wish list
-
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
wish list
Thanks for doing your best in a bad licensing situation to improve WIR.
One thing that would be nice is to be able to run it on fast computers at a reasonable speed. Moslo doesn't seem to work.
Would updated graphics be possible?
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
One thing that would be nice is to be able to run it on fast computers at a reasonable speed. Moslo doesn't seem to work.
Would updated graphics be possible?
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
Never take counsel of your fears.
- rhohltjr
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
As thrilled I am about Gary Grigsby joining
Matrix, I also want you programmers and developers to know how this PacWar player appreciates the work you guys put into WAJ.
I hope your work can be used somehow. That's about it.
With gratitude out the Wazoo.
Robert Hohlt, Jr.
Matrix, I also want you programmers and developers to know how this PacWar player appreciates the work you guys put into WAJ.
I hope your work can be used somehow. That's about it.
With gratitude out the Wazoo.
Robert Hohlt, Jr.
My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
I would like to see both games get a powerful unified scenario/campaign editor. It could either be included in the game EXE or as a separate EXE. Since both games use similar concepts for the scenario files, I'm guessing much of what applied to building one scenario editor would work for the other.
As many items should be open to alteration and the easier to alter the data the better although some protection from accidental changes would be great.
It would probably be best to have two modes to toggle between ... one graphical for unit placement (like in WiR) and one textual table-based for the editing of unit information (like EditWIR, PWREPORT or PACEDIT) with some overlap between the two.
[This message has been edited by Fireborne (edited 05-01-2000).]
As many items should be open to alteration and the easier to alter the data the better although some protection from accidental changes would be great.
It would probably be best to have two modes to toggle between ... one graphical for unit placement (like in WiR) and one textual table-based for the editing of unit information (like EditWIR, PWREPORT or PACEDIT) with some overlap between the two.
[This message has been edited by Fireborne (edited 05-01-2000).]
- rhohltjr
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
One thing that has driven me nuts playing
PacWar over the years is the Allies AI attempting to invade Kyushu, Japan despite only having secured Okinawa. If you are really thinking about tweaking a few things in PacWar to tide us over, then please
remove the AI hardcode that sends the
Allies to Japan too soon. Please
neutralize all of the surrounding threats first!!!
PacWar over the years is the Allies AI attempting to invade Kyushu, Japan despite only having secured Okinawa. If you are really thinking about tweaking a few things in PacWar to tide us over, then please
remove the AI hardcode that sends the
Allies to Japan too soon. Please
neutralize all of the surrounding threats first!!!
My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
I only have exoerience playing the prequel to WiR, Second Front. Unless it's already been done to WiR, I would like to see a cheat-proof system implemented, for use in PBEM games. As I remember, in Second Front, the only combat that took place during the player's order's phase were the air attacks. If these air attacks could be worked into the rest of the simultaneous combat phase, then the following cheat-proof system could possibly be used:
1) Player #1 plots movement, sends turn to player #2.
2) Player #2 plots movement, "executes" turn (combat) BUT IS NOT SHOWN THE
RESULTS, sends turn back to player #1.
3) Player #1 watches execution of prior turn, plots second turn movement,
sends to player #2.
4) Player #2 watches execution of prior turn, plots second turn movement,
executes second turn (combat) but is not shown results, sends turn back to
player #1.
Repeat as necessary.
Thanks for allowing me to express my opinon.
Rob
ps - I forgot to mention that, obviously, both player's files are password protected.
Also, it's occurred to me that, even with this system, player #1 would be able to cheat - somewhat - on the very first turn of the game (by opening player #2's file, entering a password, etc.). To avoid this, perhaps a pre-game routine could be implemented that required both players to input their passwords prior to the first turn of the game.
[This message has been edited by Rob88 (edited 05-22-2000).]
1) Player #1 plots movement, sends turn to player #2.
2) Player #2 plots movement, "executes" turn (combat) BUT IS NOT SHOWN THE
RESULTS, sends turn back to player #1.
3) Player #1 watches execution of prior turn, plots second turn movement,
sends to player #2.
4) Player #2 watches execution of prior turn, plots second turn movement,
executes second turn (combat) but is not shown results, sends turn back to
player #1.
