The Silent Majority

[Platoonist]

I'm one of those people who was awed by the game even in the 1.0 incarnation. I'm still playing it a year later which is rather rare. I do kinda have to throw a bone to all the squeaky wheels here tho. If the forum had been made up of people like me there probably would have never been patches 1.2-1.5. [:D]

[madflava13]

I challenge anyone who bashes this game to point me to a similar product. Show me a comparable game. ANY comparable game. Of course it has flaws - nothing this complex escapes flaws. But show me one other game that comes even close to the scope, depth and length of this game, and I'll concede your point re: flaws.

Until there's a comparable product out there (and we all know there never will be unless 2by3 makes it) I will continue to consider WiTP the gold standard. Given that fact, I ignore all posts about "ahistorical blah blah" and "flaws, gamebreakers, etc."

If someone finds a potential bug or legitimate OOB problem and posts it, great. But everything else is just mindless BS that I ignore. I myself have posted a few minor things I discovered, like a US sub getting radar too early. No big deal if you ask me. I especially like people who comment without ever having played.

To those of you who bash it without having played it, well that's just

[wworld7]

Of course the game could be better and/or more accurate historically. But I too LOVE THIS game. Thanks!!!

Flipper

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

I'm one of those people who was awed by the game even in the 1.0 incarnation. I'm still playing it a year later which is rather rare. I do kinda have to throw a bone to all the squeaky wheels here tho. If the forum had been made up of people like me there probably would have never been patches 1.2-1.5. [:D]

Hey - you are back! [:)]

There were few occassions where we missed your artistic efforts (i.e. where your great cartoons would nicely fit)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[JReb]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I REALLY STILL ENJOY PLAYING THIS GAME[/i][/b][/u]

Absolutely agree. I have played many games with much simpler scale and programming requirements and guess what...they have bugs too! In fact I have never played a perfect historical simulation in my 30 years of gaming. One does not exist.

I feel WiTP is an amazing accomplishment and am grateful for its creation. This game will always be one of the core group that I play throughout the year and right now it is taking a lot of my playing time.

On a side note, sometimes I have to stop playing because the level of detail burns me out and makes my eyes water. So I switch to another less complicated game for a couple of days and then come back when I am better rested. Panzer General 2 is the one I usually switch to because it is so simlpe in comparison to WiTP. Its rock-paper-scissors approach to combat makes it the anti-WiTP game that allows me to recharge my batteries. In 30 turns I can crush Spain, Poland and France whereas in WiTP 30 turns means you are only halfway to Noumea! [:D]

[witpqs]

[:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]

[kfmiller41]

I agree also, this is the main game I play day in and out. Not only is it fun, but becuase it has been modded and patched it is supported by people who care, which makes it even better atfer you have played games where the published and designers never update things or correct problems. As a history buff I like the fact that things can and will go very differently from real history.

Well done to everyone who made this great game happen.[&o][&o]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Concerning research. You say the KI-61 enters 6 months too early. It enters prodution in 8/42 however no group equipped with it arrives for another 18 months.
So only groups changed by player will be on map. With a starting production of 74 aircraft per month the Japanese player could have 2 groups equipped by the end of 9/42
However they will need time to repair. So say 10/42 for the earliest combat.
The Tony was in combat by spring of 1943. However the first Tony to engage enemy aircraft was in April 1942. A Tony engaged one of the Doolittle B-25's (no damage)
Where is this 6 month too early coming from? It appears to me to be pretty much historical arrival.

Here's a quote that proves my point:

"The 13th Ki-61, a production prototype, was delivered in August 1942. The Army gave the green light for production, and the fighter began to roll off the assembly line, with 34 delivered by the end of 1942. The type was formally known as the "Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1 Hien", or "Ki-61-I". "

THIRTY-FOUR were produced by the end of 1942. The designers are giving us 74 per MONTH in the last
part of 1942. That's what I mean about POOR RESEARCH. Thank you for helping me make my case!

[denisonh]

WitP is the best computer game based on combat in the Pacific created to date. Period.

I agree wholeheartedly with Raver.

This game represents a tremendous effort given the level of detail.

Even DoD with MILLIONS spent cannot generate a detailed combat model integrated all levels which makes sense at all levels. Matrix has done such a good job creating the detail in this game that some aspects of the details undermine certain abstractions at higher level.

This causes a great deal of discussion about the effects and impacts.

The sheer size and scope of this game makes it next to impossible to have results that match perfectly at all levels (there is a large amount of material on the aggregation and disaggregation of combat modeling, and myriad of problems matching the resulting effects).

As many aspects of the game have not been working exactly as designed (read bugs), it is hard to really analyze the different results with resect to the models and their associated inputs.parameters.

