WHAT WILL BE THE CHOICES?

[Mike Scholl]

If one of the testors (or Joel) has a few minutes, could you give us a list of the
SCENARIOS either available or in development. Will there be a post- "Cartwheel"
push to the Philippines one for MacArthur's forces called "I Shall Return"? A "Romp
through the Gilberts and Marshalls"? What kind of mid-war options are available?
"Inquiring minds" want to know.

Added to FAQ

[Joel Billings]

Here's what we plan at release:

1 Tutorial
2 Rising Sun: 7 Dec 41 - 16 Mar 42
3 Coral Sea: 1 May 42 - 15 May 42
4 South Pacific (Hypothetical): 1 May 42 - 28 Feb 42
5 Guadalcanal: 4 Aug 42 - 7 Feb 43
6 Marianas: 6 Jun 44 - 29 Aug 44
7 Manchuria: 8 Aug 45 - 31 Aug 45
8 The First Year: 7 Dec 41 - 31 Dec 42
9 The Turning Point: 1 May 42 - 30 Sep 43
10 Campaign 45: 1 Jan 45 - Jun 30 46
11 Campaign 44: 1 Jun 44 - Jun 30 46
12 Campaign 43: 1 Jun 43 - Jun 30 46
13 Campaign 42A: 1 May 42 - Jun 30 46
14 Campaign 42B: 1 Aug 42 - Jun 30 46
15 The War in the Pacific: 7 Dec 41 - Jun 30 46

Scenarios 8-15 are full map with production. Scenarios 2-7 are small map without production.

I fully expect that given the power and relative ease of use of the editor (although it is a lot of data to push) that there will be many more scenarios made, and that some of them will be posted as official scenarios for download. There may even be some of those avaiable for download by the time the game is ready for sale.

[Mike Scholl]

Thanks Joel. And I assume that #4 actually runs until February of 1943?
To bad about the "I Shall Return" idea for MacArthur though. It would
be an interesting clash of primarily army assets on both sides.

[bradfordkay]

Mike, scenario four is one of the Twilight Zone scenarios, where the game starts after it ends...

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Thanks Joel. And I assume that #4 actually runs until February of 1943?
To bad about the "I Shall Return" idea for MacArthur though. It would
be an interesting clash of primarily army assets on both sides.

Yes, Feb 43. I agree, it would be a nice scenario. I'm also toying with an early war Burma scenario as a real quick mostly land battle. I hope people will get into using the editor so we can get a lot of good scenarios.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Yes, Feb 43. I agree, it would be a nice scenario. I'm also toying with an early war Burma scenario as a real quick mostly land battle. I hope people will get into using the editor so we can get a lot of good scenarios.

The big problem with player generated scenarios is that they will be much more likely
to be prejudiced by the designers own viewpoints than one generated within the 2by3
TEAM. Not maligning the amature designers, it's just human nature. I know anything
I design will reflect my thinking on the matter. I'd like to think it will be more balanced
than most..., but I'm not stupid enough to think there won't be "me" written into it.

[Brady]

"15 The War in the Pacific: 7 Dec 41 - Jun 30 46"

I read them all but this will likely be the only one I play[:)]


Also, I doubt I will ever play a player generated scenario, unless it is sanctioned by the game designers, and included in a Patch.

A Burma scenario sounds cool though, So would some sorta China Scenario, or an Early War Invashion of Rusia By the Japanese.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

4 South Pacific (Hypothetical): 1 May 42 - 28 Feb 42

What's the hypothetical part of this scenario? Commitment by the Japanese of KB to the South Pacific?

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The big problem with player generated scenarios is that they will be much more likely
to be prejudiced by the designers own viewpoints than one generated within the 2by3
TEAM.

Nah, no one HERE has prejudiced views on this subject. [;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The big problem with player generated scenarios is that they will be much more likely
to be prejudiced by the designers own viewpoints than one generated within the 2by3
TEAM.

Nah, no one HERE has prejudiced views on this subject. [;)]

Reading this, I could hear a hundred guys looking at it and thinking, "What's he talking
about? EVERYBODY on this forum has prejudiced and silly views EXCEPT ME!"