Repeat as necessary.
Thanks for allowing me to express my opinon.
Rob
ps - I forgot to mention that, obviously, both player's files are password protected.
Also, it's occurred to me that, even with this system, player #1 would be able to cheat - somewhat - on the very first turn of the game (by opening player #2's file, entering a password, etc.). To avoid this, perhaps a pre-game routine could be implemented that required both players to input their passwords prior to the first turn of the game.
[This message has been edited by Rob88 (edited 05-22-2000).]
I've remembered two other features that might be good for the game, if they haven't already been implemented for WiR (again, all my experience is with Second Front).
First, I think a somewhat varied, if not altogether random, setup (done by the computer) for the start of the campaign scenario might be a good idea. This might prevent players from constantly using "proven" strategies during the first few game turns, especially the first game turn. Perhaps varied setups for the smaller scenarios also?
Second, I noticed that the weather seemed to be rather predictable in Second Front, perhaps even identical from one game to the next. I think some random weather might be a good idea.
Again, I apologize if these issues were already addressed in WiR, but I've not had the chance to look at the game, despite owning a copy. So many games, so little time...
Rob
First, I think a somewhat varied, if not altogether random, setup (done by the computer) for the start of the campaign scenario might be a good idea. This might prevent players from constantly using "proven" strategies during the first few game turns, especially the first game turn. Perhaps varied setups for the smaller scenarios also?
Second, I noticed that the weather seemed to be rather predictable in Second Front, perhaps even identical from one game to the next. I think some random weather might be a good idea.
Again, I apologize if these issues were already addressed in WiR, but I've not had the chance to look at the game, despite owning a copy. So many games, so little time...
Rob
I like the variable weather idea, but I would make it much more local. In other words, do as High Command did, and make each hex susceptible to weather, instead of an entire region being of singular weather type. For instance, you might have Warsaw partly cloudy, while Krakow is having thunderstorms. No, it needn't be specific as to what form of precipitation (drizzle as compared to thunderstorms), but also, it would be neat if hexes experienced a certain amount of weather accumulation effects. For example, if we're talking weekly turns here, the hexes in the Krakow area would impose more restrictions on movement, and if the area continued to be saturated, would impose more penalties, up to a maximum. Tanks in longer frozen hexes would suffer more than those in others, which is sort of like how the system used cities to negate the effects of the severe winter for units. In order not to make the weather so very important, and becone another game in it's own right, there could be a accumulation monitor on each hex to specify how much penalty to men/movement/air there were. Surely this idea may be too complex, but surely it shows how the weather aspect could be dramatically improved. When the weather is somewhat hex-to-hex, instead of an entire front, it can often shift the direction of your attack, therefore (the more I think on this, the more I like it) introducing a 'natural' random element, to where you could never know precisely where the enemy would hit, or when. I address this to WIR, and though I've played both games, and generally prefer the East Front to the Pacific, this sort of weather feature would probably work just as well on PacWar.
Well, I am a PacWar fiend, but, I do love WIR as well.
To make PacWar better, I think that there needs to be some touchup done to the Graphics, something to make up for the 8 year gap. They could even be simple and small GIF graphics, as, they would still be better than the 6 coloured ones already in the game.
Graphics:
Plane Graphics (make them better represent the planes)
Ship Graphics (like the suggestion for the planes)
LCU Graphics (Change the colours of the LCU's to better represent the nations, ie. British not have Dark Blue Background with Light Blue outline) and possibly add different graphics for different units (Armour, Airborne, Infantry, Mechanized, Marine, Labour, etc...)
Map Graphics (this needs just slight modifications, nothing to the scale of the proposed War in the Pacific Map, but, something better than the 8 year old PacWar map)
Flag Graphics (I would like better flags for the Commonwealth, actually showing the Dutch and Australian, along with the Union Jack for the British/Indian)
Actual modifications to the game:
Add in some more aircraft types and upgrade possibilities. There are MANY vacant aircraft slots for both the Allies and Japanese. You could add planes like the PB4Y PRIVATEER (B-24 USN Recon), P-40N WARHAWK (better than P-40E), KI-100 (Ki-61 with radial engine, saw much action), etc...
