Is anyone interested in an update for AE?

[Gridley380]

I'd love to see an update, and would probably pay money for it.

Logged in after lurking for... a long time... to post this.

In addition to many good ideas above, I'd like to see some OrBat tweaks. I've compiled a fairly long list over the years of missing/late/early ships/units (based on published sources). I'd be happy to do some work to put it in a desired format.

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

I've compiled a fairly long list over the years of missing/late/early ships/units (based on published sources). I'd be happy to do some work to put it in a desired format.

The update aside, the scenario authors around here would love to see that. I'm sure they've made some of the changes themselves over the years, but additional research is always welcomed.

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: Korvar

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

I've compiled a fairly long list over the years of missing/late/early ships/units (based on published sources). I'd be happy to do some work to put it in a desired format.

The update aside, the scenario authors around here would love to see that. I'm sure they've made some of the changes themselves over the years, but additional research is always welcomed.

At the moment, it is very much "notes"; for example:

Add 36 missing Haskell class:
Vancouver : Bollinger 9 Jul ’44, Sandoval 7 Oct ’44, Lenawee 11 Oct ’44, Logan 14 Oct ’44, Rawlins 11 Nov ’44, Renville 15 Nov ’44, Rockbridge 18 Nov ’44, Saint Croix 1 Dec ’44, San Saba 3 Dec ’44, Sevier 5 Dec ’44, Cottle 14 Dec ’44, Bergen 23 Dec ’44, Bottineau 30 Dec ’44
Portland: Drake 10 Oct ’44, Deuel 13 Oct ’44, Dickens 18 Oct ’44,Eastland 26 Oct ’44, Franville 21 Nov ’44, Kingsbury 6 Dec ’44
Los Angeles: Hinsdale 15 Oct ’44, Kenton 1 Nov ’44, Kenton 1 Nov ’44, Attala 15 Dec ’44, Bosque 17 Dec ’44, Braxton 29 Dec ’44, Brookings 6 Jan ’45, Arenac 8 Jan ’45, Barnwell 19 Jan ’45, Colbert 7 Feb ‘45
Alameda: Mifflin 11 Oct ’44, Talladega 31 Oct ’44, Okanogan 3 Dec ’44
Astoria: Jerauld 28 Nov ’44, Lander 9 Dec ’44, Rockwall 14 Jan ’45, Clinton 1 Feb ’45

I'm also sure you're correct and many of the errors I've spotted have already been spotted and corrected by others (and in some cases even in patches; I'm out of date). I'd still be happy to collaborate with anyone who is interested.

Note that 95%+ of my list is US OOB.

[Korvar]

Interesting - addtional APAs would be most welcome for the Allied player. I wonder if their number in game was originally reduced for game balance reasons? Although the ones you listed arrive pretty late in the war, so they shouldn't make too much of a game balance difference.

I'm all for increased accuracy. If you haven't already, see my Allied Ship Insignia / Patch Additions thread where I built upon Halsey's (and many others) work and added a lot of the missing insignia/patches for the US auxiliaries. Accuracy helps with immersion IMO.

[Yaab]

The OP was asking about the maps.

I am for the SEASONAL maps. Will the seasonal trails be color-coded to differentiate them from the all-weather ones?

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: Korvar

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

I've compiled a fairly long list over the years of missing/late/early ships/units (based on published sources). I'd be happy to do some work to put it in a desired format.

The update aside, the scenario authors around here would love to see that. I'm sure they've made some of the changes themselves over the years, but additional research is always welcomed.

At the moment, it is very much "notes"; for example:

Add 36 missing Haskell class:
Vancouver : Bollinger 9 Jul ’44, Sandoval 7 Oct ’44, Lenawee 11 Oct ’44, Logan 14 Oct ’44, Rawlins 11 Nov ’44, Renville 15 Nov ’44, Rockbridge 18 Nov ’44, Saint Croix 1 Dec ’44, San Saba 3 Dec ’44, Sevier 5 Dec ’44, Cottle 14 Dec ’44, Bergen 23 Dec ’44, Bottineau 30 Dec ’44
Portland: Drake 10 Oct ’44, Deuel 13 Oct ’44, Dickens 18 Oct ’44,Eastland 26 Oct ’44, Franville 21 Nov ’44, Kingsbury 6 Dec ’44
Los Angeles: Hinsdale 15 Oct ’44, Kenton 1 Nov ’44, Kenton 1 Nov ’44, Attala 15 Dec ’44, Bosque 17 Dec ’44, Braxton 29 Dec ’44, Brookings 6 Jan ’45, Arenac 8 Jan ’45, Barnwell 19 Jan ’45, Colbert 7 Feb ‘45
Alameda: Mifflin 11 Oct ’44, Talladega 31 Oct ’44, Okanogan 3 Dec ’44
Astoria: Jerauld 28 Nov ’44, Lander 9 Dec ’44, Rockwall 14 Jan ’45, Clinton 1 Feb ’45

I'm also sure you're correct and many of the errors I've spotted have already been spotted and corrected by others (and in some cases even in patches; I'm out of date). I'd still be happy to collaborate with anyone who is interested.

