C'mon, Matrix... how about a WiTP 2?

[LeeChard]

Good news! I don't usually run the betas but for search arcs I'll join in test pool. It just so happens I'm starting a new game. I will need some pointers on how to determine if they are functioning or not.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Since so many here seem to want compete 100% historical accuracy, I have an idea.

Why not just design a game that has two dice and a results table?

Here is the manual:

Roll the dice.

Anything but snake eyes = Japan surenders after getting nuked twice. Industry is smashed. Navy non-existent.

Snake eyes = Japan surrenders after getting nuked once. Industry is smashed. Navy non-existent.


Always near-historical results, simple, inexpensive, and no debugging. Charge $80 bucks for it and you're off!

First buyer to complete 1000 games gets their $80 back, plus a gun with one bullet.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Roll the dice.

Anything but snake eyes = Japan surenders after getting nuked twice. Industry is smashed. Navy non-existent.

Snake eyes = Japan surrenders after getting nuked once. Industry is smashed. Navy non-existent.

That's correct, but Japan losing the war shouldn't have much to do with the player losing the game.

A Japanese player should win the game by doing better overall than Japan did during WW2. Same for the Allied player.

[vettim89]

In my mind I guess I have to ask what WiTP-2 would look like or what would people want it to look like?

Yes a better GUI would certainly be nice as well as a true 3-d map. That however is eye candy and not really changin the nuts and bolts of the game. One thing I think needs to be considered is that AE is pushing the complexity issue right to the edge of the envelope. Would people truly tolerate an even MORE complex game. Perhaps 40-50 or the Forumites here might but you aren't going to publish a game to sell a few hundred copies. Yes, WiTP/WiTP-AE are not perfect games but that are sound games that give the player the feel for the PTO and the strategies and tactics employed in the campaign. While one could tweka some minor systems like ASW and the ground combat routines, you are going to get a game that plays like AE in a prettier box.

[Sredni]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

In my mind I guess I have to ask what WiTP-2 would look like or what would people want it to look like?

Yes a better GUI would certainly be nice as well as a true 3-d map. That however is eye candy and not really changin the nuts and bolts of the game. One thing I think needs to be considered is that AE is pushing the complexity issue right to the edge of the envelope. Would people truly tolerate an even MORE complex game. Perhaps 40-50 or the Forumites here might but you aren't going to publish a game to sell a few hundred copies. Yes, WiTP/WiTP-AE are not perfect games but that are sound games that give the player the feel for the PTO and the strategies and tactics employed in the campaign. While one could tweka some minor systems like ASW and the ground combat routines, you are going to get a game that plays like AE in a prettier box.

Personally I'd pay another 80 dollars simply to have pilot screens not reset to the top each time you send a pilot to the pools or pull one out of the pools. A new UI that fixes little niggles like that is eminently worthwhile in my eyes. I loves mah eye candy too, mostly the eye candy I want would be better ship and plane models, and pictoral splash screens (there are literally millions of pictures from wwII that could be used to make loading screens instead of the handful witp uses heh), and pictures of people and places from RL.

And I'm one of those who love the complexity, the more complex the better. However I also want built in ease of use that allows me to access that complexity without being overwhelmed. I love the complexity of managing pilots, it's like a little mini game within the game. But giving us the ability to sort pilots by multiple skills, sorting by NavB while excluding any pilots over 50 NavT for instance would make managing dive bomber pilots much easier and less time consuming. Or sorting pilots by high strafe but low air skill to find attack bomber pilots.

Or patrol task forces. I like setting up multi point patrol routes for things like ASW, I always have 4 ships in the tf and then another 2 ships of the same type (and hopefully class) in their homeport with which I trade out damaged ships from time to time. If the game could have the ships automatically trade ships with any sort of damage out for a ship of the same class (or just type) that has no damage (or less damage) each time it hits port this would remove some of the tedium of managing these patrol TF's.

Subs could be automated like this as well to have them disband, repair, and then reform and head back to their patrol route.

And you know how ships often hit port with 1 or 2 engine damage that won't repair normally and you have to go into the repair screen and set them to dockside repair and they'll fix right up in a day or two? Well the tedium of managing that sort of thing could be eased by making repairs like that happen even while not docked, but take 3 or 4 days to do instead of the 1 it usually takes if you switch them to dockside.

Forming transport and amphibious task forces could use a overhaul as well. This is one of the bits of complexity of the game that I don't like [:D], adding up all the load costs for the lcu's you want to move, then calculating out how many ships you need, then trying to figure out the differences when you're making an amphibious TF vs a transport TF. BLEH! And then sometimes even after you build your transport and move your lcu's, you get them where they need to be and you discover that you left 10 mechanized support back at home base. ARG! lol. This is one of the aspects of the game that could definitely be optimized in some way imho.


So in short (heh), while I love complexity, I also want built in ease of use to make that complexity manageable. Being able to turn it off and on would also be a benefit for others too I guess, like having a toggle before you start the game to turn pilot management on, or have it off with all pilots just averages of what sort of experience pilots of the various nations had historically for those who dislike the pilot management.

