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 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:39:00 AM

Caltone

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline

In the words of the late great Ronald Reagan;

There you go again

Dude you really don't need to keep telling us how great you are, we're never going to believe it. Perhaps some sessions in front of the mirror reciting your resume to yourself might serve you better?

< Message edited by Caltone -- 8/13/2004 7:47:46 AM >

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 571

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:52:07 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone

In the words of the late great Ronald Reagan;

There you go again

Dude you really don't need to keep telling us how great you are, we're never going to believe it. Perhaps some sessions in front of the mirror reciting your resume might do it for you?

I quite honestly don't give a damn what you believe or don't believe. This game has been delivered IN SPITE of its fundementally FLAWED application and data management design. The fact that in the editor, users are locked into SLOTS basically says it ALL. The is a great big procedural, fixed array DOS game. Yes, it is FUN, and it is ADDICTIVE, and I am 100% addicted. It is a brilliantly conceived game, with outstanding attention to detail and supported by as dedicated a staff of people as there exists in the industry.

But it clearly has MAJOR design flaws. And far beyond just the inconsistancies in game mechanics, which are understandable. You simply cannot get past the FACT it is based on a software development system that is 15 YEARS out of date and abandoned YEARS ago, even by game developers. I have the three best selling game development textbooks on the market today on my library shelf. All three emphasize Object Oriented design techniques and heavy use of structured disk file systems like Sql data engines, client-server architectures, distributed component design, and the heavy use of third party libraries. We even had a posted developement article that stated much of the same thing here about two weeks ago! The FACT is NONE of those techiniques was used here.

I need no mirror sessions. I know what I know. I don't expect WitP to be rewritten in any way. But I do expect the developers to address issues that are fundemental to software development world-wide. And that means CONSISTANT subsystem designs that lead to overall synergy. This aircraft system is 180 degrees from that. The pissed off BOTH sides of the issue with it. And that takes some DOING.

And one has to ask Matrix. What is the background of your designers and developers? If they have all been wargame designers and programmers throughout their careers, well that's a MAJOR problem. Have any of these guys ever spent time in other disciplines or are they mostly the SSI inner circle? I've read the bio's. They don't exactly exude diversity in experience. That kind of career concentration leads to groupthink and oppression of ideas. And I don't mean game concepts. I mean software design, development environment and project management concepts. I'd be willing to bet these guys don't even use #ifdef #include dependency managment techniques!

And that's why Matrix NEEDS a developers forum. So they can get a steady stream of modern design and developement input from the OUTSIDE. When will see a JAVA turn based wargame? JAVA is an OUTSTANDING platform for a turn based wargame. Coupled with a Hibernate database layer and that could be a REAL winner and open up Linux and MAC to the market. So where are the JAVA based titles? The likely response? Probably debunked. And if so, well there's another MAJOR problem.

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 8/13/2004 8:04:06 AM >

(in reply to Caltone)

Post #: 572

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:18:00 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

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

If the Japanese had historically started Tony production 18 months earlier, and I if had both a large pool of Tony aircraft� You are damn right I would upgrade my air groups to use Tony�s. Who wouldn�t?

While historically the 244th (Nates) did upgrade to Tony/Tojo and the 1st (Nates) did not, is there a reason we are so restricted in the game?

quote:

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

Proposal, eliminate research and allow IJA fighters to upgrade freely, or just allow Oscar II to upgrade to Frank.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 573

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:24:09 AM

Top Cat

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

Hmmm on the WITP home page feature no 6. states and I quote :

"Complete player control of aircraft upgrades"

Simply not true. Unless there's a new definition of the word complete.

I can't understand why people are implying that building and using the best planes to the limits of your resource, research and production capabilities is ahistoric.

Your're effectively implying that the Japanese deliberately decided not use their resources in the best way they could. That they kept using crap planes for the sake of it.

If the research & production system in WITP can be abused to such an extent that some players feel that upgrade and deployment restrictions are obsolutely essential to maintain some semblance of historical reality then the only conclusion one can draw is that the R&D and production system is completely broken, ahistoric, unbounded by reality etc.

When I play the Japanese I will be touching it as little as possible, because there's seems to be more scope to screw up the whole deal than to do anything constructive.

