Matrix Games Forums

So, is there something actually going on?

Is there going to be a patch anytime soon?

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Yes, give me the game that at least does not self-destruct at random intervals, and fix the databse because this if where most of the problems seem to exist.

Everybody up to now has been posting about wanting things which are basically just "bells and whistles" and are overlooking the fundamental fact that the "database" for WITP is seriously flawed. Without addressing the basic issue of the "database" all that WITP II will be is a continuation of adding bells and whistles on top of a flawed database - which is just what is going on with the current WITP. The same bugs which are plaguing WITP will continue to plague WITP and exist and plague WITP II.

Properly re-design (or, in my opinion, design in the first place) a proper database and so many bugs could be eliminated and much more could be possible.

I'm with Derrick here, I doubt the new team will be wading into the database mess..., but anything they can do to make it easier for someone else to "clean out the Augean Stables" as they now exist would deserve out gratitude.

If anyone really wants to see a dead horse beaten, listen to me ask for AI improvements! [:D]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
First, starting with the idea that the game must be open to modding or contain an editor is a bad, bad decision. Don't you people understand what that does to the mechanics and data of the game from the very outset? At this point, the integrity of the design goes out the window. You've got to do great damage to simple, straightforward code in order to leave these open strands at the far end of the game engine. If editor and modding features can be added, fine, but let's have a solidly designed game first.

Don't get what your so hot over, as long as the basic, unmodded game works, allowing modding/editing shouldn't matter, if editing it changes it in a way that then the AI doesn't work as well, thats not going affect the fact the basic unchanged game works..


Even if accept your arguement, there STILL should be an editor just so one could
if wish change data like swap out some BB's for more Yamato class on assumption the builting started earlier and more were built..

Editing CV stats on premis again that things improved faster...

Simply editing in a sense shouldn't matter if the AI still can use the edited units proper.

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



This being said, the idea would be to have the "AI" scriptable, so that it can be changed and enhanced by developers and modders alike.

I hope WitP 2 will come with an API and allow modders to make DLL's that they can link in to the game to add or change features. the "Starfleet Command" series did this and I had great fun doing programming with that. This is assuming you are going to write WiTP2 in C++.

Also, I'd like to have a scripting ability using Python to create events in the game and to customize the interface. Civilization 4 currently has this and the community has produced some wonderful mods that are really amazing.

Those two games should be examples of the level of customization we shoot for in WiTP2.

Damien Thorn.

Heck, just a programmable events engine similiar to the one in TOAW. Most players do not have, nor care to learn, exotic programming languages. The KISS principle should be apllied in large amounts. What is also needed is a a database that is independent of devices/units/etc. being in the correct spot. [:-]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
Don't get what your so hot over, as long as the basic, unmodded game works, allowing modding/editing shouldn't matter, if editing it changes it in a way that then the AI doesn't work as well, thats not going affect the fact the basic unchanged game works..

huh?

Even if accept your arguement, there STILL should be an editor just so one could
if wish change data like swap out some BB's for more Yamato class on assumption the builting started earlier and more were built..

Editing CV stats on premis again that things improved faster...

How about playing the game you bought instead of the one you made up in your head?

Simply editing in a sense shouldn't matter if the AI still can use the edited units proper.

Thanks for listening.



[/quote]

AI improvements would be wonderful. There seems to be a defeatist attitude toward the AI, as if the very notion of a competent AI is preposterous. Is it that remote? Has this and every other unusually deep wargame been relegated permanently to multiplayer?

I think, in a way, pasternakski's two arguments are the same argument.

The reason why a competant AI is so hard for this game is that the player role is not defined for the game, and so the AI role is not defined either. If, as pasternakski says, the designer starts with an idea of who the player is (and limits decision-making to the decisions appropriate the player's role) then it is much more likely that an effective AI (which only has to deal with those decisions and no others) could be created.

There are always limits to the AI, but the main limit is imposed by the complexity of the task that you are asking the AI to accomplish, because the more complex the task, the less options/variability/optimization the AI will have for handling them.

