Matrix Games Forums

I'm really amazed by the fact the some people manage to get angry in a game forum

a) Some people obviously didn't learn any manners growing up.

b) Some people get off on making other people feel small.

c) Other people react to both of the above. (wrong action but tough not to justify).

c) causes more from the a) & b) types which in turn causes more folks to go the c) path ... once started, it is impossible to stop.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

c) causes more from the a) & b) types which in turn causes more folks to go the c) path ... once started, it is impossible to stop.

Yeah... then we need somebody with a big hammer to come in and shut it down. Hey, we've got one of those!

I voted for not being interested in a game without an AI. I still stand by that, and by my opinion that $200 is WAAAAAAAY to much for a computer game. ANY computer game.

It's strange: I always thought I'd be totally into a super-detailed game, but that doesn't seem to hold true anymore. Maybe it's advancing age: 10 years ago I'd probably have gone for it [8|]

Still, if 2by3 and Matrix decide to go ahead with the idea, best of luck to them. I'll be on the sidelines, cheering.

I've gotten several times my $70 out of this game so far, so I'd pay pretty much anything for an improved and more detailed version. For me PBEM is the only way to go, and I have't tormented the ai since the early days of UV.

ORIGINAL: bilbow

I've gotten several times my $70 out of this game so far, so I'd pay pretty much anything for an improved and more detailed version. For me PBEM is the only way to go, and I have't tormented the ai since the early days of UV.

That's what I don't understand about price-pointing. As you say, divide the money paid for the game by the hours pored into it and it's clear enough that some games actually "cost" more and give less enjoyment than others. So the guy who won't pay $200 for the real deal will go out and pay $30 for seven or eight throwaways. Smart. [8D]

Well, I did pay full price for WitP when I downloaded it from Matrix's store, and aside from SP:WaW, I haven't played ANYTHING else since then.

I'm getting a lot of enjoyment out of the game, and have collected quite a few of the mods (graphics, scenarios and otherwise) that other fans have made for it. I also have a lot of fun here at the forum (that's actually one of the best bits [:D]).

It is, to put it into economics terms, a question of ROI (Return On Investment) for me. I invested a sum of money in WitP, and enjoy it and all it's aspects a lot. However, when this poll was posted, I took a (more or less) rational look at my experience with the game and tried to consider whether or not I could reasonably expect to get two and half times as much enjoyment out of a hypothetical WitP II. I came to the conclusion that I could not. It is my conclusion, and I speak only for me [:)].

With that said, and as I stated above, I'm certainly not going to run away in disgust from here if 2by3 and Matrix decide to make WitP II. For one thing, I'd miss out on the new War in Russia [:D]!

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
This is not formal in any way shape or from so don't read anything into it. 2by3's schedule is already booked for quite some time to come with multiple games.

How many folks would seriously be interested in a PBEM ONLY version of War in the Pacific with expanded scope and detail? (ie: WitP II)

The limiting factor here is having a Computer Player means AI development which seriously limits the ability to move forward with the thousands of great suggestions that have been made. It also caps the scale as the lower the scale, the more computer processing power that it takes to have AI.

Prices are assumed to be in US Dollars so factor in your exchange rate in picking the option. Please be serious with your choice.

Due to some folks who don't understand the meaning of the forums posting rules, the content of this thread has been removed. Personal attacks on other members are unacceptable.

For my part… I apologize.

A question on expanded scope… what specifically do you have in mind?

At present I play games against the AI and ‘Hotseat” with a couple of guys here whom have generally the same ideas as to limitation they wish to put on the game (no Deathstars for one). This year both 6-6 ands 2-6 are headed back to Iraq and Afghanistan so it is either AI or PBEM, and from reading the AARs I don’t find PBEM appealing.

Would an ‘expanded’ WitP provide greater historic restriction on player’s actions? House rules are great, but actual historic restrictions on why China isn’t crushed in 1941 would work better. The same goes with massive ASW fleets, 200 plane B-17 bombings, naval invasions of India/Australia, etc.

Would I pay $200 for a WitP which accurately (as much as possible) the operation requirements and restrictions as the existed in WW2, so that my opponent had to conduct himself under those historic limitations… I believe I would.

Would I pay $200 for a WitP that adds more unit and/or complexity, but doesn’t not better recreate the historic feel of the era… no.

I have no desire to limited my defense of Tarawa to a Naval Guard Unit and a Baseforce (near historical limits) to watch my opponent assault with four Divisions. While in game terms it might make sense to do it that way, historically it wasn’t possible.

I don’t care about victory points, and have told both of my hotseat opponents before the games start they can consider themselves the victor. What I do care about is the operational level within historical limitation.

If WitP2 is 500 Battalion Deathstar riding the Chinese rail by ignoring historic realities… what is gained?

So… exactly what are you suggesting?


Again, I apologize for any part I played in the deterioration of this thread.

ORIGINAL: Terminus
...Still, if 2by3 and Matrix decide to go ahead with the idea, best of luck to them. I'll be on the sidelines, cheering...

Absolutely. Ever success these guys have means a better likelihood that they will make a game I will buy.

I bought some popcorn last night especially for this! [:(]

In all seriousness it does amaze me as to how certain people act on forums.