Possibly change the stats for the individual land units. For example, make the number of squads for a British Division to be different from that of a Japanese division. Also, have some formations, like tank formations differently. For example, an Australian Armoured Division would have a maximum reinforcement level of 80 Squads, 48 Guns and 156 AFV's. This is to simulate an armoured brigade along with 2 Battalions of Artillery and accompanying Infantry. Also, Japanese divisions had only a maximum of 48 Artillery, not 72. And US divisions had a max of only 54 artillery, not 72. And, for the average IJA Division there were only 16 AFV's attached, not the max of 42. I don't know if it is possible, but, if you could modify AFV's in PacWar to behave like AFV's in War In Russia (ie. a graphic, and separate set of stats, etc...) it would really benefit the game.
Would it be possible to increase the amount of spaces avalible for LCU's, Commanders, Ships, Planes, and airgroups? Just 200 for LCU's, etc. is not enough to represent ALL of the actual forces that took part in the Pacific.
Are you able to add any other HQ's? I am aware that the plan was to add a new Australian HQ, and if it could be added to the planned DOS version, it would be a great asset.
BUGS:
I know that many of these have been taken into account, but, it doesn't hurt to refresh.
1. IJN & USN Tanker BUG.
All tankers seem to migrate from the main fuel distribution and collection areas (Nagoyo and San Diego(?)) and sit in bases that they are trying to build up into a main base of operations (Iwo Jima for the IJN, Espirtu Sant for the USN). This REALLY hurts the IJN AI, as, they run out of fuel before the end of the first half of 1942, as, all tankers are just sitting on Iwo doing nothing.
2. Calcutta bug.
Many USN transports and Destroyers end up in Calcutta if they are left for routine supply on the West Coast.
Also, when is the planned release date for this patch?
To make PacWar better, I think that there needs to be some touchup done to the Graphics, something to make up for the 8 year gap. They could even be simple and small GIF graphics, as, they would still be better than the 6 coloured ones already in the game.
Graphics:
Plane Graphics (make them better represent the planes)
Ship Graphics (like the suggestion for the planes)
LCU Graphics (Change the colours of the LCU's to better represent the nations, ie. British not have Dark Blue Background with Light Blue outline) and possibly add different graphics for different units (Armour, Airborne, Infantry, Mechanized, Marine, Labour, etc...)
Map Graphics (this needs just slight modifications, nothing to the scale of the proposed War in the Pacific Map, but, something better than the 8 year old PacWar map)
Flag Graphics (I would like better flags for the Commonwealth, actually showing the Dutch and Australian, along with the Union Jack for the British/Indian)
Actual modifications to the game:
Add in some more aircraft types and upgrade possibilities. There are MANY vacant aircraft slots for both the Allies and Japanese. You could add planes like the PB4Y PRIVATEER (B-24 USN Recon), P-40N WARHAWK (better than P-40E), KI-100 (Ki-61 with radial engine, saw much action), etc...
Possibly change the stats for the individual land units. For example, make the number of squads for a British Division to be different from that of a Japanese division. Also, have some formations, like tank formations differently. For example, an Australian Armoured Division would have a maximum reinforcement level of 80 Squads, 48 Guns and 156 AFV's. This is to simulate an armoured brigade along with 2 Battalions of Artillery and accompanying Infantry. Also, Japanese divisions had only a maximum of 48 Artillery, not 72. And US divisions had a max of only 54 artillery, not 72. And, for the average IJA Division there were only 16 AFV's attached, not the max of 42. I don't know if it is possible, but, if you could modify AFV's in PacWar to behave like AFV's in War In Russia (ie. a graphic, and separate set of stats, etc...) it would really benefit the game.
Would it be possible to increase the amount of spaces avalible for LCU's, Commanders, Ships, Planes, and airgroups? Just 200 for LCU's, etc. is not enough to represent ALL of the actual forces that took part in the Pacific.
Are you able to add any other HQ's? I am aware that the plan was to add a new Australian HQ, and if it could be added to the planned DOS version, it would be a great asset.
