- AVGAS (or an optional grognard hardcore version with AVGAS, POL, heavy fuel and coal, plus supplies split into general supplies, weapons&ammo, food, medical supplies)
- Google Earth style zoomable map
- proper command hierarchy, with unrestricted units (and bases) requiring only symbolic amounts of PPs to change commands
- better LCU orders system, like "X Corps and subordinate units move to hex yx" instead of ordering each unit individually
- better convoy creation, like "create convoy that fits the size X port at destination" (and options like "use same class" or "use same cruise speed")
- notifications for events, like if TF XY or LCU XY has reached objective and is awaiting further orders
- clickable location links in reports
- torpedoes = device that must be produced, instead of being available in unlimited numbers as long as supply lasts
- easier pilot training system, like designating air units as training units (option available only in rear bases) with player-definable targets for skill sets and skill level, which then pull rookies from basic training, train them up and then dump them in the reserve pool automatically
- US supply production not at 1944/45 levels from Day One
- correct OOB, esp. for shipping - many ships have wrong availability dates (some arrive too late, many way too early) and/or no withdrawal dates when they did serve in the ETO (prime example USS Nevada)
- ability to court-martial subordinates for not obeying or misinterpreting orders, and player risking being relieved of command when ordering stoopid moves
What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
-
RichardAckermann
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
- ability to court-martial subordinates for not obeying or misinterpreting orders, and player risking being relieved of command when ordering stoopid moves
I wouldn't last one month then...[:D]
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Here are some more thoughts:
1. I would like to add a Submarine-Ops screen. A button at the top of the screen, but for submarines. You could click one button and it would display all the submarines with mission, location, filter by nationality, etc. While you could still create Sub missions from base hexes, you could modify patrol locations and maybe get a quick peek at fuel and ammo loads. Maybe add the ability to return at low ammo or low fuel automatically. I think the subs return already when the fuel is too low even with human control, but at least I could see it on one dialogue box. Plus you could click on the sub name and it would jump you to that location. This would save a large amount of time hunting and clicking on subs to see their status. Here is a quick example:
SS Seawolf Sub Patrol 77,109 Ammo: Full Fuel: 86% On Patrol
SS Tambor Sub Patrol 86,108 Ammo: Empty Fuel: 50% RTB
SS Terrapin Sub Patrol 56,205 Ammo: Full Fuel: 98% ENR to Patrol
2. The ability to turn on and off hex numbers. Hunting for specific hexes is no fun and I still struggle to figure out the pattern. It seems like a few hex numbers will go in a line, then veer off in another direction.
3. A better developed auto-supply system. This may be sacrilege, but this game seems to be two games in one. War in the Pacific (Military strategy) and Logistics in the Pacific. While I have no issues with base building, deploying troops, bringing fuel and supplies, I spend far more time thinking about how to keep bases fueled and supplied. I have heard that warriors talk logistics and soldiers talk tactics, but I find that I will spend an hour playing with 45 minutes spent on figuring out how to move supplies from Perth to Broome or fuel from Aden to Colombo. It would be nice to create supply bases that feed to smaller bases. Instead of Colombo and San Fran, Karachi can feed fuel to Goa, and Colombo, then Colombo can feed Rangoon. So on and so forth. Like with the auto-TF, players could add or subtract transports and escorts as needed. Overall, it would be nice to have a better streamlined supply system for a person to focus on the military strategy and spend less time worrying that Nome, Tahiti and Christmas Island are low on supply.
1. I would like to add a Submarine-Ops screen. A button at the top of the screen, but for submarines. You could click one button and it would display all the submarines with mission, location, filter by nationality, etc. While you could still create Sub missions from base hexes, you could modify patrol locations and maybe get a quick peek at fuel and ammo loads. Maybe add the ability to return at low ammo or low fuel automatically. I think the subs return already when the fuel is too low even with human control, but at least I could see it on one dialogue box. Plus you could click on the sub name and it would jump you to that location. This would save a large amount of time hunting and clicking on subs to see their status. Here is a quick example:
SS Seawolf Sub Patrol 77,109 Ammo: Full Fuel: 86% On Patrol
SS Tambor Sub Patrol 86,108 Ammo: Empty Fuel: 50% RTB
SS Terrapin Sub Patrol 56,205 Ammo: Full Fuel: 98% ENR to Patrol
2. The ability to turn on and off hex numbers. Hunting for specific hexes is no fun and I still struggle to figure out the pattern. It seems like a few hex numbers will go in a line, then veer off in another direction.
