Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Remember, in terms of code, you can't think only of WitP but of WitP and WPO. The source code to one allows the source to the other, even though the games are different.

Then the games don't sound very different to me. What is WPO, apart from a new OOB and new graphics if the source code is the same?

I didn't say the source code was the same, I said it was similar. The basic WitP engine is there. Mike didn't rewrite the entire engine for WPO. WitP can't run WPO scenarios, and vice versa. But for the kind of SDK people are wanting, that they can completely change WitP to their needs, it is possible (in theory) that it can change WPO.

This isn't the best analogy, but I think it conveys it. WPO is to WitP as Rising SUn is to West Front. Different games, but their base engine is the same. That said, each plays different, and feels different. And a tool to look in the code for West Front could conceivably mess with Rising SUn.

I'm forced to ask Bodhi, considering we have said over and over that WPO is based on the WitP engine, that some WPO fixes have been put in WitP (the ASW), and vice versa, I mean were you expecting a ocmpletely rewritten, different engine? WPO feels different, looks different, plays different, sounds different, yet a good chunk of its code is like War in the Pacific. Much the same way as the CS series. Each was a different game, yet shared in many respects the same basic code.

Various elements (too many to list) were changed from WitP to better reflect a 1920's war. But many things are just as in WitP, because the base engine proved itself flexible. But Mike didn't build a new game from scratch. Which is what we said, considering WPO was mod, and then an expansion, and now a standalone. WPO is a completely new OOB, new graphics, new scenarios, and new code to reflect a 1920's war. But WPO is built off the WitP engine. Meaning that although each game feels different, many parts of the code are the same. Again, considering WPO's development history (which I never hid or obscured), I'm not sure if you were expecting a completely new game from the ground up. From the forum blurb by David Heath:

War Plan Orange is the follow up game designed by Justin Prince using our War in the Pacific engine. WPO covers a hypothetical Pacific War in the years before Carriers supplanted Battleships and Dreadnoughts as the Kings of the Sea.

No mysteries there that the game is similar to UV and WitP. All I am saying, is the more versatile the SDK (like what people are wanting in this thread) COULD (Again, in theory) be used for WPO. And as such, I doubt such a thing would be released until at least WPO gets off to a good start.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

BTW: Fraxis/2K Games will release a huge moders tool kit for Civ 4 next week, and will likly open source the Code at years end. I guess the sellers of 6 million copies of the Civ Games don`t know what their doing either....[8|]

That doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. I am sure they will have good sale numbers up to and past that point. releasing the code could lose them X amount of money.

ORIGINAL: Richard III
do a search on Civ Fantics : fraxis, Soren , 2K Games

I would wait until i see it on an official press release before I start believing it. But since you have seen it...be a pal and give us the link.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Richard III

You really think they are selling many copies of the Game at this point ?.... and any Scum Bag Pirates need only buy a copy with the Key Code. Please..that`s a weak arguement.

If they only sell ONE copy of the game a month, that's enough...

and will likly open source the Code at years end.

Yeah, sure they will. Get real...

I`m very Real and actually have information unlike your Opinions.

If you can spare the time from posting here 10 times a day ( 5395 post in 6 months [X(][:D] ) do a search on Civ Fantics : fraxis, Soren , 2K Games. ... report back ( with at least 10 daily valuable posts.....)


Thanks !

I did a search at Civ Fanatics. I found the Civ 3 Open Source project, but absolutely nothing on Civ 4 going open source. Nothing on goodle either. Now python itself, to a degree, is open source. But barring that, I came up with nothing.

Sorry. It`s on Apolyton.net.

Go to the Civ 4 Forum, creation and files forum, " Initial Python Reference " thread, read what that can do, see the reference on the release of SDK.

Between that and Python what can`t be changed in Civ 4 that would effect Gameplay ?

Aside from that, the issue is:

1: WITP and what it has become as opposed to what it was sold to us as.

2: How it can be fixed to function as a Simulation, without losing Matrix money.

ADavidB, who has some credibility here had one answer on the original B-29 Thread, which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim, which has been _completely ignored_ by the Matrix guys and you folks.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

ADavidB, who has some credibility here had one answer on the original B-29 Thread, which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim, which has been _completely ignored_ by the Matrix guys and you folks.

