain't no thing. Good points are made on price-point for product. That's a fine balancing act every product producer has to mull over. I believe the audience will be a relatively small sector of the buying public (most of them are out purchasing RTS shoot-em-up games that populate the shelves these days), so Matrix has to recoup somehow. In the end, we must pay for what we want, and if it takes $70 to keep good products that I want coming along, I'm there...

Besides, how much do I plan on playing? Let's see, 2 hours a day for the next month, average (probably a low figure), that's 60 hours, or just about $1 per hour. Price goes down after two months to about $0.50 per hour. Hell, I pay more than that for internet connection or cable. It's all about keeping your perspective.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Mr.Frag »

Let's see, 2 hours a day for the next month, average (probably a low figure), that's 60 hours, or just about $1 per hour. Price goes down after two months to about $0.50 per hour.

Do the real math. 1667 turns x 2 (you want to play both sides once of the grand campaign).

So $70 / 3334 turns = $0.02 per turn assuming you never touch it again.

A turn can run well over a day of time, but we'll be super nice and say 4 turns per hour because some turns are 15 minutes.

So $70 / 833.5 hours = $0.08 per hour assuming you never touch it again.

Find anything on this planet that is fun anymore for 8 cents an hour. I dare ya! [:D]

I paid $110 for Homeworld 2, game + hint book. It lasted me the weekend. It was fairly fun so the $110 was well spent.
User avatar
kaleun
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 10:57 pm
Location: Colorado

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by kaleun »

I am puzzled [&:]that we still are harping about the prize of this game. It has been debated to exhaustion.
Now the only way that Matrix can keep making this games, is going to be if us grognards go out there with this game, show it to our younger friends, and get them hooked on it. Then the market will expand; but there is no other way, IMHO that this game's market will grow. No one (other than us[8|]) will rate this game highly, there is just not enough eye candy, it takes too much thought.
Most of my friends who saw me playing BTR or UV thought it was work not play. I am sure when they see us playing this monster, they will call the local looney bin, and we can sing that "They are coming to take me away..." song (While holding on to the laptop tightly)
[&o]
Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu
User avatar
Arnir
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:07 pm
Location: Alberta. In Texas.

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Arnir »

I would imagine that the price debate will be finally settled in the only place that matters: the marketplace. [:)] Of course, all of us might not know the outcome, but Matrix will. Gamers will either dish out the money or not. I hope the game does well to keep the wargaming niche alive and well.
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Toro
ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

...UV. The enemy carriers ALWAYS show up with a CV, CV, CVL configuration in roughly the same place at the same time every time. So once you figure that out, you sit a 4 CV "death star" in that spot and wait.

Zoomie, you do know that super CV fleets are penalized in WitP? A good thing, of course.

Yes that is a good thing and realistic. Air Trafic control gets complicated, exponentially, with each added carrier. It's a wonder there weren't more planes lost at Midway from mid-air collisions over recovering carriers than in actual combat. If we start getting penalized in "efficency" with Air Combat TF that contain more than two CV's, then that is probably a realistic thing. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....
AmiralLaurent
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: Near Paris, France

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by AmiralLaurent »

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....

The size of the map is preventing it. CV will spend weeks to sail from one side to the other of the map.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Mr.Frag »

Yes that is a good thing and realistic. Air Trafic control gets complicated, exponentially, with each added carrier. It's a wonder there weren't more planes lost at Midway from mid-air collisions over recovering carriers than in actual combat. If we start getting penalized in "efficency" with Air Combat TF that contain more than two CV's, then that is probably a realistic thing. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....

The rules vary.

The coordination of airstrikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

- Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
- Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
- Allied TF in 1944 or later and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

- Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Just to be clear here ... even when not exceeding these numbers, there is *always* some chance of uncoordination.

