RE: Aircraft Upgrades

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Aircraft Upgrades

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Upgrades

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 9:50:23 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

You guys have the Kamikaze thing all wrong. You don't use a 3 ton, 200 mile an hour plane, you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship!

Now *that* was a good one! Lets see your AA guns stop that!

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 511

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 10:06:31 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship

I want enough flexibility in the IJ aircraft production to let me save up 8,000 engines and put them all on one huge cargo plane. Then I can use that neat parachute pallette extraction system to drop the Kamikaze-Yamato right on top of Halsey's fleet.

I mean, the Japanese could have saved up all their engines for one big plane and I think the player should have that flexibility too.

< Message edited by Beezle -- 8/12/2004 8:06:52 PM >

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 512

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 10:19:06 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

I mean, the Japanese could have saved up all their engines for one big plane and I think the player should have that flexibility too.

I agree with that.....in some other game.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 513

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 10:22:25 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Whether it is Franks or Nates, they are flying straight in doing no more evasive moves than a torpedo bomber or dive bomber might do. Most were not even armed with gun ammo. They are basically manned missles. That logic simply doesn't apply to a kamikaze attack.

A lot simpler to shoot down a 200 mile an hour missile vs a 400 mile an hour missile. We are not talking Ohka's here, we are talking about aircraft that attempt to crash into their target instead of simply bomb it. Speed is everything.

The point being you use what you have. If you have gone wild and have mostly Shindens and Reppu's now, but still have a lot of older a/c going unused on pools, you run out or very low on Shindens and Reppus you start using Franks, and A6M5's, and then Oscars and A6M2's if they are still around in pools and then A5M and Nates until you are out of everything....without having to disband units and wait 2 or 3 months for them to reappear.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 514

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 10:35:59 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Sorry Ron, but if this game had not been made with production controls I and essentially everyone I know would have had no interest in buying it.
I think you would have lost 1/3 to 1/2 of your sales.

Oh come on...

There are many like me who don't care all that much about production, research, whatever... They'd realistically lose like 5% sales max. Perhaps they would even get some new sales.

O.

One of the games real selling points for me was the Japanese production system. I too, thought it would be a lot like that BTR system or along the lines of the old USAAFE game from GG back in the 80's. Not a show-stopper by any means, but a point of excitement, none-the-less. What I do know is that no one has any idea how the absense of this one feature would have impacted sales, on way or the other. But it is CLEAR that a SIGNIFICANT number of users think that this feature is an important part of the game for them, and among almost ALL of those people, they consider it to be essentially broken.

I have no idea what the ultimate answer is or should be but I DO know what the answer is NOT. Specifically, to just blow it off and ignore it. If it could be fixed to where the historical purests could continue to play their historically "pure" game, then the purests have no case at all against it and should just shut their pie-holes. If it can't be fixed because of the amount of work involved or some internal technical reason, then fine, that's the way it is, end of story. We will have to live with partial solutions like Lemur #26. But at least the development staff should say so and put this issue to bed one way or another.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 515

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 10:40:47 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Mike, instead of complaining why don't you suggest something that will actually work....

Then have Matrix or 2X3 give him the source code so he can offer something of substance within context of the design... Can't really offer a fix without knowing, from a detailed technical level, how it actually works. I thought someone has already mentioned it is "unfixable", technically.....

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 516

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/12/2004 11:31:30 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Well the whole solution is "houserules"

what about:
you are allways ONLY allowed to change to the next plane in the row ? but you can circle your planes (indirect downgrade) - even if this means you will "loose" a few type of plane variations (nate to ki43I to ki43II toki61 to ki84a to ki84c to ki100 to nate will loose the ki44, but this is only a 3second path...

also, you have x planes of all new types allways in the pool (the same as the allied) but you are not allowed to use em (no auto upgrades !)

with this, i think everything should be fine - or, you delay the japanese planes in a way that the jap player need to research em to recive em at the actual date...

what about this idea ?

for the "best planes for your pilots"... just think about the zeros... example:
you have in the pool 500 zero2, 200 zero3 but nil zero5... cause you had heavy losses, your airgroups are low at planes... if i have enough pilots (say the allied player got my planes by airfield bombing but my pilots survived...) i want them to use the second best planes....

also, i do not know about training so well.... does an airgroup with say 10 planes and 36 pilots train the unit as good as a unit with 36/36 ?