Having chrome in the game is not a bad thing, so long as it does not impact on the game play and the AI. Things like CO assignments, crew experience, support squad requirement calculations, and the like seem to me to be clogging up the game and degrading the ability of the AI to be programmed to do the stuff we would like it to do.

With only X manhours available for AI programming, what should be the focus of the AI? That should determine what the role of the AI (and thus the player) should be.

Great news! Good luck, guys!

Edit: one or two comments on AI. Is it me, or is computer-game AI improving? I have yet to beat "Galactic Civlizations II" at the "Normal" difficulty level, and while it's no War in the Pacific, it's far more involved than chess. Likewise, "Birth of America" has a half-decent AI; at least, it has kicked my sorry butt more than once. Is there some new AI learning emerging from university computer science departments these days?

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



This being said, the idea would be to have the "AI" scriptable, so that it can be changed and enhanced by developers and modders alike.

I hope WitP 2 will come with an API and allow modders to make DLL's that they can link in to the game to add or change features. the "Starfleet Command" series did this and I had great fun doing programming with that. This is assuming you are going to write WiTP2 in C++.

Also, I'd like to have a scripting ability using Python to create events in the game and to customize the interface. Civilization 4 currently has this and the community has produced some wonderful mods that are really amazing.

Those two games should be examples of the level of customization we shoot for in WiTP2.

Damien Thorn.

Heck, just a programmable events engine similiar to the one in TOAW. Most players do not have, nor care to learn, exotic programming languages. The KISS principle should be apllied in large amounts. What is also needed is a a database that is independent of devices/units/etc. being in the correct spot. [:-]

Didn't play TOAW so I can't comment on it but if you see the amazing things people are doing over at the Civ 4 forums you'd probably demand that same kind of flexability in WitP 2. In fact, if we had that kind of flexability WitP 2 would probably become an entire platform for designing naval war games. You could mod in everything for 1890's coal-era ships to modern navies. It's a dream right now but I know it can be a reality with the dedicated people in this community.... if the developers give us the tools to make it possible. Python! Python! Python!

Damien Thorn

Great news, thanks... [&o]

Is this game still in development or not ?

And is yes, how many (big) bugs still left in game ?
I hear it is one of best games, but bugs corrupt gameplay and plaing against AI is only waste of time.

ORIGINAL: Czert

Is this game still in development or not ?

And is yes, how many (big) bugs still left in game ?
I hear it is one of best games, but bugs corrupt gameplay and plaing against AI is only waste of time.

As for development, others with more insight should reply, but for your other comments, I can at least provide my own humble opinion:

- Big Bugs Left: Check this thread. In my opinion, most of the bugs becomes annoying once you have moved quite a bit up the learning curve, so being a noob, I don´t worry much about these. One can also argue that there are no big bugs left in the sense the application is stable, but the game engine itself has some areas of improvement. These areas are different depending on which of the guru level players you ask, and what mood they happen to be in

- Bugs corrupt gameplay - Not according to me, see above

- Playing against AI is a waste of time - You will have enough fun playing the AI to make it worth spending the $'s for the game. It´s a grog's game, and that means it takes a loooooooong time to learn, and even longer to master. I´d even state that playing the AI is a must before going to PBEM. Otherwise I don´t think the AI is worse than any other game in the same genre, more likely it´s better

Finally, if you like lots and lots of detail, and lots and lots of planning, and lots and lots of gameplay, you will adore WitP. If you don´t fancy that type of game, buy a less complex game instead

Just for the record:
Let's cheer for WITP II
[8|]

Disclaimer: I have not read the thread, too long.

Open the AI code to public domain and let people contribute to that. Keep the rest of the code in-house... This way the team can spend more time with the actual game and not worry so much about the AI.

--Mikko

ORIGINAL: msaario

Disclaimer: I have not read the thread, too long.

Open the AI code to public domain and let people contribute to that. Keep the rest of the code in-house... This way the team can spend more time with the actual game and not worry so much about the AI.

