Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
and the myriad of other areas in the above poll the betas seemed overwhelminingly opposed to....

Why do you always seem to see things as ZOOMIE1980 vs the betas? I may not always agree with everything the betas post, but I recognise that they have more knowledge of how the games works, and is meant to work, than any users who've had this game for only a few weeks. I also admire the dedication that they've shown into testing the game to get it to this point. I fail to see why every thread that highlights a possible game issue always seems to include a prerequisite "let's beat on the beta testers" angle to it.

(BTW, any who may still be reading, feel free to use "ZOOMIE1980 vs betas" as the name for your new band.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I think what they are getting at Zoomie is all people posting in this thread, problem or not, is less than 40. That is only a fraction of the at least 1,000 (or even 500) people that own WiTP. He is saying you aren't getting a good enough sample to make any conclusions as to whether it is or is not a problem. YOu have heard from only a select few people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You like the word "overwheming" Find a post by me where I say at any time "I am opposed to any change"
Then do some homework before saying I am opposed to anything. For the record the first mention of victory points being turned off was back in Feb 2002. About 3 posts after victory conditions were first explained. Read all the public posts on victory conditons.
The private ones you can't read and I will not post them but in public in more then one post I stated.

1. I am against using points to decide victory.
2. Victory should be the surrender (or not) of Japan.
3. Japanese surrender should be tied to her supply status, Allies agreeing to retain emperor (Unconditional surrender raised allied victory 1 level but Japan would not surrender unless Emperor was kept or cites in Japan were occupied by Allied troops

However once the designers went the point route that is what I tested. When players asked for the auto toggle I was not opposed but I pointed out that if they were getting the ratios then something was wrong somewhere. And that the AI was not designed to play without the VP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I think what they are getting at Zoomie is all people posting in this thread, problem or not, is less than 40. That is only a fraction of the at least 1,000 (or even 500) people that own WiTP. He is saying you aren't getting a good enough sample to make any conclusions as to whether it is or is not a problem. YOu have heard from only a select few people.

A select few... you are correct. But I wonder what harm there is in just looking at it? If it is too involved forget about it, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to at least not explore the question.


Joel Billings

I don't know if Mike Wood has posted in this thread as I haven't been able to keep up with the volume of posts here. I just wanted to give you my take on this discussion. I think that the model is probably lacking in dealing with daylight engagements against totally unprotected convoys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

And with this particular group, we seem to see a common trait. Heels firmly dug in against virtually EVERYTHING anyone sees as a problem. I guess they see it as an insult to their ability to uncover problems prior to release. In most software genres, the betas no longer have any say at all once the product ships. They are basically done, for good and are no longer relevant. the USER BASE is then front and center. And when the USER BASE speaks, developers generally listen.

These developers seem to do just that. They listen and they respond, and in this game, it seems they respond in spite of often VIGOROUS opposition to almost anything brought up by the users.

The betas did a good job. But as far as I and many others are concerned, their job is over. They now just a single user, no more knowledgable than any other dedicated user, many of whom are software professionals themselves.....

quote:

Let's be generous and say that there are 30 posters in this thread that have a problem with this aspect of WitP (although I think your value of 20 may be nearer the mark). Now another assumption: WitP has sold 1,000 copies - don't know if this is reasonable or not, but when the very first patches were released via the forum, the number of downloads was soon in the 700-800s. Now, my walnut brain can't handle the calculation as it can't do decimals, but I'd hazard a guess that a small percentage of users are concerned about this issue. I just wonder how the other few hundred users view this problem. I assume your "overwhelming" was directed to the many who either don't perceive a problem, or can't be bothered to post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BartM
Im very timid to even post here anymore, either asking questions, offering advice from what I have learned so far in the game or giving feedback when someone testers or the developement team asks for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BartM
dunno, but really I think the "surface combat" issue has been completely lost at this point, perhaps, a new argument should be started for us silent users to read about ?

quote:

The surface combat in this narrow situation is BROKEN. The communication of why the research is the way it is, was entirely MISSING from the documentation. Allied ASW is BROKEN, it is TOO potent. DD's in bombardment TF's containing BB's and CA's is BROKEN. Ai death spirals it can't seem to deal with. All these are already FULLY recognized by the developers from everything we have been told. Yet the betas opposed changes in ALL of these areas. Why?

