What do you want to see in WITP II?

[steveh11Matrix]

No AI??? Great Ghu, what a backward step that would be! Sorry, I really, really can't concur with that one. If that's the price for WitP2, sorry guys, keep it.

I can't imagine buying a computer game that I couldn't play solo. It's the principle reason I buy the darn things, and if you're going to run it as a commercial concern, I firmly believe you'll find the potential market to be small - even considered as a fraction of the actual WitP sales.

But this is a rehash of previously argued positions - fairly fruitless.

Steve.

[mdiehl]

I'd also like to see it returned to the 1 week game turn with significantly less direct control of aircraft parameters such as altitude, mission type and so forth.

[bradfordkay]

Personally, I love the one day turns. It makes me feel like Chester Nimitz waking up every day to see a new litany of failures and wildly exaggerated successes (okay, so I am really, REALLY, used to playing 1942 so far...)in my daily briefing.

[mdiehl]

I think they work OK in UV. They make the long war virtually unplayable unless yer a bachelor. [;)]

[11Bravo]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Personally, I love the one day turns. It makes me feel like Chester Nimitz waking up every day to see a new litany of failures and wildly exaggerated successes

and those were just the code intercepts.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Making a WitP II would not be that hard, provided the (IMHO pointless) AI is omitted. Oznoyng looks like he is going to have a go at it for one, as posted in a recent thread.

Apparently about 90% of the coding effort in WitP was directed at the AI, according to the Wargamer interview with 2by3 some time ago.

"Apparently about 90% of the coding effort in WitP was directed at the AI, according to the Wargamer interview with 2by3 some time ago."

It's a shame they wasted so much effort on such a dog like the AI. Scripted AIs suck for the most part. Some sort of AI based on overlapped theatres (something like Mogami's use of defensive triangles perhaps) and force level triggers is what is needed.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'd also like to see it returned to the 1 week game turn with significantly less direct control of aircraft parameters such as altitude, mission type and so forth.

The ability to switch in game from one length of turn to a telescoped one would be nice. One would need some serious effort put into an operational AI (where units react to and with each other in a sensible way), something which is sorely lacking with WITP and something which was brought up innumerable times. For example, there is no mechanism for Task Groups of varying types of TF missions which operate in concert with each other...all we can do is set one to follow another. Even worse, once combat occurs, the TFs head home, not back to the Task Group, leaving the player frantically picking up the pieces of a complete mess. Like trying to herd cats.[:(]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'd also like to see it returned to the 1 week game turn with significantly less direct control of aircraft parameters such as altitude, mission type and so forth.

The ability to switch in game from one length of turn to a telescoped one would be nice. One would need some serious effort put into an operational AI (where units react to and with each other in a sensible way), something which is sorely lacking with WITP and something which was brought up innumerable times. For example, there is no mechanism for Task Groups of varying types of TF missions which operate in concert with each other...all we can do is set one to follow another. Even worse, once combat occurs, the TFs head home, not back to the Task Group, leaving the player frantically picking up the pieces of a complete mess. Like trying to herd cats.[:(]

I'm actually wrestling with exactly thus aspect .. the ability to change the time lengths ( really in my case the impulse duration ) without changing anything else ... if the data are set up correctly ( with durations in terms of hours or minutes ) for all activities then this can be done ... the remaining "vestige" of a problem comes in terms of searching percentages. If we have a fixed "atomic" search percentage for a given device against a given target .. then changing the impulse length .. should change the search percentage ... if the time is longer .. then maybe we can use a binomial distrubution to turn multiple checks into one check. Otherwise we need the search chance to itself be a distribution function with a time parameter so that when we change the time length we can plug in the new length to generate the search result. This is all do-able .. but details need to be worked out .. but interestingly the "Uber WITP" team ( specifically me in this case ) are wrestling with this issue as you write .. and I think we can resolve it.

As to TF AI ... different topic !

[Mynok]

It would have to have an operational AI, though not necessarily a player AI.

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Brady
1) No AI

Sorry, I plan to have one, though it will come later rather than sooner.

ORIGINAL: Brady
2) Smaller Hex scale (Half what we have now)

20 nautical miles at the equator, approximately 5 miles at 75 degrees north latitude.

ORIGINAL: Brady
3) Compleat OOB*

Subject to scenario designer's whims. OOB will come in two forms, historical and "what if". "What if" only has ships, aircraft, airgroups, etc. under development historically as of scenario start date. New ships, airgroups, etc. can be laid down in game. (Both sides) A substantially more complex political point acquisition system (and resource/production system) will govern creation of new units. Game actions will affect the date neutrals join the conflict. For instance, in campaign scenarios that start prior to 12/7/41 US actions in the war will be restricted until game events cause US declaration of war, which may or may not come as a result of a PH attack.

US actions once war begins will be affected based upon the events that cause the US to enter the war. In other words, anyone want to play "What if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor?".