3. A better developed auto-supply system. This may be sacrilege, but this game seems to be two games in one. War in the Pacific (Military strategy) and Logistics in the Pacific. While I have no issues with base building, deploying troops, bringing fuel and supplies, I spend far more time thinking about how to keep bases fueled and supplied. I have heard that warriors talk logistics and soldiers talk tactics, but I find that I will spend an hour playing with 45 minutes spent on figuring out how to move supplies from Perth to Broome or fuel from Aden to Colombo. It would be nice to create supply bases that feed to smaller bases. Instead of Colombo and San Fran, Karachi can feed fuel to Goa, and Colombo, then Colombo can feed Rangoon. So on and so forth. Like with the auto-TF, players could add or subtract transports and escorts as needed. Overall, it would be nice to have a better streamlined supply system for a person to focus on the military strategy and spend less time worrying that Nome, Tahiti and Christmas Island are low on supply.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Before any of these improvements are done, AE needs to be made more compatable with Win10.I did read Alfred post, this would take years of work. The farther we get from XP the harder the game gets to play.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Be able to designate a 'retreat to' button. The AI does its absolute BEST to retreat units in the WORST possible direction...
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
-
RichardAckermann
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: sandlance
Before any of these improvements are done, AE needs to be made more compatable with Win10.I did read Alfred post, this would take years of work. The farther we get from XP the harder the game gets to play.
Major upgrades on AE are not going to happen from what I know.
Probably becoming worse with the next windows.
A new game engine might do better. I have programs in plain old 32bit mode running in compatibility mode on newer OS, and they do fine.
More primitive seems to be better on the long run.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: sandlance
Before any of these improvements are done, AE needs to be made more compatable with Win10.I did read Alfred post, this would take years of work. The farther we get from XP the harder the game gets to play.
Realistically, how long will this game be maintained? I know there is the unofficial beta patch that everyone uses, but my understanding is that it is more a labor of love than official development. It would be nice to see an update or overhaul of the game, but how long before it is simply abandoned and there are no longer unofficial updates? Have we already reached that point?
-
geofflambert
- Posts: 14887
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
- Location: St. Louis
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
I don't know if someone's mentioned this but I wish you could order naval bombardment missions' target priority by percentage for port, airbase and LCUs. Much of the time I'd put 100% on the airfield and I'd probably order more such missions.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
1. I would like to add a Submarine-Ops screen. A button at the top of the screen, but for submarines. You could click one button and it would display all the submarines with mission, location, filter by nationality, etc. While you could still create Sub missions from base hexes, you could modify patrol locations and maybe get a quick peek at fuel and ammo loads. Maybe add the ability to return at low ammo or low fuel automatically. I think the subs return already when the fuel is too low even with human control, but at least I could see it on one dialogue box. Plus you could click on the sub name and it would jump you to that location. This would save a large amount of time hunting and clicking on subs to see their status. Here is a quick example:
SS Seawolf Sub Patrol 77,109 Ammo: Full Fuel: 86% On Patrol
SS Tambor Sub Patrol 86,108 Ammo: Empty Fuel: 50% RTB
SS Terrapin Sub Patrol 56,205 Ammo: Full Fuel: 98% ENR to Patrol
Seems to me that should one not check a homeport for some reason when a sub has returned from patrol with low fuel/ammo AND with damage it will refuel and re-ammo but it will also put to sea immediately on the next turn without repairing the damage. This happens even with the "Auto-sub Ops" button off. I'm not sure what tempo submarines operated at in WW2 but I do know that the crews needed rest/recreation and the ships needed maintenance and that they would spend a significant amount of time in port following any patrol. The current put right to sea "coding" is surely not correct.