BUGS:
I know that many of these have been taken into account, but, it doesn't hurt to refresh.
1. IJN & USN Tanker BUG.
All tankers seem to migrate from the main fuel distribution and collection areas (Nagoyo and San Diego(?)) and sit in bases that they are trying to build up into a main base of operations (Iwo Jima for the IJN, Espirtu Sant for the USN). This REALLY hurts the IJN AI, as, they run out of fuel before the end of the first half of 1942, as, all tankers are just sitting on Iwo doing nothing.
2. Calcutta bug.
Many USN transports and Destroyers end up in Calcutta if they are left for routine supply on the West Coast.
Also, when is the planned release date for this patch?
Another bug for PacWar...
3. The AI knowing what spaces are vacant... The AI has some unknown knowledge of what bases have troops, and which don't (ie. they somehow know which does and doesn't have them without any form of recon). I don't know if this is a bug, but, it should be looked at.
4. More aggressive AI. The Japanese AI tends to be pretty unaggressive during their 6 month romp. It takes FOREVER to conquer the Dutch East Indies in the game, while, in reality it fell 2 months after the first base was invaded (January -> March).
Another more cosmetic change would be to modify the ship AA upgrade, and start off weapons. Add guns like the 1.1" AA for the USN. And, have historical levels of gun upgrades. There are MANY already researched files avalible, most made by PacWar enthusiasts, and I am sure they would be MORE than willing to send a copy over.
The IJN should get some bonus for night fighting. I LOVE the idea about individual ship experience, I would like to see this incorporated, if it is possible.
I don't see the need for an EXTREME amount of flashy graphics (ie. 3D), but just general improvements to bring up the graphical quality of the game. They don't need to be 16 Million colours, just more than 8 would suffice! This is because graphics take up most of the space. The original game was approximately 400 kb. I would see no problem in people downloading an improved DOS version of up to between 30-50 MB. And this would result in A LOT of changes to the game, mostly graphically (I suppose!).
3. The AI knowing what spaces are vacant... The AI has some unknown knowledge of what bases have troops, and which don't (ie. they somehow know which does and doesn't have them without any form of recon). I don't know if this is a bug, but, it should be looked at.
4. More aggressive AI. The Japanese AI tends to be pretty unaggressive during their 6 month romp. It takes FOREVER to conquer the Dutch East Indies in the game, while, in reality it fell 2 months after the first base was invaded (January -> March).
Another more cosmetic change would be to modify the ship AA upgrade, and start off weapons. Add guns like the 1.1" AA for the USN. And, have historical levels of gun upgrades. There are MANY already researched files avalible, most made by PacWar enthusiasts, and I am sure they would be MORE than willing to send a copy over.
The IJN should get some bonus for night fighting. I LOVE the idea about individual ship experience, I would like to see this incorporated, if it is possible.
I don't see the need for an EXTREME amount of flashy graphics (ie. 3D), but just general improvements to bring up the graphical quality of the game. They don't need to be 16 Million colours, just more than 8 would suffice! This is because graphics take up most of the space. The original game was approximately 400 kb. I would see no problem in people downloading an improved DOS version of up to between 30-50 MB. And this would result in A LOT of changes to the game, mostly graphically (I suppose!).
I need to correct my uptopic posts regarding the turn sequence of WiR. It is indeed turn based, including the combat phase, not simultaneous combat (sorry, it's been a while since I've played this).
Regardless, my outline for a cheat-proof PBEM system would still work, IMO, simply by not allowing the phasing player to see the results of his combats. He would instead be able to view a replay during the next turn. (If a player can't see the results of his combats, he has no reason to replay.)
Regardless, my outline for a cheat-proof PBEM system would still work, IMO, simply by not allowing the phasing player to see the results of his combats. He would instead be able to view a replay during the next turn. (If a player can't see the results of his combats, he has no reason to replay.)
Suggestions to improve DOS PAC:
Better AI...Jp. AI doesn't insist on attacking Truk, Indonesia ect. if controlled by player early in the game. I tend to scrabble to maintian control of these and let the AI beat itself to death.
Option to free up all HQ's for use.