People in the UV world call this a *bug* because they don't understand it, but it exists there to a lesser extent already.
User avatar
siRkid
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Orland FL

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by siRkid »

I for one would love for the Japanese player to put all of his carriers in one TF. This way I'll know where they all are and then my 1 and 2 Carrier TFs will rule the seas in their areas.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Image
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Yes that is a good thing and realistic. Air Trafic control gets complicated, exponentially, with each added carrier. It's a wonder there weren't more planes lost at Midway from mid-air collisions over recovering carriers than in actual combat. If we start getting penalized in "efficency" with Air Combat TF that contain more than two CV's, then that is probably a realistic thing. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....

The rules vary.

The coordination of airstrikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

- Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
- Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
- Allied TF in 1944 or later and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

- Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Just to be clear here ... even when not exceeding these numbers, there is *always* some chance of uncoordination.

People in the UV world call this a *bug* because they don't understand it, but it exists there to a lesser extent already.

Is that why the initial historical PH attack can vary so much in its results? 6CV's wasn't it? That would stand a good chance for the Japanese player to incur an uncoordination penalty right from the get-go.

Well, anything to prevent players from using roaming "death star" TF's is a GOOD thing. That was a VERY unrealistic tactic, in most cases, even in WWII. Hell, today, you never see more than one CV in a combat TF.
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Kid

I for one would love for the Japanese player to put all of his carriers in one TF. This way I'll know where they all are and then my 1 and 2 Carrier TFs will rule the seas in their areas.

Maybe so, maybe not. Depends on what the Japanese player is trying to do and whether or not you are playing against the AI.

If he's got his major contested bases adequately covered with land-based air and large land force garrisons some time after the initial conquest phase, and has the American player down to 3 usable CV's or so, there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc and blasting a major home base Allied base to pieces to include 100% damage of everything, airbase, port, etc....

While many players will get attempt to do extrememly silly things like that, especially against the always stupid AI, the programmed rules, like uncoordination penalties should deter players from getting too ridiculous, mainly when playing the AI.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Mr.Frag »

Is that why the initial historical PH attack can vary so much in its results? 6CV's wasn't it? That would stand a good chance for the Japanese player to incur an uncoordination penalty right from the get-go.

Land attacks do not generally get subject to this in a noticable way, but naval attacks are a real mess.

Japan comes into PH with 432 aircraft. It leaves in the < 400 range which makes it possible to roll within the 200+RND(200) catagory.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by Mr.Frag »

there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc

Fuel [:D]

You have no idea just how much fuel a death star eats, but you will learn! Plan on loading up about 4 separate tanker fleets to get KB back into the SRA area and still have her fly aircraft.

It would take most of the tankers that Japan has to harrass any of these places. The special first turn rule makes them only use 3 hexes worth of fuel to get there. Coming back is a whole different story! [X(]
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc

Fuel [:D]

You have no idea just how much fuel a death star eats, but you will learn! Plan on loading up about 4 separate tanker fleets to get KB back into the SRA area and still have her fly aircraft.

It would take most of the tankers that Japan has to harrass any of these places. The special first turn rule makes them only use 3 hexes worth of fuel to get there. Coming back is a whole different story! [X(]

Well all good and well, then! I see now where the "size of the map" is a major deterrent to even attempting such nonsense....
User avatar
tsimmonds
Posts: 5490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: astride Mason and Dixon's Line

RE: Quick update on development progress.

Post by tsimmonds »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc

Fuel [:D]

You have no idea just how much fuel a death star eats, but you will learn! Plan on loading up about 4 separate tanker fleets to get KB back into the SRA area and still have her fly aircraft.

It would take most of the tankers that Japan has to harrass any of these places. The special first turn rule makes them only use 3 hexes worth of fuel to get there. Coming back is a whole different story! [X(]
Waaahhhh! Waaahhhh! No fair! I demand a cheat code for "Unlimited Free Fuel"[;)] This is unwarranted meddling with my long-cherished dream to invade Hobart....
Fear the kitten!
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”