WITP :
Oops I've made too many Franks and not enough Tony's. Damn I'll have to scrap em' because the Tony pilots would rather play cards than fly Franks. Duh? Can't think of anything more unreal let alone ahistoric.

Reality:
It's highly likely that due to circumstances beyond their control the Japanese didn't build what they had planned. But, you wouldn't know because they would have used what they got. The pilots would have used what they got. As opposed to waiting for what they didn't have.

Cheers
Top Cat

(in reply to Caltone)

Post #: 574

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:31:02 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
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.

"Complaint: Aircraft upgrade paths hard coded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank> Eliminate research and allow�

Oznoyng - No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only.

Lemurs! - There should probably not be any tree other than basics of no Army/Navy crosses, no bombers to fighters, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I don't care if you change Oscar II's to Franks. I care if you R&D Franks to push them to earlier then Oscars and go straight from Nates to Franks. As long as the Oscar is available (e: the full R&D work to get to Franks), I'm more then happy to have you go from Nates to Franks should you choose to.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 575

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:35:02 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

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.

"Complaint: Aircraft upgrade paths hard coded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank> Eliminate research and allow�

Oznoyng - No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only.

Lemurs! - There should probably not be any tree other than basics of no Army/Navy crosses, no bombers to fighters, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I don't care if you change Oscar II's to Franks. I care if you R&D Franks to push them to earlier then Oscars and go straight from Nates to Franks. As long as the Oscar is available (e: the full R&D work to get to Franks), I'm more then happy to have you go from Nates to Franks should you choose to.

Wow! .....a solution???

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 576

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:37:01 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
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.

The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were�?

Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree?

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 577

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:55:51 AM

Top Cat

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

Cheesy research skipping could have been "discouraged" by having research or production minimums that can't be shut down.

ie You might have 20/20 hindsight and know that plane x is a dead end. But there's a research program that going to suck in resources no matter what because you can't know that plane x sucks yet.

Once plane x has been researched or you've built enough then you "know" that it sucks and you can react be killing it off, but not before. Again this would cost resources to convert.

That way a player can accelerate what he likes, and stop or downgrade what he doesn't like but not before he's got some real results in hand.

Also could have some simple research pre-requisites put in place? ie you can't start research on plane y until you've finished the research on plane y-1 or y-2, whatever plane that gives time lag that is appropriate. If the prerequisite isn't done then research progress = 0.

That would've been my way of dealing with the 20/20 hindsight problem. I think it's closer to the root of the problem. Fixed plane upgrades is further downstream in my book.

Cheers
Top Cat

< Message edited by Top Cat -- 8/13/2004 7:22:14 PM >

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 578

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 11:24:11 AM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one....

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Top Cat)

Post #: 579

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 11:30:43 AM

Top Cat

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one....

Steve.

Err what did I say that was off topic?
Spoke about upgrades, research and wether things are historical/realistic

Top Cat

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)

Post #: 580

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 12:24:11 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

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.

In case you thought I was claming up.

The manual talks about 100 points of research will move up production, although others think it might be as high as 900. Eliminate research or make it a on of switch in options before the game. This would allow those who want to try different paths the ability to setup the game for their enjoyment, while allowing those with a more structure feel to enjoy their game. I pay little attention to research because I am prejudice: I feel that if the game is modeled correctly by 1944/45 the Japanese situation is so hopeless in the air that it is pointless to even worry about what aircraft goes up.

My concern is 1942/42. Without researching anything I get Tojo and Tony aircraft in August of 1942 and while some of my Nate groups will upgrade to these aircraft others won�t. I know historically the Japanese Submarine fleet concentrated on sinking combat vessels and not merchant ships, yet I am allowed to change that� why not allow me to pick which Nate groups to upgrade?

Not allowing me to upgrade the 1st to Tony�s because it wasn�t done historically, but allowing my sub to operate anywhere, at any concentration level against targets (merchants) that was against the very mind set of the Japanese� is an interesting choice. Was this done for game balancing... did the Tony or Tojo aircraft change the course of the war (hard to believe) or was it done to maintain historical flavor� the players were upgrading groups a historically?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 581

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:24:09 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
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.

Ok.

Historically, Nakajima produced both army fighters Ki-27 and Ki-44 in the later half of 1942. Why historically couldn�t the Japanese decrease Ki-27 production and increase Ki-44 at that point in time?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 582

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:27:02 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
... 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.