For those that may have missed it, or forgotten the details, can you summarise ADavidB's suggestion. Thanks.

When folks say "Just make a mod to make things the way you like them!"

1. That is MUCH easier said than done. Anybody who advocates that has obviously never done a serious one. I 'bout lost my sanity doing Midway, and that's just a 2 week scenario. Tank is doing an entirely different war, with multiple scenarios (insanity I tell you!). H_ll, the "Final Countdown" scenario I'm doing, wiht just 1(!) ship, 5 plane types, and 20 weapons systems -still- isn't done.

2. Furthermore, any modding you might do, can be comepletely nulled by the next patch. Even if you make a mod to your liking, if something get's "tweaked", and it nerfs your own mod, your only solution is to either continue playing your own mod (now broken from an official patch), or re-tweak your mod, and start completely over. Sorry, neither choice is acceptable.

3. As a player, I don't think I should have to constantly "correct" the game, esp after patches. The patches should be making the game a better play experience for everyone, not succombing the screams of 10% of the game's polulation.

-F-

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Richard III

ADavidB, who has some credibility here had one answer on the original B-29 Thread, which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim, which has been _completely ignored_ by the Matrix guys and you folks.

For those that may have missed it, or forgotten the details, can you summarise ADavidB's suggestion. Thanks.

See page 1 of Feinder`s recent " B-29, The Fairy Princess of 1945 " thread, about 1/2 way down, or use the search function for Author please.

Thanks

ORIGINAL: Feinder

When folks say "Just make a mod to make things the way you like them!"


2. Furthermore, any modding you might do, can be ****comepletely nulled by the next patch****. Even if you make a mod to your liking, if something get's "tweaked", and it nerfs your own mod, your only solution is to either continue playing your own mod (now broken from an official patch), or re-tweak your mod, and start completely over. Sorry, neither choice is acceptable.

-F-

Which is why you have seen so few Scenario/Mods for WITP and UV.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Richard III

ADavidB, who has some credibility here had one answer on the original B-29 Thread, which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim, which has been _completely ignored_ by the Matrix guys and you folks.

For those that may have missed it, or forgotten the details, can you summarise ADavidB's suggestion. Thanks.

See page 1 of Feinder`s recent " B-29, The Fairy Princess of 1945 " thread, about 1/2 way down, or use the search function for Author please.

Thanks

I did, but all I could find were some suggested victory conditions:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Here are some "Victory Conditions" for a Japanese player in a WW II simulation:

- They reach May 1942 at or better than the historic achievements - a draw
- They reach January 1, 1943 at or better than the historical situation - a marginal victory
- They reach January 1, 1944 at or better than the historical situation - a clear victory
- They reach January 1, 1945 at or better than the historical situation - a decisive victory
- They reach August 14, 1945 at or better than the historical situation, and no atomic bombs have been dropped - a total victory

An Allied player likewise has to improve upon the historical situation or he loses on the same dates.
By "...at or better than the historical situation", I mean that the Japanese player has the same or better territorial situation and has the same or more forces, including ships, planes and troops, as the historical situation.
Thus, the "better" the Japanese player plays - taking more territory, losing fewer forces, etc. - the better the chance for a victory.
This alleviates the need to put ahistorical restrictions or enhancements on the forces of both sides.
It's too bad that the victory conditions for this game weren't designed in such a manner.

This can't be what you meant, as I can't see how altering victory conditions suddenly changes a game into a sim. [&:] Or am I missing something?

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

I don't know what he meant, that's why I asked. [;)] I was just intrigued by the "which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim" statement. Can't quite see how the Allied player "having to form a strategy independent of history" accomplishes that either. I must be having a bad day - better not do any more work then. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Maybe he meant the part about the Allied player having to form a strategy independent of history?

I don't know what he meant, that's why I asked. [;)] I was just intrigued by the "which would require no release of code or SDK and allow the Game to function as a Sim" statement. Can't quite see how the Allied player "having to form a strategy independent of history" accomplishes that either. I must be having a bad day - better not do any more work then. [:D]

Wasn't too sure either, but that was the only no code change or anything I could think of. Unless he wants us to scribble "Japanese Victory" on a piece of paper and tape it to our monitors [:D]

You two are having a great time quoting out of context with no atribution as who your quoting.[8|]

Hard to believe your as confused as you seem....

