WIR DOS update

Pacific War is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
Post Reply
Arnaud
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: France

WIR DOS update

Post by Arnaud »

Hello all,

I am the programmer for the WIR DOS update. I will be glad to read any suggestions, ideas, proposals concerning this old but superb game. We will also be looking for playesters.

Regarding the windows vs DOS issue, I must say it is pretty settled (at least for the near future) in favour of DOS updates to the game. So well, I will be ready to discuss with you on what you'd improvements you'd like to see in the game.

Regards,
Arnaud Bouis
Major Tom
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Canada

Post by Major Tom »

One thing I would like to see is a better representation of the Minor Axis forces. There were WAY more divisions (especially Cavlalry) attached to the Rumanian army, that aren't seen in the original WIR that took part in the campaign.

From my understanding, Hungarian units were only formed in Brigades, not Light Divisions. Of course I may be wrong... And, there were more Hungarian forces that took part in the later stages of the war as well.

Of course the game should be graphically enhanced, but, it doesn't need it as much as PacWar does.
Arnaud
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: France

Post by Arnaud »

>
Originally posted by Major Tom:
> One thing I would like to see is a > better representation of the Minor Axis > forces. There were WAY more divisions > (especially Cavlalry) attached to the > Rumanian army, that aren't seen in the > original WIR that took part in the > campaign.

Tom:
I'd be very glad to implement this correction, and any OB corrections I will be pointed to. I have full OBs for both sides in thousands of pages of books in my library. All I need is time and energy to type them all. As you realize, every unit must be inserted manually in OB files, and any help will be appreciated. I plan to do this not right now, but later, after most bugs have been corrected.

> Of course the game should be graphically > enhanced, but, it doesn't need it as much > as PacWar does.
Modifying the graphics of WIR is not part of the plans. The first reason for this is the big work involved. I'll try to see if changing resolution is possible. If so, then many hours would be required to re-do the graphic files. It is not impossible we'll have a try at it later, but please don't expect it.

Regards,
Arnaud
Fireborne
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Fireborne »

How big would an update to DOS WIR be? Despite all the discussion about 400-MB downloads, I can't imagine a bug-fix going anywhere near that. The game as it currently stands takes up less than 2 MB on my PC.

[This message has been edited by Fireborne (edited 05-24-2000).]
hannon
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: USA

Post by hannon »

Maybe some changes should be considered in regard to the western allies bomber offensive in WiR. As it is, the game allows the German to redeploying some fighters from the russian front to Germany, but regardless of how many fighter are sent west, the bomber offensive follows nearly the same coarse.
It'd be nice if German resource commitments
had a real effect.
Charles22
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Post by Charles22 »

I have some things to contribute. When playing the game, I had a real difficult time figuring out those second and third fronts. It seemed that I could keep 500-1000 points above the minimum for the front, but that the stupid front would often collapse anyway. I'm not talking about collapsing at the historical timeline when you would expect, as keeping what each year required should have kept the front 'historical' until the front would collapse at the historical time. I also understand how, once a beach is invaded, that the front may collapse regardless of the force size, but from what I understand if I kept the front to it's requirements, it at least wouldn't be invaded, before the historical timeline (or at least in the general timeline, even if a month early). For me, this became a MAJOR problem when playing the Kursk campaign, because the West Front would be well above what was needed, but if I took out any units (we're talking '43 here, not '44), like one or two measley ones the front would shatter.