I agree.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 583

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:28:43 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Though the term has been much abused here......"straw man" I have seen little evidence of hero worship on this board

Dude...

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp?URL=http%3A//www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp%3Fm%3D685927

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 584

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 3:51:55 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

Historically, Nakajima produced both army fighters Ki-27 and Ki-44 in the later half of 1942. Why historically couldn�t the Japanese decrease Ki-27 production and increase Ki-44 at that point in time?

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered.

Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 585

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:13:09 PM

joliverlay

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

Mr. Frag

I have politely asked for a response to my proposals on this thread. I assume there are so many posts you can't respond to them all. However, I did give a detailed list of suggestions regarding aircraft upgrades and would like a response.

Regarding your most recent post, there are a number of examples of Japanese delay of aircraft changes to more advanced aircraft that were based on a desire for larger numbers (which are reflected in higher production costs.....less airframes per factory) rather than higher quality. The point is....that this was a decision between two available options, one of which we cannot choose in this game. If the Japanese high command had to decide wheter to switch more Osars to Tonys or Franks (for example) and elected to go for mass rather than quality....why do we not have the option to make the same decision.

Following the reasoning I'm seeing (must upgrade the same, not just same number of squadrons to same aircraft done historically) why not require offensive in the same areas, require a coral see, require a midway etc. The system is giving us less flexability that the actual commandars had.

Regarding another post that the BTR model is bad because everybody "streamlines" designs and makes only advanced planes....that is simply not true.....at least with the versions of the game developed in the last few years. I routinly make lots of the FW190As and ME-109G6s for the entire game. The ME-109G5s (A.S. version) require a special version of the DB engine which you cant make in mass. You can change the factory's, but they simply wont produce in significant numbers because of a severe diminishing returns criteria. Similarly other plane types are just so hard to produce you can't make that many. I could make only Me-262s (not that many acutally)....but I would have to shut down production for about 1/2 the game becuase the cost of retooling is so high and the dam planes take two many engines. If you change a big engine plant from DB engines to Jummo Jets it produces nothing until it converts....which takes a long time.

My suspision.....which has been posted for a long time but never responeded to is that the reason the designers control are aircraft choices is because the production system is severly flawed. It is to easy to make the advance planes becuause there is not differentiation between sub types of engines and the per airframe cost to produce aircraft is not high enough to realisticly reflect the resource requirement needed to make planes.

My next suggestion then is fix the production system, and let us have more flexability in upgrades.

Thank you.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 586

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:50:29 PM

WhoCares

Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
...
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?
...

That's what we have now and that's what we have if the upgrade situation was changed. And nobody complains about the situation we start with. The only thing we can influence at this time with respect to air production is the research of future toys. It is up to us, how much factories we assign to research. Every factory doing research means less planes in operation sooner or later in the game. Less operational fighters means more ships or bombers lost to enemy air units. Less bombers means slower advance and inability to prohibit enemy naval operations by superior air power. Less patrol/recon means being blind to enemy stength and operations, and so on... If the enemy does not exploit this situation because he thinks we are still operating at full strength with a lot of reserves shall not be my problem. And if I am able to throw brand-new superior units against him when he thinks he can finally stand up against me - I laugh in his face!
But all this is research and actually not part of the real intent of this topic...

