ORIGINAL: General Patton
I have WPO. I wouldn't use any of it, except maybe some art, to produce an "AE" type scenario. That said WITPAE could be used, but it would take awhile. I have been looking at this for a few weeks now ,Using the AE scenario editor, since Gary started to consider this type of project. This is what I see for work load.
1. You would have to replace the existing air art with art from that time frame.
2. Same as above for ship art.
3. Devices would have to be replaced/updated to the time period. At least the ones you would be using.
4. LCU's as well would need "Fixing".
It's just too much work. It would be easier to produce a new game.
The developer for WPO said the best way would be a game that combines WPO and AE. WPOAE. But the interest/money is not there. In my opinion interest is the problem. If you want to start some interest, Then start this conversation in the WPO forum. I don't remember who said that, but it makes sense. After you start a thread over there, You have to keep it alive by posting ideas and such. Then hopefully WPO people will start to post. Then you have to interest started....GP
In my opinion interest is the problem. If you want to start some interest, Then start this conversation in the WPO forum. I don't remember who said that, but it makes sense. After you start a thread over there, You have to keep it alive by posting ideas and such. Then hopefully WPO people will start to post. Then you have to interest started....GP
I'm in the middle of running a WPO scenario right now, and sadly I'm not really that impressed. The engine is old and clunky (though the surface combat model doesn't seem as broken as in WiTPAE) and the scenario poorly balanced (Jutland scenario). I also find it quite weird that surface engagements only happen at night--ever; however, to be fair you really have to consider that the game is built on the old engine that's showing it's age.
What really interests me is a game that does surface forces justice in the World War Two period. I think the versatility of, for example, Battleships during the second World War is underrated, and the strength of air attacks against them at sea overstated. For example, while PoW and Repulse were sunk, they were sunk while PoW had her High Angle Radar out of action, and it still took 80 planes and hours of heavy attack to doom the Task Force--Repulse was literally sunk by the
last torpedo dropped that day.
Similarly the death of Yamato is also cited as an indicator of the uselessness of regular surface combatants during the war; however, I'd contend that any ship afloat wouldn't stand against attack from over 300 unopposed aircraft. Hell, four Carriers died to less at Midway, and those carriers were defended. That alone cannot be an indicator of utility.
Further there are many examples of surface fleets (Yamamato at Midway) escaping pursuit and destruction by carrier based aircraft.
That's not to say things hadn't changed! The death of Bismark alone should tell you that. The role of surface combatants had changed, and their vulnerability from the air was pronounced... its just that, I feel anyway, the historical evidence does not support the assumptions made in a lot of games about the depth and totality of large surface combatants vulnerability to aircraft.
In any case, none of these considerations are modeled well in WiTPAE. For example, if I don't, as an Allied player, immediately run away from Malaya with Force Z, I can pretty much count on losing Repulse and PoW to a fraction of the aircraft that
barely managed to sink them in life.
Similarly, I'm in a PbEM game where I've caught a number of Japanese escort carriers at night with Repulse, but didn't manage to score any hits on the light carriers.
I haven't played the next turn yet (I escaped death the next day by weather), but I've already written off the whole TF as a loss because it's facing an attack from 25 carrier aircraft on the next turn.
I don't think that, in life, it would be have been a forgone conclusion that a TF consisting of a Battle Cruiser, 3 cruisers, and 4 destroyers was going to be completely annihilated by 25 carrier aircraft.
In any case, I am writing all of this to say that, as I see it, the following things aren't quite right in the game:
1. The susceptibility of entire surface task forces to relatively "minor" air attacks
2. The uncanny ability of Carriers to almost always locate surface forces within range of her aircraft (so many times in real life were ships able to escape because they avoided detection, or carriers were found only when planes were followed back to the carrier TF)
3. The surface combat model is a bit wonky (really, my destroyer is shooting its 5 inch guns from 16k yards?)
In my pretend world where at least some of these things were altered, even a tad, to be more favorable to using surface forces (and in my opinion match reality a bit better) there need not be a separate game at all, and I'd be content with what the modding community provides and has already provided.
Lot's of wishful thinking on my part!
And now that I've said all that, none of what I mentioned really needs to be changed in the stock game. It's a game and not a simulation, and is a
very, very good game at that. [&o]
Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.
It helps to have no other friends or hobbies, though my 5 year old keeps me busy. When the games first start, obviously, the time requirement is more at the beginning of the game; however, once they get going it's easier. I usually spend a couple hours a night on turns. Some people watch television... I play games. 