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Prehaps only spotted ships should move into animation screen. And all unspotted ships remain unknown. Then when players see their TF catch 1 or 2 transports and sink them they would be happy but not realize that 20 others escaped.

I could be mistaken but I believe part of the single transport being hit many times is that it is the sighted ship and no other targets are inr range.

During night battles at close range the "hits" total shown often includes many small calibur hits that do no real damage to heavy ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Bottom line, if you don't "vote" (participate in the discussion)you are IRRELEVANT.

At the risk of being pedantic, no, he's not irrelevant, he's Tankerace, this is irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Ugh... The AI was not designed....... So keep the points for the AI, just don't end the game for those that want to play on! Let the AI use the point values for what it needs them for, but don't end the game!

Sometimes you are IMPOSSIBLE to deal with.

The surface combat in this narrow situation is BROKEN. The communication of why the research is the way it is, was entirely MISSING from the documentation. Allied ASW is BROKEN, it is TOO potent. DD's in bombardment TF's containing BB's and CA's is BROKEN. Ai death spirals it can't seem to deal with. All these are already FULLY recognized by the developers from everything we have been told. Yet the betas opposed changes in ALL of these areas. Why?

When finally cornered you guys you always fall back on the old tired "chaning this will have unintended consequences and new bugs elsewhere", or "time devoted to that means bugs aren't being fixed" . Fine..... Then the very rigidity of the design itself is an issue then, and "who's bugs?"

A real set of disturbing traits has developed in these threads. You "betas" or at least most, are adamantly opposed to EVERY design flaw fix ever posted. When finally cornered you want USERS????? to create the new designs for the developers! What software firm has CUSTOMERS provide design solutions for the developer??? That is INSANE!

You damned betas are becoming bigger liabilities in a lot of ways than assets at this stage of the game, mostly because of your entrenched attitudes and egos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

You damned betas are becoming bigger liabilities in a lot of ways than assets at this stage of the game, mostly because of your entrenched attitudes and egos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Off the tutorial, I ran some quickies:
First one, is a large SC going in at night against some AK’s(7k variety)
For this one, I had forgotten to start as HTH, so the Jap air was active, but should not be a factor in the night combat results that are here. Since the AI was on, for some reason it had split off the Genoa Maru on its own. Thus the two combats.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/12/44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 58,70

Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
BB Washington
CA Baltimore
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Bennion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 58,70

Japanese Ships
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
AK Glasgow Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 58, and is sunk
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
BB Washington
CA Baltimore
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Bennion

All in all, fair dispersion, the 2 unhit and the Glasgow were the only survivors (Glasgow with 18/2/4 damage from her 5 alleged hits (I say alleged because of the FOW, later on, there are ships that are said to have been hit, but have no damage) Hague got riddled by DD’s as the ranges varied from 8 to 6 thru 4 rounds (8.7,6,7)

Round 2:

Same ships, broken into 2 TF; 1BB, 1CA and 4 DD per.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/12/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 58,70
Ranges 6,4,2,9 (kyds)
Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 2 damage of 19/0/0
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage damage 89/72/28
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 14, on fire, heavy damage(sank during turn)
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire (28/14/13) believed to be a 16” hit

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Bell
DD Bennett

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 58,70
Ranges 24,21, 15,10 (kyds)
Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire (31/17/19) another 16” hit
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage (28/14/13) 5”inchers

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Boston
DD Anthony
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Bell
DD Bennett

So, several sunk, several severe damages and a couple of light ones.
It was the same group on patrol that hit twice you will notice. The other group with lesser captain didn’t engage at all. This group has the default Radm on board that comes with Washington.

Round 3:

I forgot to save the combat for 3. It was to be a day time action but I miscalculated somehow and ended up in a night one again, even though the movement rates should have precluded it. I had set the American on Cruise and it still covered 3 hexes during the “night” turn.

Results were about the same…2 away clean, 1 slight damage, rest sunk. Again, there was a ship “hit” but with no damage on the TF screen next turn.