Not knocking witp AE by any means. It's the best of the best at what it does. Just saying I would be happy to pay for witp 2.

[CaptBeefheart]

There are numerous things that could be done to make this game easier to manage and more foolproof, such as an invasion force planner, where you organize your different TFs and the computer puts the proper TF in the proper place (i.e. surface TFs in position to handle enemy TFs, bombardment TFs to hammer the shore, etc., but only one icon to move--no worries about meeting or following or remaining on station or whatever for multiple TFs). Also, pick the units to be transported and a window pops up offering ship suggestions.

Pilot training would be better if you could allocate squadrons and pilots to a pool and allocate type of training (say for USAAF: 40% to fighter pilot, 20% to skip bomber pilot, 20% to level bomber, 10% to patrol, 10% to recon). Then, when the trainee pilot reached a target skill level he'd be tossed in the reserve pool and another pilot would take his place. Ground units should be able to be grouped under one icon which could then be moved.

I'd also like to see Allied production offered as an option with tradeoffs between VPs (and/or supplies) and production offered (or the option to leave it fixed if people want).

I would design WITP2 to be an overall time saver while maintaining the same level of control and the same OOB detail we enjoy now, plus fix some of the known engine issues such as differentiating the anti-ship and AA values of DP guns. And I'd easily pay $150 for it.

Cheers,
CC

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Personally I'd pay another 80 dollars simply to have pilot screens not reset to the top each time you send a pilot to the pools or pull one out of the pools.

If that's all it would take for you, then check out the Beta.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Personally I'd pay another 80 dollars simply to have pilot screens not reset to the top each time you send a pilot to the pools or pull one out of the pools.

If that's all it would take for you, then check out the Beta.

As for myself, I'm all up for paid maintenance/small enhancements; say $10 per month per player, that should get a little extra by end of year for the developer(s), and a bit more happiness from the players for having a path for changes/small enhancements.

Having said that, I'm not really sure how much of small enhancements are actually feasible with the current code. If it requires 500 hours to add a little thing, then it may not be workable at all.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

In my mind I guess I have to ask what WiTP-2 would look like or what would people want it to look like?

Yes a better GUI would certainly be nice as well as a true 3-d map. That however is eye candy and not really changin the nuts and bolts of the game. One thing I think needs to be considered is that AE is pushing the complexity issue right to the edge of the envelope. Would people truly tolerate an even MORE complex game. Perhaps 40-50 or the Forumites here might but you aren't going to publish a game to sell a few hundred copies. Yes, WiTP/WiTP-AE are not perfect games but that are sound games that give the player the feel for the PTO and the strategies and tactics employed in the campaign. While one could tweka some minor systems like ASW and the ground combat routines, you are going to get a game that plays like AE in a prettier box.

I've been around computer games since the late 70s and for about that long I've heard the false choice between "graphics or gameplay" bandied about. The truth is, games are sensory experiences. They are all about sound and pictures flowing into one's brain. So, I want both.

I don't think a 3-D anything would add to the game, and in fact would detract. But if I'm going to spend 1000s of hours looking at something I'd like the GUI to be ergonomic and easy to navigate. From the start WITP was not that, especially for older players with bad eyes and bad eye-hand coordination on the tiny buttons. MS has given us, for better or worse, interface norms which are second nature to PC users. Why redesign the thing in areas like save processes?

I don't want it more complex either, but I think some interface re-thinking could save mountains of clicks. Drag & drop and Drag & collect, along with extensive tooltips and some hypertexting, would ease data navigation five-fold.

What I want more than anything though is a non-script-based AI. Very expensive to design, but the majority of AE players play the AI. AE's is an order-of-magnitude better than WITP's. I'd pay for the next step.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Or patrol task forces. I like setting up multi point patrol routes for things like ASW, I always have 4 ships in the tf and then another 2 ships of the same type (and hopefully class) in their homeport with which I trade out damaged ships from time to time. If the game could have the ships automatically trade ships with any sort of damage out for a ship of the same class (or just type) that has no damage (or less damage) each time it hits port this would remove some of the tedium of managing these patrol TF's.

As I manage subs manually more and more in the late game, I'd really like the ability to design a patrol area for a sub or an ASW Tf once, give it a name, and then assign any number of later TFs to it without having to set pivot points for each one. So, I design a triangle ASW zone by clicking, and then name the macro "PH--Eastern Approaches Alfa" and that goes into a table with maybe 30 slots which I can call up and click once to assign the next TF to that exact same route after TF #1 goes in for repairs or upgrades. For subs, I always want certain areas patrolled. Truk, Iwo Jima, the SW corners of the PI, etc. It would be so nice to just design them and re-use them.

Right now, one of the biggest ergonomic ARRRGH features is that the cursor returns to the TF after you set each pivot of a zone or a waypoint set. So a sub leaving PH for the HI needs three complete Pacific-wide scrolls to set the area. Especially on a slow box like mine it's like root canal. Just having the cursor default to staying on the previous waypoint would save mucho time and aggro.