Now think it is 1944 (historically, not with some magic termination due to an imaginary score). We did better, expanded as planned, hold all key location, convoys bring all the resources and oil we ask for to fully feed our industry, the enemy can't hurt our production. New types of planes just arrive according to pre-war plans (no accellaration).
Would the industry be able to deliver sufficient planes to supply most/all our units with the newest toys?
1. (historical) Yes. Well, then give us the chance to simulate this situation by upgrading our units as we wish and as our historical couterparts would have done.
2. (historical) No. Could it do so in-game?
2.1. No. No need to bother then...
2.2. Yes. Production system 'broken', well at least flawed. How to fix it?
2.2.1. Tie the player with a system that wouldn't make no sense at all, historically speaking. Pretty much what we have now - very annoying situation for many players and creates heated discussions over many pages with often flawed arguments from both sides and personal insults.
2.2.2. Change the game mechanics to reflect the historical reasons. What where the historical reasons?
2.2.2.1. According to Mr. Frag resources of whatever kind (aluminium, rubber...). Well, then let us pay for modern toys! How?
2.2.2.1.1. Let us pay with supplies to switch factories to modern planes. Maybe something like upgrading factories to second generation planes (Oscars, A6M5) cost 1.5x supply, third generation 3x...
2.2.2.1.2. Make the airframes more expensive per unit produced (we don't want to add another mess in the engine production, so we might just stick with messing up the airframes). Steps maybe like above...
2.2.2.1.3. Reduce the resources available on the map. This might be the actual problem if we are able to produce sh!tload of new stuff while we just performed according to history or even worse.
However, this might also lead to a new discussion about the enemies performance. If the resources are somewhat historically reasonable, then it might be the enemy who failed to sink my ships, bomb my resource centers, ... But then we would be back at 1.
2.2.2.1.4. All of the above in any combination and maybe more (suggestions welcome)...
2.2.2.2. Somebody else might pick up here as well...

About downgrades: Imagine we have early February 1942. My factory managed to spill out 9 Emilys. I sent my Mavis group at Wake Island back to Tokyo, upgrade them and return to Wake Island. Just in the next night, the enemy comes along with a bombardment TF and trashes all but one Emily. Wouldn't it make sense to pick up all your pilots in the remaining plane, fly back to Tokyo, board your old planes (they wouldn't have scrapped them within one day) and have a nice and operational patrol unit again??? As is now, we are almost blind on an eye for many days, where with a downgrade we would be back to normal operation after a few days - the latter sounds more realistical to me... Oh, btw: downgrades should cost you PP and moral.

Finally a somewhat off-topic remark to you Mr. Frag: it is neither Zoom1980 nor my job to provide solutions to Matrix/2By3. We as almost everybody else on this board (incl. you!) are customers. As such, it is our right to complain about a product in its entity or parts of it. If we feel something is broken/doesn't work as we expected, it is up to us, to say so or live with it. It is up to Matrix/2by3 to react to our complaints in whatever way they might feel appropriate. If we say 'We would want to be able to use planes from the pool to replace old planes in whatever airgroup we want.', then it is up to Matrix/2by3 to evaluate this complaint, classify it, check for possible solutions if neccessary, make a risk assessment and check the feasibility of any possible solution they see and last but not least maybe/hopefully come back to us with their solution/rejection ('You use this option in a way it was not meant to be used'). If we as customer feel like 'You could do it this way', then this is a courtesy of us, which could be used as an indicator of how important it is to us, to 'waste' our time on it. And with a complex problem as the one at hand, you can't seriously expect us to provide an all-around wrapped up solution applicable for all possible situations - we just don't have the full picture of the effects of a seemingly small change we might suggest.

PS: I would prefer to continue the discussion about the actual problem at hand - if you feel like it, PM me because of the latter part...

< Message edited by WhoCares -- 8/13/2004 3:57:51 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 587

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:53:03 PM

Reiryc

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Historically, Nakajima produced both army fighters Ki-27 and Ki-44 in the later half of 1942. Why historically couldn�t the Japanese decrease Ki-27 production and increase Ki-44 at that point in time?

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered.

Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

LoL!

Classic... The model right now allows you to research and get planes out of order. This has absolutely nothing to do with the problem presented in this thread.

I suggest you quit hijacking the thread into something it isn't about.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 588

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 5:11:05 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

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

Wargame designs or not, I have designed and written more software in more disciplines over the past 25 years than probably all the Matrix programmers COMBINED.

Gary's products:

Guadalcanal Campaign - I can still remember the day it arrived in the mail

Bomb Alley, North Atlantic '86,

Carrier Force

Objective: Kursk

War in Russia (1984), If WitP is the mother of all games then WiR is the father!

Reforger '88

Kampfgruppe - I was so excite that I could load troops up on transports.

Mech Brigade - Helicopters, Gun ships, TOW missiles oh ya!

Warship

Panzer Strike! - Cool graphics for teh first time

Typhoon of Steel

Second Front,

Western Front

Carrier Strike

Pacific War,

Steel Panthers - Still one of the best games ever

Steel Panthers II,

Steel Panthers III

Battle of Britain

Zoomie's products:

******

Like i said.....all talk Zoomie. Keep bragging about yourself. When you produce the superior design you keep talking about with that superior intellect of yours....then i'll listen.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 589

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 5:19:17 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

[
Dude...