-
InfiniteMonkey
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
The truth is, it is not maintained now. michaelm has moved to other projects and there is no published plan for a future for WitP:AE. Even while he was making changes, my impression was that he did maintenance in between his other responsibilities. I offered via PM to assist with programming, but never had anyone take me up on the offer. I suspect that the confidentiality / royalty agreements combined with the lack of interest on behalf of the parties involved in maintaining / extending WitP:AE will kill the game eventually.ORIGINAL: Rogue187
ORIGINAL: sandlance
Before any of these improvements are done, AE needs to be made more compatable with Win10.I did read Alfred post, this would take years of work. The farther we get from XP the harder the game gets to play.
Realistically, how long will this game be maintained? I know there is the unofficial beta patch that everyone uses, but my understanding is that it is more a labor of love than official development. It would be nice to see an update or overhaul of the game, but how long before it is simply abandoned and there are no longer unofficial updates? Have we already reached that point?
-
InfiniteMonkey
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER! BANZAI!ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Be able to designate a 'retreat to' button. The AI does its absolute BEST to retreat units in the WORST possible direction...
-
InfiniteMonkey
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Can you give the citations for a translated copy of the JSDF source or the book you refer to?ORIGINAL: larrybush
It really goes both ways too. I just finished a book some of which is based on the 101 volumes the Japanese Defense Force wrote in the late 60’s on the conduct of the war. Pretty eye opening to see the constraints they had on petroleum, steel and the overall logistics of their war effort. Now when I read about someone saying the Japanese had to win the war by the end of 1943 I believe it. Some of the things that can be done in game with the Japanese were not possible.
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Well, if we are discussing gameplay changes as well then I'll add some. Even though it might sound like I'd want a more complicated game I really don't, I want a "smarter" game.
- Less distinction between ships in port and in task forces. A ship can suddenly become invulnerable/invisible to, say, a carrier strike simply because it was put into a task force instead of staying in port while the carrier strike was a port attack (or vice versa).
- Less omnipresent bombardments. Somehow currently being in a coast hex means every single thing in that hex is lined up at the shore, in perfect range for even the smallest gun to hit whatever is there.
- Better/more granular ground combat model. Quite a big thing to sum up in a short sentence but I have difficulty articulating all the issues I have with it. At the moment things seems a bit too binary. One thing is that you can more or less outright lose a division in two days of combat in a fight against a unit of equal size (hostile division). Say you are moving over a river, there's an enemy unit on the other side (but you don't have good recon on it). Shock attack results, your division is shattered and the following turn the enemy shock attacks you back. Boom, one dead division. How in the world would that happen in real life?
Yes, yes, you could have done better recon, that just says what you should do in the game, it doesn't mean it's a very plausible result. Also sure, the game is an abstraction but I don't think those kind of quick results are any good for the game.
The combat model also often seem to encourage "doom" stacks instead of any kind of wide fronts. And so on and so forth...
- More granular(/verbose?) naval combat. The naval combat works, in a sense, because naval combat always seems to have been somewhat chaotic so any result the game spits out can be explained in one way or another. Regardless I'd want the game to tell me why my destroyer division with full ammo sailed within 3000 yards of an enemy merchant convoy, fired once (missing) and afterwards let them go. Sure, I can make some scenario up in my mind of how it could have happened, but then I could explain away pretty much any scenario.
- Better ship damage modelling/repair time. It seems unreasonable that a submarine can hit a mine, return to port and be back ready for sea a week later. This is somewhat less of an issue the bigger the ship is as they get pretty long repair times regardless. Though having a battleship hit by a torpedo and ending up with 0/0/0/0 damage is a bit mind boggling.
- Long term fatigue. Just to bring down operational tempo on all combat units (land, ground and air).
- Less distinction between ships in port and in task forces. A ship can suddenly become invulnerable/invisible to, say, a carrier strike simply because it was put into a task force instead of staying in port while the carrier strike was a port attack (or vice versa).
