A thought on WitP in general...

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...


I play the game, and in some cases felt the mood achieved in game was not quite right. Made list of needed changes and after release of game, began to work on them. Took a while, as bugs and many, many user interface changes and orders options requests were also addressed. Also, added a goodly bit of combat descriptive text, to help players understand what was happening in battles.

Although I worked with player testers and usually consulted with Joel and Gary on changes, I made all decisions concerning code changes through out patching (except for nerfing night bombing effectiveness, which Joel instigated, Gary implemented and with which I agreed).

I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me.

Hope You have fun...

Michael Wood

Good on ya Mike [&o][&o][&o]

If I had the talent and stamina that you have, I would do it exactly the same way!! Unfortunately I don't, so all I can do is stand behind you and cheer!

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Yes. Yes, I do. The more clever of the two.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me.

Mike, given all the changes to the game, both bug fixes and modifications, do you believe that either player can win by points a scenario 15 PBEM game given the current victory conditions and victory points allocations?

Thank you,

Dave Baranyi

Okay, thanks Mike.

Dave Baranyi

[mc3744]

I'm going to get a new copy for Xmas. As present for a gamer friend [:)]

Just give me a good reason to and I'll be happy to put more $ in WitP.
Best value for money I ever had from games.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes.

Bye...

Michael Wood

I like the "Company line" = keep it up and thank you for all the effort you have put into the game.

[Titanwarrior89]

Witp has been on my harddrive for so long now-I don't think it can be erased.[:D]

[walkerd]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Believe me, we are not planning to just let WitP fade away and we recognize the active community and the special place this game holds for many (including us). We are always busy plotting behind the scenes.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,
...hope your current and future obligations will not stop you to revisit the WitP in months to come from time to time...
Leo "Apollo11"

May I just say that this game has brought back to me the joy of computer wargaming. It is an outstanding achievement and you have made me a dedicaded fan of this company. It the first game I have ever plyed in PBEM mode and I regret the intrusion the remainder of my life has into my sparce wargaming time.

I wish to thank the effort and time spent by everyone involved in the development of this game. While there are some changes I would still like to see I am more then happy with the product. No other game comes close to the scope and enjoyment this game does.

If nothing else I have now purchasing numerous books about the Pacific War and will continue to purchase more as well as browse these forums for the often entertaining and sometimes educational reading.

Darren Walker

[PaulWRoberts]

I'm new to WitP, having bought it about a week ago. Consider me immersed!

It must mean something that this forum is the busiest of all the Matrix line. I'm looking forward to future updates!

[rogueusmc]

Picture a man...going on a journey...beyond sight and sound...

Welcome[8D]

[michaelm75au]

Hi Mike
I hope that you might add the apparent minimum ceiling of the larger AAA to the things that you think might need addressing.

Oh! Not for this poor player, but for the sake of the masses ...[:D]

Michael

[captskillet]

WITP has provided MANY hours of enjoyment, no its not the "perfect" game, there is no such animal, but it is THE BEST I have seen come down the pipe in years. Tks to Mike and all the others at Matrix/2by3 for their efforts on this!! [&o]

Now after all this sucking up to Matrix please tell me a fix for the Bangkok bug will be on the 1.795 build to be released [;)] [:D].

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Please be advised that code changes made since the release of version 1.0 were not based on "play balance". There were a number of players who felt one side or the other was to weak and when ever changes were made, some players on the other side always complained that the game was being balanced away from their side.

Issues, such as air search, surface anti-submarine warfare, zones of control, enhanced leadership characteristics usage, bombing effectiveness, air-to-air combat between fighters and fighters and between fighters and bombers were not addressed because of player complaint. They were addressed because I felt they needed to be. Seldom use the term 'I', as like being and feeling part of a team, but will, in this case, because feel need to accept responsibility for code changes.

I play the game, and in some cases felt the mood achieved in game was not quite right. Made list of needed changes and after release of game, began to work on them. Took a while, as bugs and many, many user interface changes and orders options requests were also addressed. Also, added a goodly bit of combat descriptive text, to help players understand what was happening in battles.

Although I worked with player testers and usually consulted with Joel and Gary on changes, I made all decisions concerning code changes through out patching (except for nerfing night bombing effectiveness, which Joel instigated, Gary implemented and with which I agreed).

I therefore accept responsibility for all changes since the initial release of the game. If you disagree with any, please do not blame the testers, Matrix, 2By3, the Allied or Axis protagonists. Just me.

Eric told me he is posting build 1.795 today or tomorrow and I feel it is the cleanest, most realistic and playable build to date.

Hope You have fun...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Richard III
That`s what those of us who only want to play a Realistc Historical Campaign VS the AI are afraid of considering what the many past " Enhancements" to help the PBEM boys get " Play Balance " have done to the Game.