Round 4:
Crap, still got a night action, I must be tired.
Small group, decent dispersion, this one got surprise! and I think that helped the dispersion of shot, most of the attackers pick on fresh vessels in the first round.
Ranges were 6, 3, 8 kyds


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 60,70

Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 17, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru
AK Goyo Maru
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 1 (18/2/2)
AK Hakkai Maru, Shell hits 37, and is sunk
AK Hakodate Maru
AK Hakonesan Maru, Shell hits 1 (1/0/0) FOW at work
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire (50/35/16)

Allied Ships
BB Washington
CA Baltimore
DD Anthony, Shell hits 1
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger

Phase 5: Decided, the heck with it, just send in a DesDiv and see what they do.
From the results, I don’t think I will bother with BB’s vs, merchies anymore.
Ranges were 18,15,9 kyds and it stayed on 9 for a LONG time.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 58,70

Japanese Ships
AK Genoa Maru
AK Getuyo Maru, Shell hits 3 (3/6/3)
AK Glasgow Maru
AK Gosyu Maru, Shell hits 21, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage (sunk)
AK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 44, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Hague Maru, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage (99/62/33)
AK Hakkai Maru
AK Hakodate Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire (40/12/22)
AK Hakonesan Maru
AK Hakubasan Maru, Shell hits 1 (11/0/0)

Allied Ships
DD Anthony
DD Aulick
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Charles Badger


What I really think is happening is that the BB’s with their “low” ammo load outs are prompting any non-hyper aggressive leader to withdraw from combat after the ammo levels go down past a third used. In addition, during daylight combat, inclusion of BB tends to be a force reducer. It prompts the firing to open at a greater distance and closure is not as swift nor sure. DD’s start closer and will get closer on their own.

Both times that I had the BB division go in by itself followed by the DD’s, the DD’s found and attacked the merchants w/o BB commitment afterward. Actually, I don’t mind this, as if there WERE a enemy SC TF around, it would be nice to have the BB division ready to engage it with full mags and no wear on the barrel liners ( not that barrel liner wear is modeled, but I guess that is another possible never-ending debate…..)

So, my suggestion to the players would be to leave the wagons back if you are merchie hunting and leave it to the littler guys; for the devs/programmers (if they care to listen) perhaps a simple line of : IF NO combat vessel in TF (ie DE or higher) then TF auto surprised, no matter the DL on the ATTACKING TF.

Just some thoughts from a nut in the gallery.

quote:


A check for surface ships like the one for submarines 16% (8)

Tone down PT boats 8% (4) (Overwhelming)

DDs stand off when BBs and CAs are present in Bombardmet TF 38% (19)

Better chance of destroying unprotected transports in naval combat 8% (4) (Overwhelming)

Sub Vs Sub capability 0% (0) ( I like this one)

A portion of a transport’s cargo to be destroyed when its damaged 14% (7)

More Hot Keys (see wish list) 6% (3)

Additional Filters (see wish list) 10% (5)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I think the problem can be netted out like this:

During Daytime Surface Combat, an "extra" closure step needs to be added to the front of existing routines when dealing with a weakly/unprotected group to bring the ships into closer proximity before letting loose the hounds. This would bring Daytime unprotected convoys into the damage range of Night Combat which most folks are perfectly happy with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I think the problem can be netted out like this:

During Daytime Surface Combat, an "extra" closure step needs to be added to the front of existing routines when dealing with a weakly/unprotected group to bring the ships into closer proximity before letting loose the hounds. This would bring Daytime unprotected convoys into the damage range of Night Combat which most folks are perfectly happy with.

I think you're part way there, Frag. What the protestors really want is believable results.
I'm not exstatic about the Night Combat Results either---but at least given poor visability
and general confusion they can be explained. Maybe not to everyone's satisfaction, but
at least with the appearance of reasonability. But when we see a daytime surface action
where one side has superior speed, superior firepower, and superior numbers---and the
other has a bunch of floating targets, any reasonable person expects to see a one-sided
massacre. Bad visability is the ONLY thing the second side can hope for, and it's not
always conviently available when the stuff hits the fan. If there had been general agree-
ment that the results being seen indicated a problem nad would be looked at, these
postings would not climb into the 4-500 levels. But there always seemed to be a few
participants that would leap to the defense of obvious problems with all kinds of just plain
silly rationalizations that "everything was fine". That's why the whole thing has gotten so out-of-hand. Frustration. You seem to be pushing to "put a lid on it" until the designers
have a chance to look it over and offer a solution. I'm with you. It's degenerating into
a lot of yelling which never helps.