[Mr.Frag]

Reading this, I could hear a hundred guys looking at it and thinking, "What's he talking
about? EVERYBODY on this forum has prejudiced and silly views EXCEPT ME!"

[:D]

Anyone who plays war games instead of simply reading the history books is prejudiced [;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Reading this, I could hear a hundred guys looking at it and thinking, "What's he talking
about? EVERYBODY on this forum has prejudiced and silly views EXCEPT ME!"

[:D]

Anyone who plays war games instead of simply reading the history books is prejudiced [;)]

ANYONE WHO BREATHES IS PREJUDICED. The only question is to what extent, and on
what subjects.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ANYONE WHO BREATHES IS PREJUDICED. The only question is to what extent, and on what subjects.

That is a rather prejudiced view.

[;)]

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ANYONE WHO BREATHES IS PREJUDICED. The only question is to what extent, and on what subjects.

That is a rather prejudiced view.

[;)]

You've been breathing again? [:D]

[norsemanjs]

Mike is right. Without good testing by a good panel of testers (as we are seeing in AAR's from WITP tester's) it is very unlikely that a scenario would not have a certain amount of imbalance due to the designer's personal viewpoint.

[norsemanjs]

Although I know it is not exactly Mike's cup of tea. I would be interested in setting up some alternate scenario's.

Especially some changes in Japanese naval philosophy such as not building the Yamato, Musashi and instead focusing on carriers. Of course this could also affect the US carrier program since naval power in the early 1900's was THE arms race.

Plenty of good potential scenarios out there even beyond the historical possibilities.

[pasternakski]

Yeah, I was going to respond to this, but I'm so tired of not being listened to, I decided, "The he11 with it."

Y'all go design bullsh#t all you want. I just continue to hope that the pandering in the editor design doesn't spill over into the game's mechanics.

[Mr.Frag]

Mike is right. Without good testing by a good panel of testers (as we are seeing in AAR's from WITP tester's) it is very unlikely that a scenario would not have a certain amount of imbalance due to the designer's personal viewpoint.

Imbalance???

I hope you guys are up for a reality check here. We test to make sure it doesn't go up in flames.

Balance is a nice concept, but really now, that would depend on skill of the players.

I give two people 30 submarines to deploy. One will deploy them in wonderful choke points with deep water and does quite well. The other will camp bases and loose lots of subs ...

Just how would you like to balance that??? [X(]

[norsemanjs]

Maybe imbalance wasn't the right way to put it.

What I meant was that without good testing you will end up with units with impossible abilities. Kate's that are too difficult to kill in a dog fight, or B-17's which cause too much damage when bombing Industrial targets.

In the editor we will be able to set the units' abilities the way we want. If we are unrealistic in our assignment of abilities and we (the designer) believes we are correct the balance of our newly designed scenario would be affected. Good testers will spot the problem and point it out, so that it can be corrected. The Matrix team does a very good job of rooting out these types of problems, I'm afraid that our "user" designed scenarios will typically not be as thoroughly tested and therefore end up with a bias which you might not see in a Matrix designed and tested scenario.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Norseman

Although I know it is not exactly Mike's cup of tea. I would be interested in setting up some alternate scenario's.
Plenty of good potential scenarios out there even beyond the historical possibilities.

Actually I agree with you. There are a number of interesting possibilities that can be
modeled with a good editor. I just don't think very many people will be interested in
playing someone else's "unofficial" modification or scenario. You have to be pretty
worked up about an idea to spend the time and effort needed to produce a complete
"alternate scenario". And people don't usually get "worked up" unless they have some
strong feelings about an issue----feelings that will undoubtedly be reflected in whatever
scenario they produce. I'm sure that there will be a few "good" ones along with quite
a few "pure fan-boy" efforts. But I don't see Matrix having the time to "test" them all
for "balance" or "reality factors" to make them "official". And without a "stamp of ap-
proval" from Joel or someone---would you want to start a scenario with it's designer
that will take a hundred hours of your time and might prove totally warped in execution?