[CaptDave]

First, I'll point out that I do understand this will be a long time coming, if ever.  But since we're fantasizing about a future release...

I like everything the Moose said in post #50, to wit: set up designated patrol zones for subs and be able to name them, and when setting patrols refocus the view on the already-entered waypoints.

My biggest desire, though, has nothing to do with the interface.  Rather, it's entirely behind the scenes.  We'll need routinely higher-powered machines before it can happen, due to the processing involved, but I'd like to see more of the action taking place simultaneously rather than sequentially.  That is, right now the game flows like a human-powered board game: night air attacks followed by amphibious landings followed by ship movement followed by morning air attacks followed by afternoon air attacks (as if the ships wouldn't have moved by then) followed by the reverse sequence.  Granted, until parallel processing is feasible for the majority the programming will still have to be sequential, but maybe the chunks can be broken down into smaller increments, say of 60 minutes.

Right now, a scout plane goes out and says, "oh, gee, look what I found!"  Since the ships won't move again, a task force gets pounded several times in the morning phase, then perhaps again in the afternoon.  Just about any healthy ship can move a hex in 4 hours, but as the code is now they all stay put for 12 hours at a time.

From an interface standpoint, my biggest improvement other than those mentioned above would be to send planes out on naval attack and at least send them in a specific direction.  It can be annoying when you know there's a task force out there to the east but you don't know exactly where, and your planes go attack somebody in the west you don't care about.  It may not be realistic to target a specific task force (or, depending on detection levels, maybe it is), but I'd at least like the option to send my planes that direction with the intention of attacking.  I'm not convinced that sending them on naval search will get the same results if they happen to find what they're looking for.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Or patrol task forces. I like setting up multi point patrol routes for things like ASW, I always have 4 ships in the tf and then another 2 ships of the same type (and hopefully class) in their homeport with which I trade out damaged ships from time to time. If the game could have the ships automatically trade ships with any sort of damage out for a ship of the same class (or just type) that has no damage (or less damage) each time it hits port this would remove some of the tedium of managing these patrol TF's.

As I manage subs manually more and more in the late game, I'd really like the ability to design a patrol area for a sub or an ASW Tf once, give it a name, and then assign any number of later TFs to it without having to set pivot points for each one. So, I design a triangle ASW zone by clicking, and then name the macro "PH--Eastern Approaches Alfa" and that goes into a table with maybe 30 slots which I can call up and click once to assign the next TF to that exact same route after TF #1 goes in for repairs or upgrades. For subs, I always want certain areas patrolled. Truk, Iwo Jima, the SW corners of the PI, etc. It would be so nice to just design them and re-use them.

Right now, one of the biggest ergonomic ARRRGH features is that the cursor returns to the TF after you set each pivot of a zone or a waypoint set. So a sub leaving PH for the HI needs three complete Pacific-wide scrolls to set the area. Especially on a slow box like mine it's like root canal. Just having the cursor default to staying on the previous waypoint would save mucho time and aggro.

Not to be snarky Mr. Moose but you are aware if you click on the minimap, the main screen will jump to that area of the map? This works when setting WP and PZ.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Not to be snarky Mr. Moose but you are aware if you click on the minimap, the main screen will jump to that area of the map? This works when setting WP and PZ.

Not snarky at all. I just never, ever use the mini-map. I usually don't in any game that has one. I guess I'm just mouse-challenged. I usually miss. I probably never even tried this either because I'd have figured that the code would forget I was setting a zone and lose method focus when I went into the code controlling the mini-map. Maybe I'll give it a try. I'd still like the cursor to stay on the already-set waypoint though.

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

A new WitP will have to be coded from scratch. No more can be squeezed out of it.

I personally hope that there'll never be another one, but good luck to whichever poor team of suckers wants to take on the aggravation.

T -

You and the Naval Team have my utmost respect and appreciation for the very deep and challenging Naval aspect of the game. Just the rearm / repair / refit portions are a game within a game.

My sincere thanks to you all.

Mac

[Sredni]

Haha! I definately agree with the map resetting each time you place a patrol point, that's a huge time sink to reposition each time. And I even do use the mini map [:D], but you still often end up scrolling around a little bit with each patrol point.

One of the things I would hope a design team does for a witp 2 would be to always keep in the back of their minds a desire to reduce clicking. The setting of patrol points or waypoints is a perfect example of this. When you click on the use waypoint (or patrol point) button it should just automatically go to setting your first waypoint instead of requiring you to click on the first "set waypoint" button before placing it. You obviously want to set at least one waypoint (or patrol) so there should be no need to click on the "set waypoint 1" button after clicking on "use waypoint".

It wouldn't make a huge difference, after all there's something like... 11 clicks to set 3 waypoints heh. But every click saved is a fraction of a second saved, which adds up over a years RL campaign. And having this as a design goal would add up as well with a click saved here and a click saved there.