Matrix Games Forums

This, exactly as is, should be "Ensign's Edition".

Then, when Windows 9 launches, with 256-bit computers running the latest x986, there should be a "Lt Commander's Edition".

You got the drift. By the time we have quantum computers with Windows XXXP, 50 feet monitors and 1 Quantuza-byte of RAM, then you can have the "Admiral's Edition" -- the version that has the name, stats, picture and fingerprints of every single soldier in the front, you have to include "today's grub recipe" on your daily orders, and the game of course includes the effects of Moon's gravity on the each shell's trajectory(**) [:D][:D]


Cheers [:D]
fbs

(**) and of course someone will come saying: "this thing is broken!! the Moon will vary AT MOST 0.0003-inches in tha shell target, and it is changing 0.0005 inches!!
"

bah, you can allways have generals edition for version with better land combat (no more battlestar tactic), generals staff edition (better graphic and mayn more), CIC (comander in chief) edition for best-in-every -aspeck verson.

No, it should have been named "War in the Pacific, JFB Edition"

Yeah, I'm serious. Someone talk me down form this ledge, I'm on the verge of deleting this mess from my hard drive. If the development team had been upfront with the JFB bias their design had I could accept that. Wouldn't have been my cup of tea, so I wouldn't have shelled out for the game. I'm actually suprised the Japanese don't get nukes in 1943.

<sigh>

-CJ

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

No, it should have been named "War in the Pacific, JFB Edition"

Yeah, I'm serious. Someone talk me down form this ledge, I'm on the verge of deleting this mess from my hard drive. If the development team had been upfront with the JFB bias their design had I could accept that. Wouldn't have been my cup of tea, so I wouldn't have shelled out for the game. I'm actually suprised the Japanese don't get nukes in 1943.

<sigh>

-CJ

I would really love to comment on this.

Mike Scholl could probably be more eloquent that I could.[;)]

Some of the added Allied handicaps were added at the last minute before release.

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

No, it should have been named "War in the Pacific, JFB Edition"

Yeah, I'm serious. Someone talk me down form this ledge, I'm on the verge of deleting this mess from my hard drive. If the development team had been upfront with the JFB bias their design had I could accept that. Wouldn't have been my cup of tea, so I wouldn't have shelled out for the game. I'm actually suprised the Japanese don't get nukes in 1943.

<sigh>

-CJ

Uh...have you ever actually played the Japanese side? If not, you don't know what you're talking about.

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Uh...have you ever actually played the Japanese side? If not, you don't know what you're talking about.

Umm...how so? Why don't you go read the "Naval Gun" thread in the mod forum. JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

But go ahead, throw smokescreens.

-CJ

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Some of the added Allied handicaps were added at the last minute before release.

Nice. How many fricken "Allied handicaps" are there?

This is NOT how you balance a historical simulation. Imagine Jane's F-15, if we gave the Iraqis Tie Fighters to make it more "fair". LOL...

-CJ

Have you played the Japanese side?

And why do you assume there are no Japanese handicaps?

Fine...lets get all the "handicaps" out in the open. Let the users decide.

Any devs care to share this list?

-CJ

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

I presume that was simply a poor choice of words on his part.

Getting a game engine to behave like a 'simulation' to the degree that it provides reasonably accurate results versus real life does require balancing. To achieve this, statistics/characteristics that are fed into the engine (range, penetration, etc.) are not the same as real life. Why? Because the game's computer code with data is not the same as the real universe's laws of physics with uncountable numbers of various particles large and small. You have to 'tweak' the input you give the game engine (in this case device characteristics, etc.) until you are getting 'realistic' results.

This also applies on scales larger than just single battles - we are looking at multiple theaters of action with many campaigns, strategies, battles, and so on.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

I presume that was simply a poor choice of words on his part.

Getting a game engine to behave like a 'simulation' to the degree that it provides reasonably accurate results versus real life does require balancing. To achieve this, statistics/characteristics that are fed into the engine (range, penetration, etc.) are not the same as real life. Why? Because the game's computer code with data is not the same as the real universe's laws of physics with uncountable numbers of various particles large and small. You have to 'tweak' the input you give the game engine (in this case device characteristics, etc.) until you are getting 'realistic' results.

This also applies on scales larger than just single battles - we are looking at multiple theaters of action with many campaigns, strategies, battles, and so on.

I totally get the need to compromise...I'd had to design around some whoppers in my day. Poor choice or words or not, what was said plus bits and pieces from other threads (including this one) lead me to believe AE has a definate ahistorical slant for the sake of "gameplay". I would like to know these gameplay changes, so that I can either try to overcome them using the editor, or give up on AE as a historical simulation. Is that too much to ask?

-CJ

have you played the Japanese side?