ORIGINAL: Brady
4) larger Map, Includes African Coast and Madagascar, Panama Canal.

World map from 75 N to 60 S latitudes, all longitudes.

ORIGINAL: Brady
5) More deatield suply system, Crtical Items Like Torpedoes, Large ordance Avation fuel, exc acounted for.

Designed by scenario, with automatic detail reduction as a scenario option. (A user selectable option will allow varying levels of detail by scenario).

ORIGINAL: Brady
6) Adational Land Units, Medical, Training, Suport trops for special Boats, landing craft excetra, Un Armed Working Labor units, Wheather units,Code breaking signals intercept, Vetenary,USO,Brothels, as well, to name a few.

Subject to game designer concerns, but currently reading book on WW2 code breaking. Radio intercept locations in Shanghai or the Phillipines, for instance, will sometimes give warnings about air raids as they are forming and effect CAP levels at the target.

ORIGINAL: Brady
7) Lighter than Air....(I am not Blimp Boy,[:)])

Hmmm... Probably doable.

ORIGINAL: Brady
8) Baloon Bombs

Not something I thought of, honestly. Although a variation on mine drift would accomplish the same thing. I'll add it to the "to think about" list.

ORIGINAL: Brady
9) Ordance load out options for planes, playes can select load out, linked to suply of specialaised ordance types.

Already in design, although in lowest level of detail, ammunition types will eventually reduce to "supply" as in WitP.

ORIGINAL: Brady
10) More detailed Land combat.

Biggest area I need to work on. Not sure precisely how to do it. But starting to solidify thoughts on it. There will definately be stacking limits on hexes. Hexes will have capacity ratings on transportation systems. You will not be able to move 10 divisions from hex to hex without speed penalties and heavily stacked hexes will be more susceptible to bombardment.

ORIGINAL: Brady
11) More detailed resource requirments for Japan, Coal, and other resources realistiacal acounded for and required, Includes food stuffs,and alows for compleat Merchant Marine represenation and effort made to represent all types of ships, throught the war.

No "slots", so no limit on classes, ships, squadrons, etc. Theoretical limit is in the 2^32. Limits will be upon scenario designer's anal retentiveness.

ORIGINAL: Brady
12)No hard codding of options Like Zero Bonious, or Allied Heavy bomb boniuos without a switch to turn the darn thing off, same for the carrier react rule.

"Hard coding", no. But there will definately be a bonus that the Zero will enjoy early war, it will be more based upon doctrine levels, training levels, and suprise factor of *any* new a/c type than to any bonus only the Zero gets. (In other words, the Corsair, or the P-38 will enjoy certain suprise benefits when they enter combat as well. Selected Allied groups could have superior starting pilot ratings in some categories that will allow greater success against Zeros than other groups.

ORIGINAL: Brady
13) Russian Fleat added

All of world war 2, not just Pacific. Engine will support UV/WitP scenarios on a subset of the map.

ORIGINAL: Brady
14) Reworked Intell system, present model gives allied players more than it should at times.

And less. As above, I am currently reading a book on intelligence in WW2. Makes for interesting reading. Lots more operational intel and probably a bit less strategic intel.

FoW will be double blind. Each side gets their own AAR, which may differ significantly from each other. US sees 60 bombers shot down and 300 fighters shot down on bomb raids in Europe. You will not know whether you shot down 300, or 25. There is no intel report to tell you what actually happened until the game is over.

No information gleaned in the game will be absolutely reliable. Recon, signals intercepts, patrols, etc. will be far more important for obtaining information about enemy activity. You may get a report that says "CV Lexington hit by Torpedo.", but the report could be completely erroneous, or it could have been CVE Long Island. Moreover, certain types of information (like the contact report we all get from subs that are sunk in an engagement) will either be completely eliminated (dead men tell no tales), or delayed (until sub breaks contact). Taskforces (and air groups) can be ordered to maintain radio silence. If they do, they suffer penalties to operations (delayed contact reports, coordination penalties) but gain benefits (KB not detected before PH attack.) Radio silence orders will allow specification of conditions under which radio silence can be broken. (after contact, or detection of enemy group of defined size) Subs sunk in an engagement will typically not known by the controller until they fail to return from patrol.

ORIGINAL: Brady
15) Radar represented in beter detail, Including Aircraft types, for Surface search, MAD equipment, exc..

Sensing and communications equipment is part of the loadout (devices in WitP parlance) and will have an effect upon the game. (IJA/IJN aircraft will likely suffer more group tactical penalties due to lack of quality radios)

ORIGINAL: Brady
16) Did I Mention NO AI[:)]

Sorry to disappoint, but I fully intend to provide an AI for the game. If there was an open API for WitP, I'd probably have more fun writing an AI to play the game than I would playing it myself. Writing the AI will be fun.