--Mikko

That whole open source discussion was pretty much alive about a year, year and a half, ago until someone official stated it very clearly that was not in the crystal ball. We can think what we want about that, but it´s not likely to happen

Oh well, this is too important a thread to pass. [:)]

First of all, I'd like to say a big thanks to the decision maker that took the decision to strengthen the WITP development team and move the series forward. No matter what we individually rant about, we should agree that WITP has been a great teaching tool, a great entertainment and overall a terrific bang for the buck. Bring WITP 2 on!

Second, I'd like to pitch in my €.2 about what bothered me in the game, and why I stopped playing it after a year (a year nevertheless!). Perhaps there are other people that shared my experience, who knows.. Here goes then, my top-5 game-breakers, in no particular order (And no, existing bugs are not included, it goes without saying that thay should be fixed, and neither is AI, I found it adequate as a learning tool, even unpredictable at times). [:)]

• It always felt that I was WITP's personal assistant, not the other way around. Meaning, I had to keep logs upon logs to understand what's going on. Aren't computers supposed to automate these mundane tasks? Shouldn't I be able to enter a free-text mission for each ship/division/TF whatever so at least I remember what I want to do without bringing another laptop for text processing along? Shouldn't I be able to have all parameters and information at hand, without resorting to spreadsheets? You bet I should. Corollary: Cure spreadsheet fever.
• Rolling a new interface was really not necessary. I have ranted about this before on this forum. These days, people are (for good or for bad) used to the standard Windoze interface. Menus, right clicks, minimize/maximize, shortcuts etc. There have been millions of dollars poured for making this paradigm as easy as possible, and people have responded by learning it. Why force somebody to learn a sequence of ten clicks deep when there's usually an alternative standard way to perform the same action? Corollary: Do not roll your own interface.
• Unnecessary micromanagement kills. Rotating air units so that their crews are fresh and trained is a nice idea. It teaches me valid tactics, it teaches me history. It's also nice to be able to see who the top leader is, and who the best pilots in a squad are. We grogs love this detail. But instead of making me check every blooming unit for fatigue, let the system warn me with a trigger when this happens instead of me going searching for it. Corollary: Let the player set rules, for the system to micromanage itself.
• Hiding how things work is a bad, bad thing.Yes, I understand that it's nice to perpetuate the folclore of cryptic formulas, savvy players doing experiments to figure out inner workings, and the like. Yes, it's a good practice to protect your trade secrets, assuming formulas is one of those. But there's a lot you can do to improve the understanding, and thus the involvement, of the average player, like offering solid (even qualitative!) explanations about how the TAC AI makes choices, what goes on during a land assault etc. Hey, you might even put all this advanced info in a strategy guide to make some more money. Or could it be you've got to hide something, say, inadequate formula modelling? Corollary: Expose the game's inner workings.
• Reports, replays, and situational data. I finish a 2 hour WITP turn, hit go and the turn executes. Where is my dashboard where the system tells me how well I'm doing, how many casualties I had, how many battles have happened, which ships need my immediate attention? Where is my positive or negative feedback? I'm Yamamoto dammit, I need my officers to summarize everything for me, instead of having to visit half a dozen screen and pop-up windows to get all the data I want. Corollary: Summarize the situation for the player.

Apologies for the longish post. Hopefully, some of the above problems of mine will find their cure in the next version of the game. Best wishes for the team's forthcoming effort.

/coralsaw

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

WITP 2? What the hell would there be left to improve upon after patch 1.8? If everything works as planned, I really don't see how they could make the game more complete... Graphics...maybe??

A tactical component that allows you to not just watch battles but give directions in them. Or how about even 3D looking battle graphics ?

Or such things as a talley of Sub kills. Ships, Subs, planes, ect credited with kills they make such as a list of ships sub by a sub save as part of the report.

And please drop the on screen reports of snapshots of ground reccon by air and those silly "Troops landing on such and such beach" they are time consuming and can be placed in the Intell report screen.

I guess it's not time to ask: When?[;)]

Isnt so much a wish list for WITP II but is there ever a chance of a modern day version of this type of game ?
 
A WWIII version would be cool