Supply management...(1) allow player to ID very limited number or ports in "safe" areas as Invasion supply depots and the auto resupply maxes these out with supplies. (2) base supply capacity tied to port size with "over the beach" supply capacity overrides from dedicated amphibious assualt ships like LST's only. (3) Ability to set up supply convoys auto shuttling between "invasion supply depots" and other ports. (4) fix the ports on Chinese coast that never receive supplies except manually.
Sub Control...(1) escort carriers and destroyers don't appear to have any effect suppressing sub activety, and rarely destroy/damage attacking sub. (2) US subs don't get any attack/defence bonuses as war progresses for radar and other improvements (3) Better AI placement of subs (4) Ability to designate "sub hunter/killer" TF's and place them on patrol...should be able to place them at point when created and they create a ZOC, suppression ability depending on the anti-sub rating of its units. (5) anti sub rating for ships/aircraft...increases as radar/better weapons are brought on-line, see item #1
Better control of ships in pool
Air attacks...(1) carrier to carrier combat is "broke". (2) ability to prioritize aircraft targets for ship attack, port attack, ect. as a overall game option. (ie. attacking a port and all 300 planes attack the same PT boat while ignoring the BB or CV)
Shouldn't be able to hit a Jp CV or CVL with about 100 16 inch rounds, 50 1000 lbs bombs and it still limps back to Japan for repair.
Aircraft shouldn't automatically change to newer types...with aircraft with low production rates you end with understrength squadrons. This is especially irritating with the Wellington (games best landbased anti-shipping A/C) and the B-17.
Aircraft loadouts often don't make sense...TB's/dive bombers/attack bombers attacking ships with 500 lbs bombs at short ranges. Land based attack bombers rarely use heavy bombs or torpedoes.
Ability to "teleport" transports should be severely limited "somehow". For example I use this option to evacuate the US/British troops from the PI/Singapore which gives me the core ground forces to hold Indonesia.
[This message has been edited by babyseal7 (edited 05-28-2000).]
Better AI...Jp. AI doesn't insist on attacking Truk, Indonesia ect. if controlled by player early in the game. I tend to scrabble to maintian control of these and let the AI beat itself to death.
Option to free up all HQ's for use.
Supply management...(1) allow player to ID very limited number or ports in "safe" areas as Invasion supply depots and the auto resupply maxes these out with supplies. (2) base supply capacity tied to port size with "over the beach" supply capacity overrides from dedicated amphibious assualt ships like LST's only. (3) Ability to set up supply convoys auto shuttling between "invasion supply depots" and other ports. (4) fix the ports on Chinese coast that never receive supplies except manually.
Sub Control...(1) escort carriers and destroyers don't appear to have any effect suppressing sub activety, and rarely destroy/damage attacking sub. (2) US subs don't get any attack/defence bonuses as war progresses for radar and other improvements (3) Better AI placement of subs (4) Ability to designate "sub hunter/killer" TF's and place them on patrol...should be able to place them at point when created and they create a ZOC, suppression ability depending on the anti-sub rating of its units. (5) anti sub rating for ships/aircraft...increases as radar/better weapons are brought on-line, see item #1
Better control of ships in pool
Air attacks...(1) carrier to carrier combat is "broke". (2) ability to prioritize aircraft targets for ship attack, port attack, ect. as a overall game option. (ie. attacking a port and all 300 planes attack the same PT boat while ignoring the BB or CV)
Shouldn't be able to hit a Jp CV or CVL with about 100 16 inch rounds, 50 1000 lbs bombs and it still limps back to Japan for repair.
Aircraft shouldn't automatically change to newer types...with aircraft with low production rates you end with understrength squadrons. This is especially irritating with the Wellington (games best landbased anti-shipping A/C) and the B-17.
Aircraft loadouts often don't make sense...TB's/dive bombers/attack bombers attacking ships with 500 lbs bombs at short ranges. Land based attack bombers rarely use heavy bombs or torpedoes.
Ability to "teleport" transports should be severely limited "somehow". For example I use this option to evacuate the US/British troops from the PI/Singapore which gives me the core ground forces to hold Indonesia.
[This message has been edited by babyseal7 (edited 05-28-2000).]