Roll on WIR [8D]

Regards,

Steven

A question on expanded scope… what specifically do you have in mind?

Logistics is the number one thing on my list.

As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

A question on expanded scope… what specifically do you have in mind?

Logistics is the number one thing on my list.

As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

Good points - certainly places like Noumea and Wellington had "unloading problems" not just because ( or even mostly because ) of physical insfrastrutuce limits - but because of dock worker problems. So having a "dock worker" motivation factor - could be one of the many components [:D] just kidding of course, but pointing out endless complexity in this area.


I have to say that in games I've started as Japan from Dec 7/8 by mid Summer '42 ... I don't have logistical problems ... either in the "strategic logistics" area ... i.e. the inputs to production and supply generation ( oil and resouces ) or in the "operational" area ... i.e. supply and fuel availability at the front ... there are a number of factors ... including probably to much supply / fuel generation directly in the DEI ... as well as loading and unloading times being to quick. I have seen in recent reading that Japanese shipping was essentially divided between three entities, Civilian, Navy and Army. And strategic raw materials where only allowed to be carried back to Japan on CIVILIAN shipping ... Army and Navy shipping went home empty. So not sure how to model this either ... but overuse of Japanese shipping for purposes not allowed historically, is also a contributing factor to "lack of shipping shortage" as Japan.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

...and by my opinion that $200 is WAAAAAAAY to much for a computer game. ANY computer game.

I'll pay the $200. I've waited my whole life for this game. If you guys are willing to make it more realistic, I'm all for it.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Logistics is the number one thing on my list.

As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

Then would that include a full-feature supply assistant? Because if I lose Wake because I didn't notice I had forgotten to ship them toilet paper and they surrender due to low morale, there will be hell to pay [;)]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

A question on expanded scope… what specifically do you have in mind?

Logistics is the number one thing on my list.

As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

Improved logistics would correct many of the areas where unhistorical play can creep in.

Just my opinion on the ‘feel’ of the game.

Having only played from the Japanese side that they game allows too much flexibility to the Japanese. I don’t doubt that considerable time was spent on the Japanese Order of Battle, but the Japanese don’t seem constricted very much in transports or merchant shipping early in the game. I usually have large amounts of shipping sitting in Japanese ports doing nothing, because nothing needs to be done. I am not sure historically that was the case. Expanding on the game as you suggest might correct that.

I definately would be interested in where you would take WitP2.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Logistics is the number one thing on my list.

As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

I agree 100% with Raymond!

Here is my old (and many times repeated - since I bever give up hope) WitP wish <SIGH>...

I know that it is very late in WitP developement but I still have hope that the below issues will be looked upon because geography and supply played huge role in how and where TFs were located in the Pacific (i.e. not every bay can be made into major harbour and not every ship one side posseses can be placed in such bay)...


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.

IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3.

IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150
port size 10 : MAX number of anchored ships = 200


Leo "Apollo11"

Until we see the scope of what will be included its hard to say how much I would pay. That doesn't mean though that I'm not interested, maybe you should of had another option like "show me what its got and I'll decide then" of course then we'll have more polling options that a Florida election ballot!

[;)]

Ideally though, and I don't want this to turn into a wish list thread, if it had better land combat and surface combat intercept with multiple contacts in the night, morning and afternoon phases I could part with some money.....

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I'm really amazed by the fact the some people manage to get angry in a game forum

a) Some people obviously didn't learn any manners growing up.

b) Some people get off on making other people feel small.

c) Other people react to both of the above. (wrong action but tough not to justify).

c) causes more from the a) & b) types which in turn causes more folks to go the c) path ... once started, it is impossible to stop.

Frag, maybe you need to start threatening to suspend, or even ban, people in groups a) and b) and, if necessary, group c) (guilty). That's what happens to rude posters in other forums in which I participate, and I have to say the level of discourse and civility is generally a lot higher in those.

Or maybe Sin Bin them for a week or so for starters?

The problem is tested the new capacities vs computer but if it's a evolution from WITP i can buy the game by 150$, no more

To paraphrase an old song - it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that BLING. Aside from more accurately portraying the Pacific war it has got to have a better interface. Far fewer clicks/turn. More sorting options (like being able to sort the commanders by their role suitability).

And as long as we are kicking things around here, it sure would be nice to see not only a better interface, but different presentation. After looking at the game screens from UV to present it is getting tiring.

How much better will it be? When going from the AUTO-SUPPLY of UV to WitP we were told that, yes, it worked fine -yada yada yada. But what did we really get?

I voted for $100 but if the game were a great improvement over WitP I could sell my child and get the $150 version.[:D]


P.S. If you need volunteers for coding this monster count me in.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

A question on expanded scope… what specifically do you have in mind?

Logistics is the number one thing on my list.

As you think through it, you come to the conclusion that by having logistics, it also entails expanding the concept of what a base actually is, how ships are handled, air mission frequency/repair, etc.

Yes, logistics is the key for slowing the game down. Costing too much to move 4 divsions on a minor campaign so that you are unable to continue other campaigns. Making it difficult to maintain supply to sustain a 400 plane bomber raids to decimate a base. Rotate more of the squadrons and ships to rest and repair between sorties. GREAT IDEA! [:D] Worth every penny if we could only agree on the details. [;)]