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp?URL=http%3A//www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp%3Fm%3D685927

"Dude"

Looks like an appreciation thread. A way of saying thanks. Is that hero worship?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 590

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 5:32:36 PM

vonmoltke

Posts: 182
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Bloomfield, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered.

Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

I agree completely with this. There should be a research path for each aircraft or, as I suggested before, blind research. I liked the PTO style of investing in technological research areas, with new models becoming available when certain minimum levels were reached.

quote:

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

Those items you mentioned are both game variables. If the Ki-44 in reality couldn't be mass produced because of an engine shortage, which resulted in more Ki-27s being built and deployed to cover for it, are you then going to force an engine shortage on the player in the game? If the player avoids that engine shortage, they are still hamstrung by an OOB built around a real engine shortage.

Same thing with general resource shortages, factory damage, loss rates, all of these factors shaped actual Japanese aircraft production and deployment. All of these factors are variables in the game. As the game stands now the player, and the AI, cannot change aircraft deployments in response to changes in these variables.

_____________________________

This space reserved for future expansion

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 591

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 5:52:27 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Mr Frag
from your posts, it sounds like you are saying that if the player can control reseach, and upgrade, that they can change over there squadrons over to Franks or what not, in 1941, doesn't reseach, mean they have to reseach the planes first ?

if it is a late war plane, make it HARDer to reseach/move forward

as some are saying, in BTR, you can reseach what ever you want, but it is going to take time to get any planes, at the start of the 43 Campaign, you could changed every AFAC into a TA-152 site

you could, but you basicly just lost the war, there are reasons to keep the other planes being built, it should work out the same here, if it is going to take you 2 1/2, 3 years to get the Frank into production, you are going to have to keep other planes being built, so you got an airforce when the planes you want are ready, which since you are not going to want to keep the Nates flying the whole time, while waiting for the Franks, you have a reason to build Tonies and Tojos

over all, from your complaints, you should scrap/change the idea of reseach, to speed up the time line of this or that plane being able to be built, if it was ready in june of 43, it should be ready in june of 43, with small changes in time being possable, but not large ones

I had already said, lets charge PP points to allow a unit to change to a different type of plane, how about we charge PP points to change a factory to reseach or build a different type of plane, which you could also, set that PP point cost to the time line

in 1941, it will cost 1000 PP to change a factory over to reseach the Frank (or what have you), in 1942, it will 750 PP points, in 1943, it will cost you 500 PP points, in 1944, it will cost 250, or what ever totals the designers think would be enough to keep the players honest

or if you want to be complex, if the Tony is finished being reseached, the cost for the next model is dropped by 100, if the Tojo is finished, then another 100 is dropped and so on

there are so many ways the designers can work with the system, to still try and have the game run the way they think it should

and as the one poster has shown, is the upgrade path even correct, we got a deadend path, that looks to be wrong

I don't want to edit or hack a game, so it is set how I think it should

I don't think any of us here can really come up with the type of resposne you want, all we can do is offer ideas on what we would like to see

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 592

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 6:31:13 PM

Top Cat

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Historically, Nakajima produced both army fighters Ki-27 and Ki-44 in the later half of 1942. Why historically couldn�t the Japanese decrease Ki-27 production and increase Ki-44 at that point in time?

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered.

Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

A bit cheeky Mr. Frag.

A production and R&D engine was put in the game.

People (including yourself) have noted that it could be abused and used to make extremely unlikely results if people had the freedom to upgrade willy nilly.

People (myself included) said why not fix the production / R&D engine so it can't be abused instead?

A monster thread ensues with nobody really giving either way.

Now, if I read you correctly here, you dismiss Culiacan Mexico by suggesting that it's his (ie the players) job to do the research on each plane to put in a valid model! I thought that was the job of the guy who decided there was going to be a R&D/production engine in the 1st place.

As a programmer I can see that post release the R&D/production engine and upgrade pathways will probably not be restructured as it would involve new data structures, need too much testing etc etc. That argument I can accept no problem. But no employee has actually come out and said No yet.

