Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Brady

Cool(French) Cant't wait to see how this all works[:)], no Portugise though right?

They (P) were on the list - but don't think they made it.

Coal? Japanese industry ran on coal, not oil, as WiTP would lead one to beleave, I know this was very abstracted by the Suply aspect, but most of the Coal came from China and Japan it's slef, is this modeled in the game or is this aspect still aken to how WiTP has handeled it.

Ok, well I have to get back to day job stuff ... will check back again as soon as I can ...

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Joe, please push for a disk version of the AE release. There are still some of us troglodytes who use dial-up and so will not be able to dl the game... thanks.

AE will release with full boxed copies available, including a printed manual.

Coast Watching, is it still the same or have some of the more unrealastic aspects of it been done away with, like spoting at night, and their presence on islands they were not on, or the efect of their abailitys diminished over time , that is relative to the time of ocupation, simply put if the Japanese ocupy the island they go away after a time.

Great news guys. I'm looking forward to AE.
 
Will we be able to sort the leader screens or be able to apply filters to the display? What I mean if I'm looking for an admiral to command an invasion fleet I would like to eliminate the surface fleet commanders from the display.
 
Have any performance enhacements been made to speed up processing?
 
How about the option to turn off all displays durning turn processing to speed?

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


So all coastal base airfields can still be hit by naval bombardments?

It’s great to hear bombardments are being toned down, but most airfields in the Pacific other than on Atolls should not be within reach of naval guns. Most islands airbases were too far inland or obscured by terrain too much for any ships guns to reach except for perhaps a BB. The game makes them too powerful in their ability to hit ANY costal base airfield.

I wouldn't say that is the case at all. Many of the "coastal" continental airbases probably could not be realistically hit by a bombardment, but most island airbases could and were hit by bombardments. Airfields at Okinawa, Saipan, Guam, Leyte, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and others were hit by bombardments. None of these are atolls. Some, if not all, of the airbases at Rabaul were easily within range of BB fire. Just about any airfield in the Solomons was vulnerable. Island airbases are just too dependent on the local port/beach for supply to be located very far away. And building good roads through the swamp/jungle just wasn't worth the effort.

That's not to say that the stock nuke bombardments are in any way realistic, but many airfield were within range of BB/CA fire.

Who on this new team speaks for, and is an advocate for, the AI player? There is a well-known anti-AI player bias within the vocal elements of this forum. According to the latest poll, the PBEM crowd are in the minority when one considers the whole pie. Who is speaking officially for the majority of the players? Are PBEM advocates going to be testing the AI, or are AI players going to be testing the AI? Are PBEM advocates going to be saying what AI changes get made, or do the AI players have a say in this? Are the AI players adequately represented by this team? Is there going to be a thread concerned with the AI?

The AI is an important priority for this release and is getting a lot of attention, never fear.

ORIGINAL: DD696

Who on this new team speaks for, and is an advocate for, the AI player? There is a well-known anti-AI player bias within the vocal elements of this forum. According to the latest poll, the PBEM crowd are in the minority when one considers the whole pie. Who is speaking officially for the majority of the players? Are PBEM advocates going to be testing the AI, or are AI players going to be testing the AI? Are PBEM advocates going to be saying what AI changes get made, or do the AI players have a say in this? Are the AI players adequately represented by this team? Is there going to be a thread concerned with the AI?

DD. Don't get upset yet. It's quite obvious that the AE game system and scenarios have to be pretty much complete before work on AI control of them can begin. Which probably explains why the "release" isn't scheduled until next summer.

Yup Mike the AI is a priority but there are a number of gating issues to overcome first we will do our best for the whole community not just the PBEM'rs.

I see additional aircraft slots, will there be additional slots available across the database?

Yes lots more slots modders heaven and the editor is a dream to use.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: DD696

Who on this new team speaks for, and is an advocate for, the AI player? There is a well-known anti-AI player bias within the vocal elements of this forum. According to the latest poll, the PBEM crowd are in the minority when one considers the whole pie. Who is speaking officially for the majority of the players? Are PBEM advocates going to be testing the AI, or are AI players going to be testing the AI? Are PBEM advocates going to be saying what AI changes get made, or do the AI players have a say in this? Are the AI players adequately represented by this team? Is there going to be a thread concerned with the AI?

DD. Don't get upset yet. It's quite obvious that the AE game system and scenarios have to be pretty much complete before work on AI control of them can begin. Which probably explains why the "release" isn't scheduled until next summer.

I don't get upset. I just want assurance that the cards are not stacked against the AI player and that we do have adequate representation.

Sir. What do you believe will be the most significant effect(s) of changing the map scale from 60 to 40 miles per hex? (Why was that decision made?)

I think the smaller hex scale and vastly improved map is possibly the single best thing about this. What is the size of the map in hexes please?

I hope this is the right thread for my question.

Will the Political Points still be for all allied troops or divided between all fractions?
If there will be still one big pool, the British won't have any disadvantages for not sending ships back home.
The same if the Dutch abandon their colonies, the Chinese fighting in Burma and so on...
Some years ago I found this in a thread and someone mentioned that this is possible in the game, but would have been impossible in history.

And a map aspect is that it is easier to make "inland ports" now, connected to the sea by rivers, and rivers can be BB navigatable or not.

Yes, I noticed in one screenshot that Rangoon looked . . . different. River nav is a very cool idea.

Are we going to be provided with an editor that will edit the data for a game in progress? Or will we simply be left with 1) the endless restarting of the game with everyone being an expert on the first six months of the war, or 2) having to continue play with the data errors? Providing us with a improved editor is great, but without the ability to do so to a game in progress this improved editor is not so very much improved. I know you will bring up the PBEM argument, but can you not also consider the AI player or the PBEM player who would like to repair a game without having to restart?

I constantly change scenario data and I do make mistakes doing so. Can you guarantee that the new scenarios will be free of all data errors and of errors that creep into the database due to programming problems? If not, why cannot they be repaired?

..