For the control of the use... as i wrote, the houserules should be enough, any other restrictions are "silly"... like so many said, if the war went different, you have different needs.... and the btr-system is the "best" method to increase gameplay... i think BOTH sides need here improvement - even if i see the difference between allied research (only certain planes that were ONLY usefull for the pacific war should be able to speed up) and japanese research.

If the game force me to redo the same failures the japanese did historically (and to a lesser part as the allied did) why should anyone PLAY ?

It is like a eastern front game... you can play as the german but you are forced to do the same mistakes hitler ordered.... why should you do ? Or a game about the american civil war.... if i play the "rebs" at gettysburg, i will conquer that little round top and bring in my art... and then bye-bye yankee-army why should i play the game if i only can redo exact the things they did in history ?
I think, this is the most important thing "we" (the people who want to change the actual system and replace it by a more btr-like system) critizise... this "it could bring in nonhistorical results"... well, yes.. my intention as the japanese player is to bring in ahistorical results... i want 20-30 killed american carriers (if i can handle it)... i will loose the game in the end (i do not care about points and such things, for me the only disadvantage of Gary-Grisby-Games, these victory conditions.... i fight it out - untill the end. Make points so we can see who was better, but not to end the game...If i as the german won btr... it was so frustrating... i had to allow the allies to bombard cities cause the computer needes his points (and all i wanted to do was to use the R4M.... one time i managed to kill 900 Bombers with em...

) but to reach this point i had to play 200 turns with "allied" support.... that was silly....only because of the points))
No, some people would cry this is ahistorically (and they will be right if i can do it easily) but with luck in the important situations (like kb kill at coral sea both carriers with nil losses and kick enterprise and hornet and saratoga at midway and after this i eat up some of his heavies... and so the allied player is in serious troubles and he make an essex-get-lost-error-so-he-need-even-more-time-to strike-seriously) i should be allowed to fight it out with the best i can use...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 517

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:01:56 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Then have Matrix or 2X3 give him the source code so he can offer something of substance within context of the design... Can't really offer a fix without knowing, from a detailed technical level, how it actually works. I thought someone has already mentioned it is "unfixable", technically.....

Zoomie, as always you come back with useless answers. Thought you were a *designer*.

The war happened. There is tons of information of what happened and what Japan could realistically do. There is absolutely no reason at all to discuss any aspect of coding to talk about a concept. It is up to 2BY3 to decide if the concept can be converted to actuals and deliver code should they choose to.

A lot of stuff in WitP came from people proposing things in the forums. Right now, we have this monster thread yet in the whole thread, there are no proposals for a workable system at a concept level, there is just a bunch of complaints.

The old line ... "you can be part of the solution or part of the problem" ... the choice as always rests with you.

Mike seems to have a great deal of knowledge and could probably propose something that was playable yet kept the historic realities in check hence my comment to him.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 518

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:04:48 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Well the whole solution is "houserules"

House Rules don't work in a Player vs Computer game hence while addressing some aspects, they do not actually fix anything. A large portion of the players are not PBEM'r types so fixes in that area only help a select few.

If one simply neglected that part of the user community, this could be done in a heartbeat as it is trivial.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 519

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:10:38 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Well - sure. But why get so many so upset (even want to not buy the game) if they "only" want to play it vers. the ai ?
honestly, even i can change any scenario in 10 minutes so i can update what i want. And if i want to cheat myself, well, then everything is lost.

