Important qestion re the editor

[Joel Billings]

For those of you that have played UV and looked at the Editor, what features do you feel you need to have in the WitP editor that is not iin the UV editor? We are considering making a few changes soon so any information on what's needed would be very useful.

[wpurdom]

My first suggestion is that you review the threads on production options and when the game should start so you can see all the things people want to monkey with. You have at least a three-fold audience, the history simulators, the PBEM players and the solitary players. I would suspect much of the expressed desires would involve an unreasonable level of programming to accomodate - there is a lot more demand by the hard-core group for variations than it is probably reasonable for Matrix to incorporate in completed scenarios or preference options. but given the high (but very reasonable) price of the game you would want to accomodate through an editor as much as could easily be done.
My personal wish list would include changing the onset of kamikazes, altering production, altering units from non-reinforcing to reinforcing (or doing the same thing by nationality) (the latter two I used to do with a bit editor in Pacifac War). My view is that one shouldn't force hard-core players to go over data files with a bit-editor - in general data files should be alterable, you ought to be able to alter computer-opponent games with the editor in case you want to go real far out in simulations, and you ought to be able to alter some of the vairables in some of the formulas. (E.g., to what level can you train any given nationality, what is the training level of reinforcements.) At some point maybe some of this might raise infringment concerns for Matrix or 2x3, I don't know.
A final factor in your decision will be the degree to which you want to encourage consumer-designed scenarios such as has been the case in TOAW.

[wpurdom]

You might look at how CIV2 handles this problem in having a varaible setting file for some gaming factors in addition to having the editor.

[tanjman]

Joel,

Thanks for asking!

Major wishes:
1) Edit aircraft replacement rates & arrival dates.
2) Create pilots who are leaders (missing field in UV editor).
3) Ability to sort data (as in a spread sheet), this is already needed in UV and given the size of the WitP data base it will be a nightmare to keep track of changes in a user designed scenario. Maybe you could make the data exportable/importable to/from a coma delimted file?
4) More variables for the AI to act on (ie which bases to attack etc..)

Would like to see, but not a game killer:
1) Create new weapons/ships/aircraft/sensors that may be missing from the data base because of (fill in reason here).
2) Edit factories/production, shipyards & resorces.
3) Ability to cut and paste from one scenario to another without having to open one, copy/cut data, close it, open second one, copy data.

BTW will Floating Drydocks be in the game?

Looking forward to WitP! Love UV! Need (free) help with boring data entry? Email me!

[fogg62]

Is it possible to have something like the editor of Rich Dionne for Pacific War? I think that this can give a lot of possibilities for the scenario design (and the possibility to explore many ..what if).
Why don't give us the possibility to change the valors of the planes, the ships and the weapons?

[byron13]

I think Wpurdom hit it on the head. The historical crowd would probably be happy with a fairly limited editor. But you've got a significant number of people that want to alter production to taste in a historically reasonable way and others that want to try some pretty wild stuff. Between game options and the editor, this latter crowd would want significant control over the timing of reinforcements, production, and the qualities of each piece of equipment. If the game provides for fairly limited production options, they'll want the editor to be able to turn a P-39 into a P-80 with two 20mm vulcans or change Baltimore class CAs to Alaska class BCs.

Wpurdom is also correct in pointing you to the many threads on production. They are, unfortunately, spread out, and many threads that discuss the matter do not have thread titles that appear relevant (we go off on tangents, you know). There were three that were quite lengthy that were last added to about three or four months ago. These were focused on production and were very intelligent, but were pre-UV.

The answer? The editor should be all things to all people. Not a good answer, is it? To please the most people, it should provide a friendly interface and allow the player to change as many variables/definitions/ratings as possible. Emphasis would be on production variables.

[Grouchy]

The answer? The editor should be all things to all people.

I wholehartly agree with the above, for the first person it means changing the production/resourses and the ability to change the quality and quantity of reinforcments pilots and troops, the second person wants more ships of a certain class and the third person wants to toy with arrival dates and wants to add xx weapon sytem to a vehicle/plane/ship.

I would like to see the editor to support:

Ability to change the introduction dates of new weapons/platforms.
Ability to change the quality and quantity of reinforcments (pilots and troops).
Ability to edit the resources and production.
Ability to create new weapons/platforms/sensors.
Ability to add those new weapons/sensors to the platforms.

[showboat1]

It should have as much a spossible crammed into it. In PBEM games I like to play the straight historical games, but in my solitaire games I like to do some radical stuff. Mainly to beef up the Japanese by giving them extra BB's and CV's and so they get their more advanced aircraft sooner and they have more experienced pilots. I guess I like to tinker around alot.

[Sabre21]

Woohoo...this is like Santa asking you what you want for X-Mas...of course you never get what you ask for:D

My biggest comment would be to have an editor that doesn't degrade the capability of the AI when a scenario is edited..I don't know if this is feasable or not, but having edited only scenarios 17 and 19 in UV, it seems the AI isn't nearly as aggressive by mid game compared to when you play the original scenario (I play solitare).

My next would be to be able to edit production and pipeline reinforcements, although the latter can be accomplished to some degree with the current editor.

I would like to be able to add ship classes and airplane types that never quite made it into the war.

I would also like to be able to change the start and end dates of the historical times like for instance actually having to conduct Opertion Olympic that would have taken the war till late 46..or even longer (yes I'm one of them pathetic grognards that love to fiddle with things).

Andy

PS: Now that I asked for the GI Joe...don't be giving me a Barbie:D

[Supervisor]

A small thing, but, if you could improve the search so that it will search for the text string entered wherever it may appear in the field.