I have to agree it has helped tremendously to get things "right", even when it took several tries. Thanks very much for the continued support. I have been following the beta posts and it sounds like it takes a great game and makes it better.[:D]

Can't wait to implement it on my two ongoing PBEM.

[steveh11Matrix]

WitP is one of those games which I was at first reluctant to jump into, and now so very, very glad that I did.

Mike: a very sincere "Thank You" from me. You've ruined my social life, of course, but I've still enjoyed it!

Steve.

[saj42]

Just wanted to add my thanks to 'the team' for the best computer wargame i can ever hope to play [&o][&o][&o]- EXCEPT THE NEXT ENHANCED VERSION OF WitP [:D] - heck i'll even pay for the priviledge.

My top three things to improve would be
1. curtail bloody air combat
2. stacking limits
3. toggles for repairing airfield and port

If Mike Wood could fix these i'd be in heaven

[Graccus]

Hi Mike,

As a relative newbie compared to the WitP "Pros" [&o] that post here, I've only played against the AI. My question regarding your statement below;

Eric told me he is posting build 1.795 today or tomorrow and I feel it is the cleanest, most realistic and playable build to date

Does this mean PBEM or against the AI?

Thanks
Joe

[ctangus]

Does this mean PBEM or against the AI?

I'm a relative newbie myself, but from the list of fixes, it looks like it will improve both. See below link:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=993049

OT - where in Mass are you? I'm in Boston.

[Graccus]

Ctangas,

I'm down in Mansfield, just a few minutes away from the Tweeter Ctr. Over 6 yrs now. Used to live in Back Bay and Camb.

Where are you in Boston?

I've not attemped a PBEM yet, if your interested let me know.

Thanks for the link. Good info.[8D]

Joe

[ctangus]

I'm in Back Bay - Beacon St. Used to live in Cambridge too.

I would be interested in a PBEM - I'll PM you with suggestions.

You're welcome. [:)]

[Tom Hunter]

Though I enjoy the game immensly there are some changes I would dealy love to see.

I would love to see the bugs that make LCUs dissapear fixed. I would also love to see the bugs that make LCUs reset their movement to zero after going 59 miles fixed, the bugs that caused my units in Akyab harbor to unload into the jungle of New Ireland and the bugs that cause LCUs to act as if there are enemy units in friendly territory fixed. These bugs are beginning to affect my ability to enjoy the game and they are a major reason why I will not buy War Plan Orange.

I would like to see air combat in game produce the same sort of casualties that were produced by air combat in real life. I would be willing to crunch some data to show graphs of historical results that could be compared with graphs of game engine results. Right now there is little connection between game results and real life unless players act a certain very specific way. If they use the mechanics the game makes available then aircombat produces statistically anomalous results too often.

I would like to see naval combat revised slightly. It is pretty clear that manuever counts for too much in naval combat. Basically in real life to hit a target a WWII era ship had to steam in a straight line. That means ships that are firing and hitting cannot doge enemy shells. So a captain had to choose which he wanted to do, dodge or hit back.

This is not what happens in WitP and it gives a very nice bonus to lighter forces, particularly CLs Vs heavy ships like BBs. It would be really nice if this were fixed.

I would like to see gunnery looked at as well. We did some analysis a while back and it seems there is no relationship between rate of fire, shells in ammo magazines and time in action. In fact if I recall there was an inverse relationship, larger shells like 15" or 16" give a player fewer opportunities to fire before running out of ammo than smaller shells like 6" even though the number of shells in the magazine is the same and the rate of fire of the bigger guns is slower.

Just my two cents

[Tom Hunter]

As an afterthought it occurs to me that BB Ammo may have been reduced to curtail shore bombardment missions. If that is true it is kind of sad because it creates a unit that is very dangerous to land units and less dangerous to shipping in the game, but BBs were historically very dangerous to shipping and somewhat less dangerous to land units.

Another fix to naval combat, if a single (or more than one) surface warship encounters a single merchant ship the merchant should sunk. There is no case in history of a merchant ship escaping a surface raider with more speed. Convoy scatter is different, of course some get away, but if a CA sights an 8 knot AK and wants the kill the chance is 100% in real life, but much less than that in game.

Both the Naval examples above and the air combat make me think that relatively little mathmatical analysis of the war was done during the game design which is unfortunate.

[Mynok]

Let me add my gratitude to Matrix and 2by3 for their continued support of this very fun game. It will never satisfy everyone's desires, but it's still dern fun.

Thanks to all, and especially those who, despite their issues, continue to be involved with the game and provide suggestions to make it a better game. If they didn't think it was worth it, I don't believe they would do it. That says alot about the game.