For me the "problem" are the pbems with noncertificated scenarios....

i would love to see some "minor" problems fixed and still can play a pbem... without the accusement of "cheating", cause everybody knows this scenario and accept it. So i have no need to care about the offical opinion of matrix about this aspects...

sure, to change the code or the game in a way that the ai does not "cheat" is not possible in this state of the game. I allways spoke about the "problem" of trustworthy scenarios against other humans.

Because if i dislike the offical scenarios with the offical upgrade path, i need only 10 minutes

to solve this problem.

So sorry for misunderstanding. But then i can�t understand the people getting so upset about this. Really.

People, just use the editor, it IS simple...

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 520

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:15:49 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Then have Matrix or 2X3 give him the source code so he can offer something of substance within context of the design... Can't really offer a fix without knowing, from a detailed technical level, how it actually works. I thought someone has already mentioned it is "unfixable", technically.....

Zoomie, as always you come back with useless answers. Thought you were a *designer*.

The war happened. There is tons of information of what happened and what Japan could realistically do. There is absolutely no reason at all to discuss any aspect of coding to talk about a concept. It is up to 2BY3 to decide if the concept can be converted to actuals and deliver code should they choose to.

A lot of stuff in WitP came from people proposing things in the forums. Right now, we have this monster thread yet in the whole thread, there are no proposals for a workable system at a concept level, there is just a bunch of complaints.

The old line ... "you can be part of the solution or part of the problem" ... the choice as always rests with you.

Mike seems to have a great deal of knowledge and could probably propose something that was playable yet kept the historic realities in check hence my comment to him.

I AM a designer and a software engineer. I strive to make CONSISTANT designs that address the customer external specification and requirements. The problem Matrix and 2X3 esentially created for themselves here was instead of a designing a research system that COMPLIMENTS the ugrade-system, they created a research system that CONTRADICTS the upgrade system. We have a FIXED upgrade design coupled with an OPEN-ENDED, essentially "ruleless and unbound" research system. If 2X3 is going to maintain the OPEN-ENDED research system then the upgrade system needs to be open ended as well. If they insist on maintaining the fixed upgrade system then the research system should be made to COMPLIMENT that system by allowing only research on the NEXT AVAILABLE model in the upgrade paths or someting along that line....

And this entire notion of the "letting the community" design the game runs counter to how the game was actually developed. Demanding that users come up with design solutions who have absolutely no idea concerning the internals of how the game works is simply ludicrous! You essentially have had an Open-Source design process with Close-Source development!! Solictiing the community for detailed bug reports is one thing, demanding design solutions is entirely another.

Want the community to give you design solutions ala a SourceForge project? FINE! Put the damned source code, build environment, and support files on SourceForge and make the whole damned thing an OpenSource project! You'll get more "design solutions" than you ever dreamed of.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 521

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:20:19 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

sorry... this sound like you really dislike this game ?
i mean, what is your problem... i allways will accept a pbem as the allied with a changed upgrade path and the shinano with 120 planes...
if you want to play against the computer, open the editor... i bet you could use it better than me, cause as a programmer you even know what is behind. Drop the job and have fun

work is serious enough...

greetings

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 522

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:24:53 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Again Zoomie, lots of typing and no answer ... one day you'll read one of my posts ... Let me make it simple:

"Complaint: Aircraft/Research semi-hardcoded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank>

Is that so tough for you to grasp? No one cares about your coding skills. No one cares about your "I rewrote the world while GG slept" stories. Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 523

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:29:19 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

You guys have the Kamikaze thing all wrong. You don't use a 3 ton, 200 mile an hour plane, you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship!

Gotta love the Yamato, the biggest (and worst) kamikaze in history.

Sorry, thought this topic needed some comic relief.

I'd like too, but the plane needed to carry it into battle can't be upgraded to due dead end upgrade paths...

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 524

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:50:01 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont.