- Less omnipresent bombardments. Somehow currently being in a coast hex means every single thing in that hex is lined up at the shore, in perfect range for even the smallest gun to hit whatever is there.
- Better/more granular ground combat model. Quite a big thing to sum up in a short sentence but I have difficulty articulating all the issues I have with it. At the moment things seems a bit too binary. One thing is that you can more or less outright lose a division in two days of combat in a fight against a unit of equal size (hostile division). Say you are moving over a river, there's an enemy unit on the other side (but you don't have good recon on it). Shock attack results, your division is shattered and the following turn the enemy shock attacks you back. Boom, one dead division. How in the world would that happen in real life?
Yes, yes, you could have done better recon, that just says what you should do in the game, it doesn't mean it's a very plausible result. Also sure, the game is an abstraction but I don't think those kind of quick results are any good for the game.
The combat model also often seem to encourage "doom" stacks instead of any kind of wide fronts. And so on and so forth...
- More granular(/verbose?) naval combat. The naval combat works, in a sense, because naval combat always seems to have been somewhat chaotic so any result the game spits out can be explained in one way or another. Regardless I'd want the game to tell me why my destroyer division with full ammo sailed within 3000 yards of an enemy merchant convoy, fired once (missing) and afterwards let them go. Sure, I can make some scenario up in my mind of how it could have happened, but then I could explain away pretty much any scenario.
- Better ship damage modelling/repair time. It seems unreasonable that a submarine can hit a mine, return to port and be back ready for sea a week later. This is somewhat less of an issue the bigger the ship is as they get pretty long repair times regardless. Though having a battleship hit by a torpedo and ending up with 0/0/0/0 damage is a bit mind boggling.
- Long term fatigue. Just to bring down operational tempo on all combat units (land, ground and air).
I hesitate suggesting making the game more complicated. This is still something that at least sounds appealing I'd add "Reinforcemnts (troops etc)" to that list. Still this is something that I'd only really wanted if it was handled in a very clever way from the interface. I wouldn't want to play spreadsheet manager plus plus.ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
- AVGAS (or an optional grognard hardcore version with AVGAS, POL, heavy fuel and coal, plus supplies split into general supplies, weapons&ammo, food, medical supplies)
And on that topic... better AI?ORIGINAL: larrybush
Oh, what a topic! You know for a guy that only played the original WITP with a friend, I have only played WITP AE against the AI. Still it is my all-time favorite war game. I would love to see it get re-booted.
-
RichardAckermann
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
Not impossible, my AI is not doing that bad, it just has a little lack of considering enemy fleet force in a given area, as well as lacks overview of where to ship reinforcements. Apart from that, you can calculate all the risk and strategic value of a base, own assets, supply and stuff available to let the AI strike, harass, defend or evacuate a given base or area.
I admit it takes a lot of time to fine tune and add various values to consider, but I think it can be done - and I do not see an alternative. A scripted AI will always be prone to be outmaneuvered by a human player.
I admit it takes a lot of time to fine tune and add various values to consider, but I think it can be done - and I do not see an alternative. A scripted AI will always be prone to be outmaneuvered by a human player.
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
ORIGINAL: Mobeer
Some ideas:
1) Refocus on the player as a theatre commander
Remove any and all functionality that would be far below the level of the player. For example:
- if a task force is to bombard at night on the 24th/25th, don't require me to work out which hex it needs to be in on the 24th, let the Admiral decide
- have regiment commanders automatically assigned, then if the unit fights well award recognition points to its commander. When a new Division arrives assign a recognised, experienced commander without any player involvement
- don't order a squadron to sweep enemy airfield with 40% of its planes at 12,000 feet. Order a base to use its air assets to aggressively gain air superiority.
I would be extremely unhappy with changes like this and would not play that game.
I don't want a WiTPAE Lite.
The devil is in the details and it's the level of detail and required micromanagement that make this game great!
Hans
RE: What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?
An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice [>:]
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice [>:]