Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



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

quote:


1. Auto upgrade paths stay the same and are free.

2. You can spend a small amount of PP to bring in an aircraft thats in the squads upgrade path early or switching to a past aircraft type.

3. You can spend a larger amount of PP to bring in an aircraft thats not in the upgrade path.

4. Aircraft have to be of the same class. Fighter to fighter, Bomber to bomber, and so on.

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

6. Group takes an exp hit for the switch.

7. Both sides should have this option.

8. It should be an option button set at the start of the game along with the ahistoric sub buttons. That way if ya want it then you have it and if ya dont then you never need to mess with it.

quote:

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.

quote:


Lets see they spent several years developing this game, they are currently selling it, they are currently supporting it and you want the source code?
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. If it was a joke, it didn't come across too well.

quote:


Why do you need to source code to suggest options? Suggest your solution, let others do the same, let those get presented to 2by3 and let them decide if they can/will do it.
As Frag said, why is that so hard?

quote:


FWIW, I like the system as is, if it is changed, then it should absolutely be a toggle. And don't forget, the views in this forum, and this thread, represent a very small part of the WitP audience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Mine would look just like BTR or the one Nick posted on page 18. I even agreed to it.

IJA-IJA
fighter-fighter
IJN-IJN

up or down makes no difference to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

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....

quote:

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

quote:

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines

If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

quote:

Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

What does Gemany's well funded well engineered design abilities have to do with Japan's primative reality of what they could make?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

That is what is required ... produce the legitimate rules that would govern this and keep it historically legitimate.

The rest of the list has nothing to do with *history*, it is all about the game interface ... stop thinking interface and start thinking history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
What are the *rules* that must be put in place to govern the *game* to make it historically accurate or at least historically plausable so we are not reducing history's reality to widget processing that has nothing at all to do with history. Why did Japan not retool for modern aircraft? What stopped them? Rubber shortages? Aluminum? Steel? Electronic? What is historically reasonable to have to capture the proper feel of Japan compared to the Allied "oh, we'll just build a brand new factory and make those too"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Wow, havn't read the whole thread so sorry if I repeat somthing. This isn't that big of an issue with me since I don't fiddle with production to much after it was suggested that to much changing would wreck the economy. The following seems clear to me however:

1) A decision was made to allow players to control production. Historical arguments could be made against this decision. The issues of army/navy rivalry, domestic and political issues, difficulties dealing with the Japanese industry leaders, and the desire to prevent players from gaining to much from hindsight all come to mind. However these are all reasons not to give players control of production. This decision has already been made. Production is in the hands of the players.

2) Production decisions and game events may lead to mismatches between the aircraft available in the pool and the squadren types currently in use. Now historically there is no doubt about what will happen. The Army and Navy may fight about who gets what aircraft but one thing is almost certain. They will go somewhere. Either new squadrens will be created or current squadrens will upgrade to the available aircraft. Therefore players should be able to upgrade aircraft as they wish.

3) If it is desired to restrict the extent to which a player can change his air fleet, then this should be done at the level of production. So for example say you want to require players to produce Oscars for whatever historical reason. It would then make since to not allow a player to change the production of Oscar's to Zero's or to change the production of aircraft which upgrade to Oscars to anything else. However once you have allowed him to change all of his production it makes no sence for you then to restrict the ability to use these aircraft.

4) To summarize: restrictions on production changes can possibly be justified. Not allowing a player to use the aircraft that he has been allowed to produce cannot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

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....

All i've seen you do is talk. Gary and Mike walk the walk. You asked for the source code, which if you were the great designer you say you are, you would know that such a request is unreasonable and is not something that is done on the fly to persons outside of the employ of the company in question. You then asked me why were formulae posted in some of the old SSI 8bit games but not now. I commented. It was not meant to be an insult but a simple statement of fact though admitedly you do provide a convienient example nor have you denied on other threads that you bash Gary pretty hard in your infinite wisdom. My thoughts may be wrong. You are free to take em or leave em.

The Internet is indeed a wonderful font for the exchange of ideas. But every side has it's dark cloud. That dark cloud is that every would be programmer/designer/etc etc comes out of the woodwork with their idea on how things should be.