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 525

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:53:30 AM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I'd like too (The 8,000 engine plane)

Yeah, I mean look at the Bulldozer thread. If 12 million people with dust pans can do the work of one bulldozer, then why can't 8,000 engines all put on a plane do the work of getting the Yamato airborne? I mean, it's not as though an infinite number of tiny bits won't do the same job as the engines on the Space Shuttle.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 526

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:54:14 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Again Zoomie, lots of typing and no answer ... one day you'll read one of my posts ... Let me make it simple:

"Complaint: Aircraft/Research semi-hardcoded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank>

Is that so tough for you to grasp? No one cares about your coding skills. No one cares about your "I rewrote the world while GG slept" stories. Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.

Give me the game source code so I can make an informed suggestion.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 527

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:58:59 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Give me the game source code so I can make an informed suggestion.

The testers do not have access to the code anymore than we have been given access to formulae. Given that no game designer would ever agree to such a demand such a request is less than useless.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 528

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:02:34 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

Since no one can make a "informed" suggestion because no one has access to the code or detailed design specs surrounding the upgrading and research designs, this is as good as any.

However the "research" system should compliment the upgrade system in some fashion. It is nonsensical to research the A7M when the A6M3 is still in research.

What was so hard about putting the BTR system in this game. I think that's what the loudest complainers have been complaining about. They read in the previews that the player was going to be able to fiddle with Japanese production, including aircraft research. Since GG did BTR they quite understandably assumed that was going to the basis of this system as well. It wasn't even close. Why?

So for those people, here is the plain and simple suggestion for Fraggo...

Design in and code in the BTR upgrade/research system.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 529

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:04:06 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Give me the game source code so I can make an informed suggestion.

The testers do not have access to the code anymore than we have been given access to formulae. Given that no game designer would ever agree to such a demand such a request is less than useless.

Then a request to submit design suggestion is equally useless.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 530

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:06:24 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Give me the game source code so I can make an informed suggestion.

The testers do not have access to the code anymore than we have been given access to formulae. Given that no game designer would ever agree to such a demand such a request is less than useless.

And a note of game formula. SSI used to publish almost every single formula used in their games. Why did that practice ever stop?

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 531

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:07:42 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Then a request to submit design suggestion is equally useless.

Depends on how you word it. I dont rate your chances very highly given your track record of criticism.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 532

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:13:12 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Then a request to submit design suggestion is equally useless.

Depends on how you word it. I dont rate your chances very highly given your track record of criticism.

Given the extreme amount of player suggestions that have been incorporated into the game, it is quite obvious that 2BY3 are not deaf and more then willing to look at anything proposed.

It doesn't mean it will happen, but as long as you don't propose anything you are pretty certain what will happen then.

It's funny how when the chips are down and you ask them complaining to offer up something better, they clam up.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 533

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:15:53 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

[
And a note of game formula. SSI used to publish almost every single formula used in their games. Why did that practice ever stop?

probably because there wasn't an internet then where people like yourself for example might constantly comment on said formulae in a negative fashion and overload the server with your ideas on how it should be.

Thats just the formulae. The coding itself was never put into the manuals.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 534

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:36:36 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

[
And a note of game formula. SSI used to publish almost every single formula used in their games. Why did that practice ever stop?

probably because there wasn't an internet then where people like yourself for example might constantly comment on said formulae in a negative fashion and overload the server with your ideas on how it should be.

Thats just the formulae. The coding itself was never put into the manuals.

More likely that being "closed source" they probably realized that the formula in games was the primary determinant of game balance and thus playability. Basically, the arithmetic formula is quite likely the crown jewels of any game. Maybe they figured that out. It would not surprise me one bit to see a LOT of GG's old formula had found its way into Pentagon wargame simulations! I can even remember seeing copies of the War In Russia, and other SSI game manuals, openned to the detailed formula pages lying around the programming shops back in the day... They are probably a lot more sophisitcated now, but back then, they weren't all that advanced.

And if it weren't for the Internet, and people posting ideas on how "it should be" we'd be at the same rate of advancement in ideas as 1980.... Some of my best ideas for call-center managment, and reservation software came from internet user forums of people bitching about their software vendor's solutions and offering what at the time was considered ludicrous suggestions for improvement.