For example, if you want to find "A. Schickelgruber" and can't remember the first name, it would be helpful to locate it by typing in "Schick" only.

[wpurdom]

Given the controversy going on right now over on the PacWar forum site about the size of facilities, it might be good to be able to edit the beaches and bases in terms of their max size, etc.
I have to admit I'm fascinated with the railroads on your map and I suspect some folks might want to build trails, roads and especially RR's.


After all so many had model trains when we were little!

[Capt Cliff]

Make each scenario stable and editable! Have your AI aggression set in a seperate file and randomly or player selected an added to the scenario file!

KISS! Keep it simple!!!

[Iron Duke]

hi
how did i miss this one?

if the editor is going to allow the creation of additional/new a/c and ships we will need some way of assigning new art for these
Cheers

[Paul Goodman]

I would like to see a lot of things that are now hard coded brought into an easily accessible format using the editor. There are in UV, controversial hard coded areas that the individual should be able to (a) Fix (b) Break, depending on each persons opinion. As examples:

(1) The whole business with low altitude attacks by B-17's. Still being argued somewhat. The bottom line is that Matrix & 2X3 responded as they thought best to an obvious problem. Seems they over-reacted, pendulum swung too far in the other direction. Fixed quickly in another patch. Or was it? Why didn't the beta testers find such an obvious problem? Maybe they did. Maybe there was disagreement among the programmers. Access to a matrix for this type input would be great. Besides, see how well matrix fits in with Matrix.

(2) The whole submarine situation is a long way from resolved. The model is just flat wrong. But that is my opinion, your's is different. Some of you think that I-boats would have sunk the entire world, if proper dictrine was used. I think they suck, except for good optics and torpedoes. Again, some form of matrix would permit each to set the game as they believe it should be.

GG games have earned some just criticism for hard-coding controversial subjects, making them very hard to modify (in fact, impossible to the average wargamer). Going back in time, we have excessive submarine power, too great an emphasis on maneuverability in air-to-air combat, excessive experience factors for Japanese units, excessive cost for B-29 production, excessive losses in strategic attack on Japan and on and on.

Surely the code can incorporate look-up tables so that individuals can adjust factors to their own concept of what did, could have, might have happened, without Matrix/2X3 having to rewrite the code everytime someone comes up with a appealing argument.

There is an obvious problem with PBEM games; some form of notification when things have been changed and, hopefully, what has changed.

Additionally, this would make many aspects of Beta testing move much more quickly. Try this setting; try that setting without massive downloads to each test and rewritting code.

Perhaps something like this could even help with what will be a very difficult A/I.

Paul

[showboat1]

Originally posted by Iron Duke
hi
how did i miss this one?

if the editor is going to allow the creation of additional/new a/c and ships we will need some way of assigning new art for these
Cheers

The Duke makes an excellent point that I hadn't considered. THis is especially important when you consider how much more graphically intense WitP will be compared to PacWar.

[Possum]

How about enabling the placement/removal of Roads, Trails and Railways on the map.
I for one would use this feature to go and edit the map so that it corresponds to where the railways/roads where located historically, If the game designers insist on using the fantasy rail/road network on the current map. (Actually a fair ammount of it is correct, I'd just like ALL of it to be correct.)

[shark]

If mines are the same as UV it would be necessary to edit their effectiveness. currently in PBEM we have to agree not to use them.

[EricLarsen]

Joel,
I hope the WitP editor will be better documented, in fact will have some documentation provided with the game's release. Considering the vastness of the database I would like to see some kind of spreadsheet that would give us all the unit, location, ship, plane, personnel, and weaponry data. I would like it to show arrival dates and linkages as well so that players have some clue as to what slots are being used and what slots are still open for new stuff. In UV it is just too nebulous as to what pilots are assigned to what squadrons are assigned to what ships.

It would also be nice to change more variables than in UV, and make it easier for us to create scenarios from scratch using the WitP database. It would be nice to be able to control the AI play a little more so that one could tweak the AI to play better or concentrate on the right objectives.
Eric Larsen

[afenelon]

Originally posted by Joel Billings
For those of you that have played UV and looked at the Editor, what features do you feel you need to have in the WitP editor that is not iin the UV editor? We are considering making a few changes soon so any information on what's needed would be very useful.

-This topic is somewhat old but I can´t avoid sending my
-wishlist

1-Ability to edit factories and resources
2-Ability to edit new ship classes, new planes and their respective
graphics (will they come in *.bmp files?)
3-Ability to edit scenarios starting in 1937, going up to 1948
4-Ability to model neutral nations (?) not very important
5-Ability to create possible conversions (and give the players
control on when to make them or even not to make them).
For instance, we should be able to avoid the conversion of
Ise and Hyuga, or even create scenarios where this conversion
is not possible.
6-I wouldn´t want the player to have control over factories. Once
defined in the editor they couldn´t be modified
7-Ability to change events related to atomic bombs, kamikazes,
and neutral nations
8-Random pilot generator (to avoid edition of each pilot when
you create a new squadron)

[pad152]

Joel

1. Documentation and support, the editor in UV is broken and unsupported a real shame.

WitP Editor Wish:

1. Edit aircraft replacement rates & arrival dates.
2. Ability to create new ship classes and aircraft with ability to tag a graphic to new ship/aircraft.
3. Ability to edit weapons on ships/aircraft(broken on UV editor).
4.Ability to change/edit production of ships/aircraft/troop/factories.
5. Ability to sort data in the database.
6. Seach ability to find data in the database.
7. Change countries alignment Allied/Axis/Neutral and starting/ending dates of entry into the war.


thanks