CJ,

I think an intuitive place to start is to look at documentation on the first public patch. In the "read me" section of that are a list of fixes and changes implemented because of OOB, bug issues or in the name of gameplay or playability. That will give you a list of the issues the Devs thought important enough to address with code changes.

Hope this helps.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

have you played the Japanese side?

Nik, I'm trying real hard not to pick a fight with you, as I respect your work.

To answer your question, I have in WitP, haven't in AE yet. Not sure I want to.

I'm guessing you are coming from the "Japan has no chance to win, so we made some changes to make it more playable" angle. If so, I profoundly disagree with that approach. It is a dead end that kills your credibility with some (read: the hard core crowd). Maybe you don't care about that, and that's cool...just be upfront about it. You can't have things both ways. Either the game is as realisitc as the engine will allow or it is not. If changes have been made in the name of "gameplay", then you are off the realistic trail.

I designed the Gulf War campaign for Jane's F-15. I took a lot of heat because I insisted the player start on the ground. In real life, the Strike Eagle were far behind the lines. Our map was full scale, so that meant a long flight out, hit the tanker (maybe more than once), hit the target, and get home. Yeah, we had time compression...but the engine could only speed up so much, as we had a LOT of AI running and of course this was 1996 - PC's were a pale shadow of today. "Gameplay" would have me either move the starting base, compress the map, or start in the air. I fought that battle and won. And I'm damn proud of that simulation. One small example.

Here's another, same game. On historical, the Iraqi AF is pretty much a pushover. Still, the depth of systems and the challenge of A/G made that acceptable to us. We added "harder" modes with much more aggressive A/A AI - but it was clear to the player they were departing reality. We gave them that choice. AE does not. We also created a much more balanced (in terms of A/A vs A/G) campaign, set in the future vs. Iran...clearly that was not historical, but it was a fun what if.

One of the reasons I play historical game is to learn as well as be entertained. The hard core games I designed were along those lines. You could learn a lot about the limitations of A/A radar in real life running F-15, F/A-18 or the Falcon series (the later I had nothing to do with, but I knew some of those folks and they did great work). We pushed the bar. We had no wish 'em dead weapons. Yeah, we had easier modes, but on realistic, you had to know your stuff to win. ANd to me, that was/is cool.

I play other games to escape reality. Different experience, different gameplay expectations.

So which is AE? Hard core historical simulation or a balanced strategic fantasy game based on history?

-CJ

There is no such thing as a historical simulation. Not one that also purports to be a game. There's your problem.

This is a game. It is historically based, but it may not satisfy your 'hard-core' requirements in that regard. It lies somewhere between your false dichotomy of 'hard core simulation' vs 'fantasy game'. There are lots of other permutations which fill neither of those bills.

Feel free to delete this fantasy game if you don't like it.

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
Umm...how so? Why don't you go read the "Naval Gun" thread in the mod forum. JWE very clearly states IJN guns were tweaked as a "gift", while USN guns were "dialed back" to make things "fair".

But go ahead, throw smokescreens.

-CJ

Uh. No he didn't. In fact he went out of his way to make sure you understood that nothing was tweaked since back in the UV days. The comment refered to the original design, years ago. Please do not put false words in my mouth. It annoys.

If you don't want to purchase the game, that's fine. I bid you goodbye and wish you a good voyage wherever you go.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


There is no such thing as a historical simulation. Not one that also purports to be a game. There's your problem.

This is a game. It is historically based, but it may not satisfy your 'hard-core' requirements in that regard. It lies somewhere between your false dichotomy of 'hard core simulation' vs 'fantasy game'. There are lots of other permutations which fill neither of those bills.

Feel free to delete this fantasy game if you don't like it.

False advertising from the latest Matrix game:

Gary Grigsby’s Eagle Day to Bombing of the Reich is a detailed simulation of the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany in World War II. Combining both classic titles Battle of Britain and Twelve O'clock High into a single game package, this in depth air war simulation includes all the appeal of the original two titles with a huge list of new features and improvements.

I don't post often. More of a lurker to find the answers to my questions but I had to comment on this bubbling feud.

The truth of the matter is that as soon as the first turn of ANY game is run it is no longer a HISTORICAL simulation. This includes the games mentioned already. A historical simulation would mean that every single move, battle casuality, battle etc, etc. would be forced upon the player. The outcome would be fixed to maintain the historical facts.

The truth of the matter is that you can only make a game with historical units. War is by no means predetermined. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to these games but the truth is that the actual battles fought during any war could have and would have had different outcomes if only one small thing was different.

If you want a historical simulation what is the point of playing any game. The object of these games is to change history not force it upon the person playing it. What would be the point of playing any nation in any era if what happened in RL was forced upon the player.

Watch the History Channel if you want a historical outcome because that is the only place where you are going to find reality.