Given all that and the time contraints involved....i can understand how Mike and Gary would not have time to wax poetic on why they do what they do, nor do i fault them if they abstain. I think Matrix and 2b3's record for allowing the input of creative ideas and adjustments speaks for itself. But everyone isn't going to get everything they want.

quote:


All i've seen you do is talk. Gary and Mike walk the walk. You asked for the source code, which if you were the great designer you say you are, you would know that such a request is unreasonable and is not something that is done on the fly to persons outside of the employ of the company in question. You then asked me why were formulae posted in some of the old SSI 8bit games but not now. I commented. It was not meant to be an insult but a simple statement of fact though admitedly you do provide a convienient example nor have you denied on other threads that you bash Gary pretty hard in your infinite wisdom. My thoughts may be wrong. You are free to take em or leave em.

quote:


The Internet is indeed a wonderful font for the exchange of ideas. But every side has it's dark cloud. That dark cloud is that every would be programmer/designer/etc etc comes out of the woodwork with their idea on how things should be.

quote:


Given all that and the time contraints involved....i can understand how Mike and Gary would not have time to wax poetic on why they do what they do, nor do i fault them if they abstain. I think Matrix and 2b3's record for allowing the input of creative ideas and adjustments speaks for itself. But everyone isn't going to get everything they want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.

Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.

The closest that anything comes is charging PP for it. Thats a minor counter weight to slow it down.

It does not address whether Japan could historically produce the aircraft in the first place.

Sorry, I can't find my Settlers to send them out of harvest more gold so I can buy better aircraft ... oops, wrong game.

quote:


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

quote:


I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

quote:

what YOU think about them is totally IRRELEVANT.

quote:

Original: Warspite
The argument that to change it would make it unhistorical is wrong because its not historical now. Here is a list of fighters and the Sentais that used them. Bold are sentais that upgraded from Nates and Red from Hayabusas.

Nate equipped Sentais = 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 24, 33, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 70, 77, 78, 85, 87, 144, 246.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 48, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 77, 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 203, 204, 248.

Shoki equipped Sentais = 9, 22, 29, 47, 85, 87, 246.
Hien equipped Sentais = 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 28, 37, 55, 56, 59, 65, 68, 78, 105, 244
Hayate equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 25, 29, 47, 50, 51, 52, 64, 71, 72, 73, 85, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 200, 246.
Only 2 Sentais operated the Randy

Okay it didn't keep my colours or bold face from my word document I created, nor allow me to attach it, so here is what you have left over after the upgrades:

Nate equipped Sentais = 4, 70, 78, 144.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 48, 54, 63, 77, 203, 204.

We can see that the upgrade paths in the game are meaningless anyway, as there are no where near 34 groups of Hayabusas in WW2 nor anything like 12 Ki-102, and as we can see most surviving Sentais were equiped with the Frank. Its wrong now so whats the deal with letting us use what we build.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


I have probably written and designed as much software in my day as either of those two. And done so, in quite likely a hell of a lot more disciplines, industries, platforms, and programming languages, than they have. I have walked plenty of walks to the degree I have made a pretty good living doing it. And your comment was indeed intended to be a total insult. If you think otherwise you nothing more than liar and you know it.

quote:


I bash Gary sometimes, because in all the hero worship that goes on around this Matrix organization and the posters that post here, sometimes developers like him NEED bashing from someone. If not him, directly, then his groupie worshipers who can see no fault no matter what. And that doesn't just come from me. That comes from people over the past 20 years that have worked and dealt with him as well. I also sing the man's praises in what he does well. I am, if nothing else, fair and balanced. We all have professional deficiencies, so does he. And if given the chance, he'd very likely enumerate those.

quote:



Well there's your problem right there. I view that as a MAJOR PLUS about forums like this. Thank God, they do. We'd still be back in the DOS days of game development..... Oh, I forgot, the code is essentially just that.... Oh well.....

quote:


When I post techie design thoughts I never expect them to respond.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

Try getting some real WORK done? Then getting something eat, going to the store to get replace and empty print cartridge....you know....life.

It doesn't take a software professional to see some fundemental flaws in a basic design decision that make no logical sense. Such as and aircraft deployment system that is supported by a contradictory aircraft production system. So poorly put together that we a 20 page thread devoted to it. Now if that makes me a "Jackal", fine, I like jackals. Crafty little things...

quote:


I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

Great, so YOU like it. BFD. I'm very glad you "understand" and like a deployment design that has nothing to do with the supporting production system design. Guess you don't make a living designing software....

I don't really care which way they come down on this thing, if they ever do. But leaving it the way it is is probably not going to down with side very well.... They either give players full control over production and deployment or they don't. One way or the other. But NOT halfway down the middle...... That's why we are now in our 20th page here.

quote:


Prove it. Where's your superior wargaming design. We are all still waiting.

quote:


Though the term has been much abused here......"straw man" I have seen little evidence of hero worship on this board....certainly not on this thread. This is simply an excuse for someone like yourself to make alot of noise without having to put your money where your mouth is

quote:


We are again, still waiting for your superior approach. Put up.......or shut up.

quote:


I agree with you here. Were i them, i wouldn't respond either.