Note that 95%+ of my list is US OOB.

Hello Gridley380, I would be most interested in your list. My mod includes those missing Haskell class APAs and dozens if not hundreds of other missing ships, but more data is always welcome. I'm sure I will find more hulls to add in your notes. Would you mind to shoot me a file via PM?


For an official pay-to-update, I would favour GUI and QoL improvements like mind_messing has detailed above. Esp. task force creation should have an option to auto-create within player-defined parameters like "tailor to port size x" with x being selectable, "favour ships of same speed / same capacity / same class class only" and some option to specify min/max number and type of escorts - instead of the click-fest it is currently. For land units a 'group mode' would be welcome to move designated but not all units in a hex instead of having to give orders to each individual LCU. Avgas as separate item would be great, but that is probably asking too much.

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have transmitted a request to the Matrix principle via a programmer who knows him
well. I listed a number of options for consideration.

Please let us know if you hear anything back [&o]

[Moltrey]

With regard to maps- while I don't deny I love the ability to choose a style that suits my sense of aesthetics, I can't help but raise the question of whether maps would be an acceptable way to use "new" development time? Maps are (thank heavens) already something the community can and has produced. Granted, there are other map-related goals that could be quite enticing. I, for one, wouldn't mind a map ability to change the zoom or another way to make it easier on the eyes. I just don't know what kind of effort it would take to make those things happen.

Here is what I mean. So let's say that Matrix goes forward with the endeavor. There will surely be a finite budget where money and man-hours are concerned. So, while it is helpful for us to articulate the kinds of things we are interested in seeing, at the end of the day I feel those goals and the subjects or capabilities they represent almost HAVE to be things that cannot be accomplished by the WITP:AE community. Now, if there is something related to maps that is super cool and not too costly to the team, then by all means sign me up. I am trying to be a bit more pragmatic with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in for good measure. I say this because I and likely many of you have witnessed gaming projects die on the vine due to scope creep and unrealistic goals. That Kickstarter fine print at the bottom is there for good reason to be sure.

I have high hopes that a good project that asks a reasonable price can be formulated and accomplished.
I believe War in the Pacific is a unique experience that deserves another "chance" to be great again for the next generation of wargamer/historian and I am ready to back that up with my wallet.

[Zorch]

The next question is, "How much would you pay for an AE update that improved usability, enhanced the gameplay, and whatever else they can fit in"?

[Moltrey]

ORIGINAL: Zorch
The next question is, "How much would you pay for an AE update that improved usability, enhanced the gameplay, and whatever else they can fit in"?

Yeah. For me as a single guy that tends to spend a lot of money on games and other hobbies, maybe... up to a third of what the original game cost ($26~)? Perhaps even more if it was a great deal or a major improvement to overall WITP play.
Hard to say not knowing what it would include.

[Korvar]

The beauty of a crowdfunding campaign is that there can be multiple tiers of contribution levels.

IMO, I think it's more realistic from a project management point-of-view to think along the lines of a contribution equal to or even greater than the original purchase price. I can already hear the, "WHAAAAAAAATs!?" out there; bear with me. Think of this from Slitherine/Matrix's perspective - as far as I can tell, their current view of WitP:AE is as an EOL (end of life) product - not in general but specifically in terms of further development. We have to do something to surprise them enough that they become open to the idea of changing their current likely framing of the product. To put this in military acquisition terms - we'd essentially be funding the R&D stage where unit costs are very high until economies of scale kick in. We, as the WitP:AE community, need to put enough 'sweetener in the forumla' where allocating dev time becomes worth it. Direct costs aside, there are opportunity costs to consider where a dev working on this project isn't working on another Slitherine title. From a customer perspective - I don't know about you, but I have a whole library of games which I haven't played in years, some of which I paid $60+ plus DLC costs. In terms of cost per hour of entertainment, WitP:AE comes out WAY ahead of everything else I own.

Again, not everyone would need to chip in full purchase price, but I'd ask everyone to seriously consider doing so. There could be multiple ways to frame this; for example, think of it as buying a copy of the game in its current state for a friend (let's say a copy of the game was a reward option with that contribution tier). You will both get the benefit of an improved game, plus you now have another person in the PBEM pool. Or from another perspective - convince your friend to contribute at that level themselves. They get a current copy of the game now, and you can help them learn the game while waiting for the updates to be released. For those who aren't interested in that level of contribution... maybe a contribution in the $30-$40 range gets you a digital copy of the update with no extras.

For those not interested in that... what if $80 or $100 would get you a printed limited edition v2 of the manual in addition to the enhancements? Fulfilling the dream of an updated manual could very well be on the menu if we will it to be, and a volunteer team could be assembled to divide and conquer the workload... minimizing its costs to the project budget and thus making it a net contributor to the project. If it gains enough interest for the project, I'd even be fine with putting Alfred on the project payroll (assuming he's willing/able) to be the manual team lead, delegating where possible and ideally acting more in an editorial role overall - only writing/editing the specific portions which require an insider's knowledge (which will still be significant, don't get me wrong). A good chunk of the manual update has already been written... it's just scattered around the forums and needs to be consolidated and polished a bit. Another benefit of a community-driven manual project is it would have a low barrier to entry - many of us could contribute assets we've already developed (charts, tables, diagrams, etc.) or even with anything created from scratch, at least you wouldn't need to have programming knowledge to contribute. Best of all, you'd technically be a published author at the end of it all! If the printed manual becomes part of the scope, you'd have the opportunity to see some of your work in a printed book...