But most (nearly all?) of the argument in this thread has been to treat even having an option to have something different as intrisically bad. Why? Options don't have to be used.

Cheers
Top Cat

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 593

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 6:34:44 PM

Mr.Frag

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

Ok, lets try and net out the thread.

a) Planes should have a variable cost?

Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model.

b) Research should be blind to the player?

While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft.

c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft?

Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

d) Reinforcements?

Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability?

e) Pilots?

Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above?

f) AI?

How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 594

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 6:47:29 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Mr Frag,

a. I agree
b. I agree if what you are saying is research is generic i.e. you allocate research points to Navy or Army (or possible Navy Bombers/ Navy Fighters/ Army Fighters/ Army Bombers) and that availability dates are therefore accelerated across the board for these categories dependent on research.
c. Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? I agree

hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Not sure about this one but could be livable with if it was a 15 day or 30 day return

Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Yes

Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

Not sure of these I would say if a player is silly enough to leave no reserve then thats there fault. On allied side I would like it (I only really play allies

) but could live without it I only really view it as an issue for Japanese.

d. For simplicity (and I accept this will give some strange situations) I would keep reinforcements as is.

e. Would love it but as with d above I would leave it as is as long as upgraded gp keeps old pilots but at reduced exp.

f. This is the real nasty one. I am guessing it would have to be PBEM only via a toggle. The simpler we keep any amendment the easier the computer could cope with it but there is no easy solution hence i think tobggle is best answer.

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 8/13/2004 4:49:05 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 595

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 7:04:47 PM

Top Cat

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Mr Frag,

a. I agree
b. I agree if what you are saying is research is generic i.e. you allocate research points to Navy or Army (or possible Navy Bombers/ Navy Fighters/ Army Fighters/ Army Bombers) and that availability dates are therefore accelerated across the board for these categories dependent on research.
c. Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? I agree

hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Not sure about this one but could be livable with if it was a 15 day or 30 day return

Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Yes

Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

Not sure of these I would say if a player is silly enough to leave no reserve then thats there fault. On allied side I would like it (I only really play allies ) but could live without it I only really view it as an issue for Japanese.

d. For simplicity (and I accept this will give some strange situations) I would keep reinforcements as is.

e. Would love it but as with d above I would leave it as is as long as upgraded gp keeps old pilots but at reduced exp.

f. This is the real nasty one. I am guessing it would have to be PBEM only via a toggle. The simpler we keep any amendment the easier the computer could cope with it but there is no easy solution hence i think tobggle is best answer.

Andy

Yes. I like most of the above suggestions.

Cheers
Top Cat

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 596

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 7:34:39 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I have already posted this, but will repeat because it is lost in this huge thread. This solution is workable, doable, and addresses the two major problems:

Problem 1: Nate's upgrade path.
Solution 1: Change the upgrade for Oscar II's to Franks. (This is an editor function) Put this in the offical scenarios.

Problem 2: Research allows unrealistic skipping of planes.
Solution 2: Availability of plane research by type is by date--the historical date of the arrival of that plane's precursor into production. Make it hard coded to historical arrival dates rather than researched arrival dates so that it is a simple database field check. Example: Frank research cannot be selected until Oscar-II's are available to build, which is Jan 1943 (going from memory).

Those who want free upgrades/downgrades, even within IJA/IJN and plane type need to realize that it isn't going to happen. Frag has been more than clear that Matrix considers that "too unhistorical" or "would not provide the right feel to playing the Japanese." Whatever your opinion may be about that point, or any other design "flaw", it is irrefutable by anyone other than Matrix themselves that they feel this way. Get over it. Let's address the Nate problem and move on to enjoying the game.

The second solution addresses the concern over researching high end planes without using/building their precursors. It might be enough to convince Matrix to make the first change. Lemurs has already done this with his mod scenario, but mod scenarios are a problem for some PBEM'ers.