I guess you have never played Board Wargames that have Victory conditions based on losses, and specific events within a _Historical_ timeframe, as example, the US has to take Sapain by a certain date to bring the now Nerfed B-29`s into play, as well as the Nukes. Failure to do so could result in a Japanese Victory on points.

or...if the Japanes player overuns India or a great part of it, he gets a huge point lead....not so hard is it..?

With ability to win through good play, using historically accurate Combat Routines, there would be no need to skew the in-game AI results so one side could " Win". All these ahistorical changes to the AI are the same as cheats in a FPS, like unlimted ammo.


That`s what he means...seems pretty clear to me, and I suspect pretty clear to you guys as well.

BTW...Tankeracer ; the " Japanese Victory Scribbled on Paper" is a pretty Cheap Shot.....

ORIGINAL: Richard III

You two are having a great time quoting out of context with no atribution as who your quoting.[8|]

Hard to believe your as confused as you seem....

I guess you have never played wargames that have Victory conditions based on losses, and specific events within a _Historical_ timeframe, as example, the US has to take Sapain by a certain date to bring the now Nerfed B-29`s into play, as well as the Nukes. Failure to do so could result in a Japanese Victory on points.

or...if the Japanes player overuns India or a great part of it, he gets a huge point lead....not so hard is it..?


That`s what he means...seems pretty clear to me, and I suspect pretty clear to you guys as well.

I understood (I think) what David wrote, what I don't understand is how changing the victory conditions suddenly enhances the validity of WitP as a sim rather than a game. All I see that the suggestion does is force players down the historical path, which takes away the chance to explore "what if" scenarios. Why should the US be forced to win by dropping nuclear weapons from B-29s based out of Saipan? And surely the Japanese player should be penalised points if he overuns India as that didn't happen historically? Sorry, I'm still confused as to why all this would make WitP a better simulation. [&:]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
...which takes away the chance to explore "what if" scenarios.

Which is, to me, a huge reason to play these games. I like things to fall into place with a resemblance of history when I play, but when you put a warm body with hindsight in control, things are goign to change from day 1.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

BTW...Tankeracer ; the " Japanese Victory Scribbled on Paper" is a pretty Cheap Shot.....

I'm sorry, but how is that a cheap shot? It was a joke. Hence the smiley... Humor, haha, nothing bad implied nor meant.

And as to the rest of your post, no, I haven't played that many boardgames, never had people to play them with. I meant no disrespect, it was a joke on his Japanese victory without needing a code change. Not sure how a simple joke comes across as a cheap shot.

Let me explain. The Japanese player meets his conditions for victory. Well, the game (as no code change remember) doesn't say anything, so he (in a joke) writes it down. I'm forced to wonder how that as a joke is a "cheap shot". Saying his reasons are stupid, unfounded, unprecedented, etc are cheap shots, but I don't see how a simple joke (when there are lots of jokes made on this forum) is bad.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Saying his reasons are stupid, unfounded, unprecedented, etc are cheap shots, but I don't see how a simple joke (when there are lots of jokes made on this forum) is bad.

That's probably because jokes are not "valuable" posts.

All I want(ed) from WitP was a "reasonable evaluation of the units, and engine that creates reasonable results." Unfortunately, it has DE-volved so that neither are true. The OB is utter non-sense, and the engine does not produce historical results under similar circumstances.

While the "atrributes" of Zeros and B-29s are certainly subjective within WitP, I should be able to pit 100 Zeros vs. 100 B-29s, and the engine should resolve a "reasonable result". It is certainly true that after the first turn, the war changes. That is exactly the point of wargaming, is to create a simulation, and see if you can do better than your historical counterparts.

But the "what if" factor should really only reflect "what if I deploy/use my units differently". The units themselves, should operate as reasonable historical reflection.

-F-

Excellent post on the single player flaws in the _evolved_ version of WITP and what it has become.i.e. a Game where wherein historical tactics/ deployment of units for the most give ahistorical , if not plan silly results.

Combining " enhancements" i,e. dumbing down the Game engine with the Bug fix Patches was a fatal mistake.


It can be fixed if Matrix releases a SDK and Modding tools, or revamp the in game Victory conditions.