I think that there is plenty of room for improvement, but it is still an AWESOME GAME. Continued intrest and dialogue on this forum will contribute.

It can only get better IMHO.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
THIRTY-FOUR were produced by the end of 1942. The designers are giving us 74 per MONTH in the last
part of 1942. That's what I mean about POOR RESEARCH. Thank you for helping me make my case!

Separate thread. Please.

Regards,

- Erik

[Dumgrunt]

What a great game! This is the first game I've ever done PBEM. What a fantastic new dimension.

[Bombur]

-The game is excellent, however, there are serious flaws in the engine as a whole (given the level of complexity, those flaws are expected). Many of these flaws, I think, could be corrected in the editor (that Tony question, for instance). But I think there is much room for improvement, but Matrix is hesitating in implementing the changes for financial reasons (which is, of course, a legitimate decision). The alternative is to correct what it´s possible in the editor and accept the hard coded flaws.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-The game is excellent, however, there are serious flaws in the engine as a whole (given the level of complexity, those flaws are expected). Many of these flaws, I think, could be corrected in the editor (that Tony question, for instance). But I think there is much room for improvement, but Matrix is hesitating in implementing the changes for financial reasons (which is, of course, a legitimate decision). The alternative is to correct what it´s possible in the editor and accept the hard coded flaws.

Or bite the bullet and deliver as promised. Don't like to be a prick here but there are a number of things which can be changed which I can't see would break the game. The way I see it, the game is midway across the river, it either continues across for a successful crossing, or turns around/drowns to jeers of quitter.

[Bombur]

Or bite the bullet and deliver as promised. Don't like to be a prick here but there are a number of things which can be changed which I can't see would break the game. The way I see it, the game is midway across the river, it either continues across for a successful crossing, or turns around/drowns to jeers of quitter.

-The trouble is that it will cost a lot of money (and time) to correct the most important flaws in the game engine, and there isn´t even a general agreement on what should be changed. It seems that the guys from Matrix already established that there will be no more new features, only bug fixes. Maybe it should be left to open source to change the game, it would be a wise decision frm Matrix, as it could increase the game lifespan....

[Grotius]

Raverdave, I completely agree. No other computer wargame comes close to this one. Sure, there are flaws -- many of which can be addressed with house rules or by playing CHS or some such. But it's still a magnificent accomplishment.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

Or bite the bullet and deliver as promised. Don't like to be a prick here but there are a number of things which can be changed which I can't see would break the game. The way I see it, the game is midway across the river, it either continues across for a successful crossing, or turns around/drowns to jeers of quitter.

-The trouble is that it will cost a lot of money (and time) to correct the most important flaws in the game engine, and there isn´t even a general agreement on what should be changed. It seems that the guys from Matrix already established that there will be no more new features, only bug fixes. Maybe it should be left to open source to change the game, it would be a wise decision frm Matrix, as it could increase the game lifespan....

How much time would it take to make port size a factor in determining whether a certain size of naval ordinance can be found there (they did it for mines/torpedoes, why not shells)? How much time would it take to add ops limits to ports for the purposes of refueling/rearming/loading ships? How much time would it take to add the same ops limits to airbases for air operations? Stacking limits for airbases a tough task? How hard would it be to make CAP less effective by adding ammo to air combat and making it less area/hex oriented and more unit oriented (the more assets in the hex the greater the chance the CAP will be watered down to cover everything). As Nik suggested, perhaps divide DC hits on subs so that they are spread out and not all belt hits which result in flotation damage. Make air transfer missions more like in Battle of Britain (disable the aircraft to some degree). Etc....

I'm not talking about lost causes like land combat etc. Simple stuff.

Can't see any of the above breaking the AI either.

[Erik Rutins]

Guys, please. Give the folks who started this thread one thread for this purpose without using it for comments that should either be in their own new thread or in an already existing one. There are actually a lot of happy players out there and I don't think it's too much to ask for this thread to be kept to them. There are at least ten other active threads with comments, suggestions and criticisms.

Regards,

- Erik

[mogami]

Hi, Most of those you can fix simply by NOT DOING THEM. Why do they need code to force you stop doing what you post is wrong?
Don't overload airfields,don't use minor ports for resupply, don't form large TF, Don't mass 400k troops in a hex (and so forget operations where that is required to complete them-that fixes the landcombat

[bilbow]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I love it although I do also suffer from the no PBEM turn in my intray rage symptom

Easy problem to fix- start more games!

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: bilbow

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I love it although I do also suffer from the no PBEM turn in my intray rage symptom

Easy problem to fix- start more games!

The only problem is that then they all send turns at one time. [:@][:D][X(]