For an example of what can be done with a community-led update of a manual, see what Chris21wen accomplished largely by himself with the updated War in the East manual.

[Akos Gergely]

It is a good idea to try crowd-funding,but we need to know first what is going into the project to even seriously consider setting up price/contribution barriers. If the game update would deliver on all my wishlisted items I myself would be willing to go up to 100 USD, knowing this is a niche product after all.

[Rising-Sun]

Gonna need someone will good skills, if you planning on making one for scratch, that would be a long road. If you guys planning on changing the codes, etc. Better get permission for that or ended up in court.

Yes I am in as well, but gonna need a lot more than just maps.

*WingCmdr, when this game came out, it was like over $120 plus taxes and shipping (box version). Yes I would pay that much if they did a great job on it.

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: Akos Gergely

It is a good idea to try crowd-funding,but we need to know first what is going into the project to even seriously consider setting up price/contribution barriers.

That would all be accounted for by preliminary brainstorming and elimination phases which would determine the "offerings" - it would all be clear on the crowdfunding site as all good crowdfunded projects are.

Here's a rough outline of what the workflow would look like:

[Moltrey]

Yeah Korvar, the more I think on it, the more and more it makes entirely too much sense to use Kickstarter (or an alternative) to make this project happen.

All the relative tools are already there for Matrix to succeed and... the risk is reduced to practically nil (other than a slight PR hit) if the project doesn't get greenlit (i.e., meet the minimum goal by the end date).
I am finding it hard to come up with a downside to using KS. As your graph (nice btw!) shows, the "stretch goals" as most folks call them can turn a basic product into a great one if people spend the money to make it happen.
Of course you need folks on the company end who are good at running the numbers on costs and scope, ROI, etc., etc.
I don't think that would be a problem. No doubt Matrix still has connections with at least some of the HFD crew and could pick their collective brains on such matters.

All we have to do is wait and see at this point based on OP's last message. Woot!

[mind_messing]

Any update on this now that a couple of weeks have passed?

[el cid again]

No. Joe Wilkerson has "pinged" (his term) the appropriate Matrix person (the owner). No reply.

But there is this:

I have continued to develop the things that can be developed other than code. And have no plan
to stop doing that.

Also - sooner or later we will probably be able to develop some programs to perform some
functions. For example, a programmer once wrote a "switcher" for RHS to make changing the
many pwhexe.dat files (one for every season of the war) - back in WITP days. Someone may do
that again for RHS/AE. Many things can be done - if one has the time. But the best solution for
all is to convince Matrix to facilitate improvements to the engine. In my view, best includes
that Matrix makes money.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Korvar

Interesting - addtional APAs would be most welcome for the Allied player. I wonder if their number in game was originally reduced for game balance reasons? Although the ones you listed arrive pretty late in the war, so they shouldn't make too much of a game balance difference.

I'm all for increased accuracy. If you haven't already, see my Allied Ship Insignia / Patch Additions thread where I built upon Halsey's (and many others) work and added a lot of the missing insignia/patches for the US auxiliaries. Accuracy helps with immersion IMO.

Have you ever played a game through the end of 1945?

I am at December 12th, 1945 in my current game and I have more APAs than I know what to do with.

I'm using some for regular transport.

The Americans don't need more APAs.

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Korvar

Interesting - addtional APAs would be most welcome for the Allied player. I wonder if their number in game was originally reduced for game balance reasons? Although the ones you listed arrive pretty late in the war, so they shouldn't make too much of a game balance difference.

I'm all for increased accuracy. If you haven't already, see my Allied Ship Insignia / Patch Additions thread where I built upon Halsey's (and many others) work and added a lot of the missing insignia/patches for the US auxiliaries. Accuracy helps with immersion IMO.

Have you ever played a game through the end of 1945?

I am at December 12th, 1945 in my current game and I have more APAs than I know what to do with.

I'm using some for regular transport.

The Americans don't need more APAs.

Unless they are very careless with them.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Korvar

Interesting - addtional APAs would be most welcome for the Allied player. I wonder if their number in game was originally reduced for game balance reasons? Although the ones you listed arrive pretty late in the war, so they shouldn't make too much of a game balance difference.

I'm all for increased accuracy. If you haven't already, see my Allied Ship Insignia / Patch Additions thread where I built upon Halsey's (and many others) work and added a lot of the missing insignia/patches for the US auxiliaries. Accuracy helps with immersion IMO.

Have you ever played a game through the end of 1945?

I am at December 12th, 1945 in my current game and I have more APAs than I know what to do with.

I'm using some for regular transport.

The Americans don't need more APAs.

Unless they are very careless with them.

Good point Bill. but in my estimation it is wrong to tailor game design to compensate for or reward poor game play.