If you have no interest in technical solution ideas, don't bother to read the posts... If Matrix had a public "Developers" forum Capt Cruft, myself, and some others would likely be there rather than here, for sure....

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 535

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:38:00 AM

joliverlay

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline

Earlier in the post you asked for a proposal. Here it is.

Allow players to change aircraft types at will. This should be possible. If the code will allow it then add any of the following "extra" constraints.

1. Army must us Army and Navy must use Navy
2. Fighter must exchange for fighters, etc.
3. Same number of engines (2 engine for 2 engine)
4. Deduct experience for changing aircraft types outside of criteria 2 or 3.
5. Require discovery of preeceding aircraft types prior to secondary types.
6. Require PPs to change aircraft types.
7. Increase production points required to produce advance aircraft.
8. Use geometric or exponential or other increasing costs for larger numbers of advance aircraft.
9. Randomly (or not) make some designs very hard to produce.
10. Make it an OPTION
11. APPLY ONLY TO JAPANESE

Most of these ideas have already been used in either USAAF, BTR, BOB, or Pac War.

etc.

OK NOW YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL

Before you guys claim it could not happen, the Luftwaffe routinely changed back and forth from ME-109s to FW-190s based on available aircraft. Does anybody belive that Japanese units did not? I have read that old aircraft production (Nates) was restarted to produce cheaper Kamakazi aircraft and that some units downgraded for this reason.

OK....if the answer is No, then I have another proposal. IMPROVE THE AI!

Thanks.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 536

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:40:19 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Then a request to submit design suggestion is equally useless.

Depends on how you word it. I dont rate your chances very highly given your track record of criticism.

Given the extreme amount of player suggestions that have been incorporated into the game, it is quite obvious that 2BY3 are not deaf and more then willing to look at anything proposed.

It doesn't mean it will happen, but as long as you don't propose anything you are pretty certain what will happen then.

It's funny how when the chips are down and you ask them complaining to offer up something better, they clam up.

I still have no idea what you are after? I think the complainers here have been very straightforward about what they don't like. They want and expected a BTR-like research and upgrade system. Since GG designed and wrote a large part of that game, and the same in this game, they assumed that engine would find its way into this game.

So, GG and Co. have the code to the BTR research and ugrade system. Want a suggestiong that your team has actual stuff to use.....OK. Incorporate the BTR research and upgrade solution into WitP. How's that?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 537

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:41:39 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

So, GG and Co. have the code to the BTR research and ugrade system. Want a suggestiong that your team has actual stuff to use.....OK. Incorporate the BTR research and upgrade solution into WitP. How's that?

And this models Japan's abilities how?

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 538

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:42:11 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont.

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

That is exactly what I want. Period. I do not want dead end paths just because the REAL LIFE japanese did it. I want the ability to re-write history in the game.

And yes, in BTR i was one of the players who created entire fleets of FW190's. Because I could do it and see if it made a difference. I had no Hitler or Tojo to answer to or bicker with. Of course I also produced lots of MC205's. Now that was a P51 killer.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 539

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:43:46 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Then a request to submit design suggestion is equally useless.

Depends on how you word it. I dont rate your chances very highly given your track record of criticism.

Given the extreme amount of player suggestions that have been incorporated into the game, it is quite obvious that 2BY3 are not deaf and more then willing to look at anything proposed.

It doesn't mean it will happen, but as long as you don't propose anything you are pretty certain what will happen then.

It's funny how when the chips are down and you ask them complaining to offer up something better, they clam up.

I still have no idea what you are after? I think the complainers here have been very straightforward about what they don't like. They want and expected a BTR-like research and upgrade system. Since GG designed and wrote a large part of that game, and the same in this game, they assumed that engine would find its way into this game.

So, GG and Co. have the code to the BTR research and ugrade system. Want a suggestiong that your team has actual stuff to use.....OK. Incorporate the BTR research and upgrade solution into WitP. How's that?