Matrix Games Forums

Alvaro, thanks for the input. It might be helpful to biweekly or so publish a dev log so there is visibility on what you're doing. I'm sure you are spending a lot of brain calories reviewing everything, which is great. Having explicit input on your thoughts would probably mollify a lot of concerns. You are probably overloaded with adding features and removing bugs, and tossing scenario balance on top of that may be too much.

It might be better for the community to explore custom layouts, with reported AARs, to see how different changes play out without going through the slow patch process.

As a game developer there is a lot more behind the scenes than players think there is. Every idea to change takes a considerable about of hours to perform. Thinking about an idea takes about 2 hours to sometimes 3 weeks. the mean on time it takes to implement a new concept to the game is about 8 hours. Like I added a "Y" toggle to the upcoming patch that will popup the names of convoys on the map for players during their turn. That took 12 hours to implement, test, change, retest, change the visual again, and be satisfied with it. It didn't include the thinking part which was another 90m when the idea popped into my head. On top of that the 1-2 hours that got me the idea reading responses on the forums over a few days about the issues players were encountering with convoys. I saw a problem of understanding convoy lanes and figured out that there isn't a sufficient system to view the different convoys. I thought what is the real issue here and how can I rememdy it. Total ~15 hours for one small feature.

Game development is a lot of time pre and post release. Helps if you love your project.

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

As a game developer there is a lot more behind the scenes than players think there is. Every idea to change takes a considerable about of hours to perform. Thinking about an idea takes about 2 hours to sometimes 3 weeks. the mean on time it takes to implement a new concept to the game is about 8 hours. Like I added a "Y" toggle to the upcoming patch that will popup the names of convoys on the map for players during their turn. That took 12 hours to implement, test, change, retest, change the visual again, and be satisfied with it. It didn't include the thinking part which was another 90m when the idea popped into my head. On top of that the 1-2 hours that got me the idea reading responses on the forums over a few days about the issues players were encountering with convoys. I will be no one even realizes what I am talking about either. But I saw a problem and thought what is the real issue here and how can I rememdy it. Total ~15 hours for one small feature.

Game development is a lot of time pre and post release. Helps if you love your project.

Thanks for all you do dude!!!

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

I just finished the tutorial and manual and it only took a week (!)

Suggestion: reduce the distance transports can move per turn.

My kneejerk reaction to these threads is: why not try house rules or simple editor changes to test ways to avoid the ruinous situation indicated by the OP? Then report on them, and see if the developer would incorporate them officially?

I don't think the game's ruined.

ORIGINAL: stjeand

To accomplish slowing down the invasions...the only way I see it would be to limit the Japanese LC to say...20 and give them 20 per turn...

They could save them up to get a "larger" unit to land but give that, yes they could land a bunch of small units but only 2 divisions or 1 division and some smaller units.


That would work for me.

They just need to keep getting them back....


OR IF it could be designed that they have 20 LC...and get up to a max of 20 per turn for say the first 8 turns? So if they don't make use of them they go away.

That would be interesting. The Japanese if they decided to land say in Australia they would NOT be able to land somewhere else...

They could build more but that takes months...and would be after the first set of LC.

Alvaro is that possible in the Event file? Would like to test that...basically every turn remove all LC then add 20 for use that turn for the first 6 to 8 turns.

LandingCraft=number – changes the landing craft pool + or - the number
(ie: LandingCraft = 20 (adds 20 to current #) LandingCraft = -20 (subtracts 20 from current #)

I don't think you can set it to 0 in events because the command simply adds landing craft to your current number. Since you don't know how many you use in a turn, you can't predict what to subtract. However, with that said, you could start off with 20 and add 20 each turn easily. If you are using up all 20, that will set it to zero.

Go into the editor, in the Japanese Information pane enter 20 instead of 200 for landing craft. Then add the following lines for the number of turns you want to test in your events.txt. Just need to change the dates.


$ModifyCountry
if_Date=12/7/1941
actionCountry=8
lifespan=tillTrigger
landingCraft=20
addReportTo=Axis
text=20 landing craft added to Japanese pool
$End


$ModifyCountry
if_Date=12/21/1941
actionCountry=8
lifespan=tillTrigger
landingCraft=20
addReportTo=Axis
text=20 landing craft added to Japanese pool
$End

etc...

Note: Always make a backup before changing the events file and you must load scripts in the editor before you save your scenario.
Hope this helps.

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

Never. [:)]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

Never. [:)]

Never. 😁

Yes is appears that if you do a -20 LC and they have 0 to start...the end up with -20 LC...

That is the issue. IF 0 was the lowest it would work.

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Yes is appears that if you do a -20 LC and they have 0 to start...the end up with -20 LC...

That is the issue. IF 0 was the lowest it would work.

Instead of controlling the LCs I think port suppression might be a more elegant way(easier to script) of slowing their progress if that is what you are trying to do. For example, If IJN capture of a port like Rabaul, that opens all ports within a 24(your choice) hex radius to be supplied if captured. Ports of interest that have that orange circle would be the ones I would use as being key strategic ports to supply other ports. So the capture of Rabaul could open the ports in New Guinea and allow the capture of Port Moresby which in turn when captured releases the suppression of other ports. But, the IJN can't go directly to Port Moresby or it would be beyond their supply range. I think you would really have to look at the map, because it should go both ways. So for example, if Port Moresby gets captured by the IJN, the US should need to be in control of Fiji or Sydney to get back into New Guinea.

Just a thought if your trying things.

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

No. [:(]

ORIGINAL: FirstPappy

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

No. [:(]

Nope.

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

I have, but the splash screen you get at the end informing you of your victory is a bit anti-climatic. [:D]

I have, but the splash screen you get at the end informing you of your victory is a bit anti-climatic.

Admiral's Edition? How many hours did that take?

And, they should have come to your home and given a parade for perseverance.

I finished 2 multiplayer games of WITP-AE (one as Japan, one as US), but i stopped mid 1944.

(Japan under siege by heavy bombers, Philippine captured and japan navy sunk, it looked like a good time to end the game without having to go further. The game was finished to me).
It took 3/4 years IRL. [8D]
How many hours ? Difficult to say, a turn was a day, and it could for a quick turn took 20/30 minutes when nothing happened to hours for large battle like midway.

It was really a passionate and fun adventure, but i would not do something like this anymore , i have no more such dedication today to the wargaming hobby.

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

I have competed several games, both PBEM and solo. Once you gat to around May '42. The turns go really fast. But getting to that point takes a bit especially for Japan.

PBEMs took us about 3.5-4 years in RL to complete. The solo games were a lot faster. Maybe 4-6 months?

But is is a game that I will never get tired of as once you know how all the systems work it is a pretty easy game to play, believe it or not lol.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

My kneejerk reaction to these threads is: why not try house rules or simple editor changes to test ways to avoid the ruinous situation indicated by the OP? Then report on them, and see if the developer would incorporate them officially?

I don't think the game's ruined.

Maybe I was too harsh, but it is my opinion that the '41 start IS terrible but it does look like there are some changes coming that will address some of the issues which is a good thing [:)]

But right now, you cannot get the Allies troops levels to where there are in the May '42 start if you start the game in '41. Explain to me how that does not ruin the game?

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Now tell the truth.
Has anyone ever finished a War in the Pacific Admiral Edition game?

Playing that game takes longer than the entire war, so no.