The time I most recently played the game, I conquered BOTH Leningrad and Moscow before January of '42. What was the prime way I did this? One was a special way of using air drops, but more importantly, it was the CONSTANT emphasis I started implementing on SPECIAL SUPPLY. Maybe this aspect of the game passed a lot of us by, as it did for me, for a long time. The thing that bothers me about it, is that there doesn't seem to be much of any penalty for using it, while the benefits are huge. I don't think the game was meant to be played with someone using special supply on every single unit, but since I'd played it so long with only special supplying during the really critical areas (or not knowing about it at all), I thought why not expand it and see if there's any penalty. I think the special supply needs a limit perhaps. I know one can say that I could just decide not to use it, however, I have no guide, I have no rule to tell me what historically would be an acceptable amount of using this option, and what would be abuse or not using it enough. Actually, if there was a tangible setback to using it, it would be a good regulator. My guess is that supposedly the check to overusing this, is that the command for the corps, would have a worse supply level (or whatever those points were, the commands got), so that a worse supply level would affect the corps under the command adversely for that turn. For example, a level 20 supply, left over, would cut down a subservient corps fighting ability, which itself had a 50 level, down to 30% (I'm just guessing here). The only problem with that, is that if you get say four or five commands and assign ALL of your units to them, and don't hardly resupply with those commands, then those corps under them still have FULL supply, but suffer no penalty. How did I do that? I brought up all the commands which I'd never use, such as the Hungarian ones, and reassign all the coprs to those commands, then after the corps were resupplied, I would switch them back to the commands which hadn't used any points on resupply. So, though I did make my army immensely stronger there was nothing to tell me just where what I was doing was cheating, and needless to say, reassigning a great deal of corps every turn is hard work.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-02-2000).]
Arnaud
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: France

Post by Arnaud »

Originally posted by Charles22:
I have some things to contribute. When playing the game, I had a real difficult time figuring out those second and third fronts. It seemed that I could keep 500-1000 points above the minimum for the front, but that the stupid front would often collapse anyway.
[..]


Whether or not the Western Front should shatter anyway is a design decision which we must base on historical analysis. I think that probably I should give the player a chance to repel the Western Allied invasion. I am keeping this on my mind and will prbably make this change.


The only problem with that, is that if you get say four or five commands and assign ALL of your units to them, and don't hardly resupply with those commands, then those corps under them still have FULL supply, but suffer no penalty. How did I do that? I brought up all the commands which I'd never use, such as the Hungarian ones, and reassign all the coprs to those commands, then after the corps were resupplied, I would switch them back to the commands which hadn't used any points on resupply. So, though I did make my army immensely stronger there was nothing to tell me just where what I was doing was cheating, and needless to say, reassigning a great deal of corps every turn is hard work.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-02-2000).]
Thanks for this tip Charles ! I will correct this by giving the special supply an adequate penalty. Indeed, I always forgot to use this command when playing.
Charles22
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Post by Charles22 »

Yes, using special supply like that, made my forces veritable supermen, though my strategy was somewhat affected by familiarity with the game and also that I knew the Russians could barely actually plot a successful attack early on. I did capture those two cities playing on the hardest level as well. Before that game, having not used special supply extensively, I almost always captured Leningrad by '42 but never Moscow.

On the subject of the 2nd and 3rd fronts, I understood the need, and what the SS qualifying divisions were for the Western Front, however, when you're conquering with the either the 41 or 42 campaigns as easily as I was, there was the thirst for things being more difficult, hence trying to win in 43, and the Western Front didn't work as it did with the earlier campaigns. It seemed as though I could have, in 43, put in 5000 points over the required amount and it wouls still shatter in 43. Well, maybe not, but you understand my frustration, that the front had a VAST amount more then it needed, so that I would help the east, even with just one puny battlion of Tiger tanks, and it would shatter. What were the tank values again? Was it three for every tank? 60 Tigers times 3 is 180. That shouldn't come close to shattering.

The fronts seemed to be fairly stable if you gave them the required amounts in the 42 and 43 campaigns, but for some reason the 43 one is totally askew. I wouldn't even dare to play 44.
Arnaud
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: France

Post by Arnaud »

Originally posted by Charles22:

The fronts seemed to be fairly stable if you gave them the required amounts in the 42 and 43 campaigns, but for some reason the 43 one is totally askew. I wouldn't even dare to play 44.
I will look into this and will correct it.

Thanks,
Arnaud
Post Reply

Return to “Pacific War: The Matrix Edition”