All the rest of the discussion about the design of this game are irrelevant to this game. It is what it is, and isn't going to change significantly.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 597

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 7:41:24 PM

WhoCares

Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

Finally we get constructive

a) Yes. Okay, the cost by time is maybe just a second step, but definatly a nice to have.

b) Yes. You might keep the factory allocation to a plane type, but the research point goes into a pool. This way you can assign a size 120 fab to A6M5 and a size 30 fab to the A6M3. The research would go into a shared pool, boosting the A6M3 more, but when available the small fab will start producing the A6M3 while the A6M5 fab will continue researching navy fighters. The main question with respect to the research pool is how to split the points over the future models. 100% on the next model doesn't work very well, so it should be bound to the time between the various 'release' dates.

c) Sounds good to me. However, downgrades should not be hampered by a massive delay; maybe a day or five but not more. In the end, the reason for downgrades is the availability of those old planes and keeping the airgroup in operation. Wouldn't make sense if you had to wait 90 days - in this time, enough new planes would have been build again

d) Nice to have but not needed in a first run.

e) Nice to have.

f) I guess c) is the most difficult part as it would be completely new for the AI, followed by a) due to the change in resource handling. b) should not affect AI and d) and e) we might think about later. Have to get me a beer or ten first

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 598

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 7:46:21 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

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

hm, if i see it correct, nobody wanted a "full crisscross" upgrade....

If the problem with the arrival date is the real issue... DELAY it. I mean, just say the ki84c comes into service in June44 (for example), why not make its arrival date January45 or similar, so the japanese player NEEDS to research the plane... if he want to get it at historical date. So, if the japanese player wants the shinden in late43 he has really serious retooling things to do... and then he should get it... cause normally he will loose the war because he produce zero planes, no ships (cause all shipproduction has halted), no ships will be repaired, etc...

i think this will be the fast way to avoid the problem of this game engine (sorry, we player can�t do something about it)
Do this and everybody with some brain in his head will think twice about retooling all stuff to the wunderplanes....

The other ideas are good too, only hardcoding the "best" planes is not good. IF the axis player has done so much to speed up the development (and risk the early loss of the game) it shouldn�t be forbidden to massproduce it (any plane that is IN the game should be only such plane that could be produced... if like a miracle some german ta152h appear, they could not be produced. (so such planes should not exist in the game... like the me262 - the japanese jetfighter should be the only hardcoded plane of the game... only after the historical event of sending the blueprints from germany to japan, they could research em....

_____________________________

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 Mynok)

Post #: 599

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 7:49:45 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

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

Wargame designs or not, I have designed and written more software in more disciplines over the past 25 years than probably all the Matrix programmers COMBINED.

Gary's products:

Guadalcanal Campaign - I can still remember the day it arrived in the mail

Bomb Alley, North Atlantic '86,

Carrier Force

Objective: Kursk

War in Russia (1984), If WitP is the mother of all games then WiR is the father!

Reforger '88

Kampfgruppe - I was so excite that I could load troops up on transports.

Mech Brigade - Helicopters, Gun ships, TOW missiles oh ya!

Warship

Panzer Strike! - Cool graphics for teh first time

Typhoon of Steel

Second Front,

Western Front

Carrier Strike

Pacific War,

Steel Panthers - Still one of the best games ever

Steel Panthers II,

Steel Panthers III

Battle of Britain

Zoomie's products:

******

Like i said.....all talk Zoomie. Keep bragging about yourself. When you produce the superior design you keep talking about with that superior intellect of yours....then i'll listen.

Great, so GG can write DOS PC programs in procedural 'C'. How nice.

Zoomie's products:

ITN's Celluar network fraud detection system

New Car inventory tracking for Union Pacific railroad -- if you've bought a GM, Ford or Chrysler auto in the US in the last 8 years, that car was shipped from the plant to your dealer using software I designed the database for.

The MCI long distance pre-paid card system. If you've purchased an MCI Prepaid long distance card at Walmart, Walgreens or Target, that's my stuff backing those POS terminals you used to charge it and my encoding on your mag strip.

Automatic Call Distribution agent management software -- if you ever made a Customer Service to just about any financial vendor anywhere in the world call your call likely executed call management software I've designed and/or written

FAA's weather reporting system. If you've ever flown in the US, your flight crew gets its weather via a system I designed the database for

If you've ever used an ATM in North America, Europe or the Pacific Rim, software I helped design and write what deals with your transaction and ensures your account is accurately settled.

www.simplywell.com -- that's my baby. The Java backend anyway...

OS/2 port of wxWindows C++ cross platform GUI toolkit, including code that manages bitmap, jpeg, tiff, gif, XPM, XBM, and IFF image formats

And that's just the big stuff.

You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 600