ORIGINAL: Brady
* Includes some things I mentioned above but generaly speaking, if it was left out of WiTP put it in the game, planes like the Alabacore, Ansion, Sea FoX, Rex, Paul, P47N, exct, Midget's, Allied and Japanese (axis) Armend merchants, Miniour countries troops Like Portigual, Tialand, ect...Better Bomb types, intened to include them all not just vanalia represenations of a few types for all countries. CBN weapons. Kaitens, sucide boats, if it was their put it in the game.

Additional aircraft types are at the whims of the scenario designers. There will be no hard coded limit to the number of aircraft types, and I plan to provide a variant system as well. For instance, it will be possible to field modify B-29's to remove defensive armament and increase bomb load. It will also be possible to specify starting load outs and targeting priorities, though these are at the whim of the commander on site. If ordered to attack Darwin, KB's leader will not ignore USN CV's that show up, though he will be slower launching his atttack as he rearms for naval tragets...

[Captain Cruft]

So are you guys working together now? If so when can we expect a Beta?

It all sounds much better anyway.

BTW I love the comment about "if WitP had an API". ROFLMAO.

[steveh11Matrix]

This looks like an ambitious project - I wish you good health until it's early success!

(Glad to see the AI is planned to be in there.)

Steve.

[Brady]

Oznoyng- What game is this your working on?

8) Baloon bombs- Main point would be to tie down allied airgroups as it did in Historicaly.

12) So all Japanese fighters will get a Bonious early in the war do to doctern, My big peaea about the Zero bonious is that it does not aply to all Japanese fighters, and odely enought he AVG is imue to it, when they Never even faught a Zero .

13) WoW realy? Italy and the Med as well?

15) Japanese radios were fine in fact they were rated prety high acoridng to some sources I have, the only ones that were not that good were the ones in the early war fighters, and they were improved mid war.

[Chris21wen]

I like the so called 'extreme level of detail' anything else and it would become an arcade game.

ORIGINAL: moses

I think the whole concept of covering the Pacific war at squad/plane level is suspect to start with. I think they did an amazing job at attempting the impossible.

But I would hope that any future redo would start from scratch. Someday some brilliant young developer will come up with a new way of treating the theater in a comprehensive way but without such an extreme level of detail.

[Crimguy]

The zero bonus is crap. I think it's a crutch to make up for the somewhat screwy ac combat resolution, which has been getting constantly worked on since UV. Seems the bonus should be inherent in more experienced crews versus the allies. A better value would've been for each aircraft unit to have a "tactical" value to reflect how well they worked in groups. THis would hav been more realistic, and could have improved with age.

As far as WITP 2 is concerned, I don't expect it until my AARP kicks in. However, for anyone who does do ANY wargame, please note the following:

Make info a bit more accessible. Civ II is IMHO the benchmark for getting information to the user.

UI has to be functional. No more small buttons.

Multiple resolutions should be permissible. See, e.g. Highway to the Reich and Flashpoint Germany. Both are a sight to behold on my 1680x1050 display.

If it's turn-based, for G*d's sake, follow the Windows HIG. Give it a titlebar, allow resizing, and minimizing.

Most of the details, such as DB errors, don't bother me in WitP. It's a great game.

[51st Highland Div]

My only major gripe is with the interface....a windows based one with easier functionality would be top of the list....

[Mynok]

How about not tying it to Windows? There are numerous use GTK+ or QT so it runs on all platforms.

Here's the critical thing about PBEM games: turn resolution and giving orders need to be done by separate programs, and the turn files need to be sent to all players at once.

In WITP context, that means there is a client that can show the turn replay and enter orders for the player's assigned bases. All of a side's information can be seen by all players, but only the player's assigned bases will take orders from him. Ships are controlled based on the home port and/or port they are disbanded into.

[Captain Cruft]

Oznoyng posted some info about the proposed architecture in an earlier thread. Go back 5/6 pages on the forum to find it ...

Basically he is talking about some sort of web-enabled application using various technologies. Not being tied to Windows was mentioned though not promised. It will be client-server, fully multi-player and with asynchronous order entry i.e. no waiting for the other guy.

Personally I can't wait

[Captain Cruft]

Just to clarify what client-server and web-enabled means:

No more downloading either game or patches.
No more downloading anything except possibly graphics mods.
No more having to save games (happens automatically in "real-time").
No more messing around with zipping up files and emailing them.
No need to re-start for changes. Changes to the OOB and scenarios can be made centrally on the server transparently to users.
Much less scope for cheating since all resolution is performed on the server and not one of the player's PCs.

Basically the interface runs on your PC but is purely for presentation and manipulation. All the actual data is all stored on the central server. Life therefore becomes much easier for players.

[esteban]

I don't think that we will be getting a WitP 2 anytime soon. Let's face it. This game is a truly magnificent achievement, but it is so big that it is really aimed at a niche market. I think the effort should be spent on making WitP 1 better

If another version does come out, I would like a more "historical" map, a better interface, and some more tweaking of the air combat system so that there are no "super-fighters" that can take on 4 times their number in enemies, and walk away to tell about it.