How about we ALL "give it a rest" until someone from 2by3 can post and tell us just what
they feel needs to be done and how they hope to go about it?

quote:

I think Joel already committed to giving this a look-see a LONG time ago, and even agreed the daytime combat against unprotected transports did not appear to be a very good representation. But some, (Mogami), continued to drone on, endlessly, that there was no problem of any kind.....thus, the frustration.

quote:

You dug your heels in on the research/upgrade thing and this one, Frag dug in on the Auto Victory toggle thing...all you did was claim that anyone achieving 4 to1 vs the AI was exploiting the AI, something that had nothing to do with the issue at all......

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:


Mogami doesn't drone on ... Mogami simply reports what he sees playing his games. As he is quite good, and plays a great number of games (probably more then anyone else here), what he sees is

a) weighted by how much he plays
b) weighted by his skills

It is completely silly to characterize his posts.

Think like this ...

Two expert players square off and never send unescorted transports because they view such as being completely foolish. They will never see any problem with surface combat.

True, I saw this a bit in my early games, but I have had only one such engagement in the past several weeks, a small Dutch combat TF ambushed a small Jap unescorted landing TF at Brunei. Got the typical "Pound the first AK into Atomized dust sydrome and leave the others alone syndrome". And I intend to go out of my way as an Allied player to avoid these engagements ENTIRELY for the rest of the campaign.

Which is why I didn't vote for this one. It IS a problem, just because Mogami doesn't encounter it because he is an expert and only plays other experts doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but it is RARE problem, meaning very low priority.

quote:


Take two newbies who don't know any better and have them play ... right off, bang, massive transport TF runs into massive combat TF and results look strange.

It's the same kind of thing with Bombardment TF's ... New players don't suppress the guns with days of air attacks so it's a huge problem for them. Experienced players bomb the guns into the stone age then send in Bombardment TF's to mop up whats left ... One sees a huge problem, the other sees no problem at all. Why?

Different play styles and different skills make for different results on the curve.

But in the RARE instances these do happen they need to be resolved reasonably. There will always be LOTS of newbies, and if they are trotting around unescorted transport TFS all over creation, they really SHOULD have their little bottoms spanked from time to time....

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

True, I saw this a bit in my early games, but I have had only one such engagement in the past several weeks, a small Dutch combat TF ambushed a small Jap unescorted landing TF at Brunei. Got the typical "Pound the first AK into Atomized dust sydrome and leave the others alone syndrome". And I intend to go out of my way as an Allied player to avoid these engagements ENTIRELY for the rest of the campaign.

Which is why I didn't vote for this one. It IS a problem, just because Mogami doesn't encounter it because he is an expert and only plays other experts doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but it is RARE problem, meaning very low priority.


But in the RARE instances these do happen they need to be resolved reasonably. There will always be LOTS of newbies, and if they are trotting around unescorted transport TFS all over creation, they really SHOULD have their little bottoms spanked from time to time....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

You dug your heels in on the research/upgrade thing and this one, Frag dug in on the Auto Victory toggle thing...all you did was claim that anyone achieving 4 to1 vs the AI was exploiting the AI, something that had nothing to do with the issue at all......

Hi, I never posted a single post on research. And upgrades when asked I pointed out were there for the AI. I don't care if humnas use them or not.
It is not opposing the toggle to say the AI uses the points. It may not have anything to do with the subject but it is not opposition. I think you create the opposition.

In the current thread if I try to explain how a routine is supposed to be working you take it as opposition. I don't place that into your head you are already looking for it and eager to believe it. In this thread alone I've said at least a hald dozen times I don't care what they change.

If you say "I think there is something wrong" (well I'll just put it in your words "This is broken") And then I say not I think it is working according to design. This is how it works.

You twist it to my opposing any change.

I wonder how can you suggest a change to something before you know how it is actually working and whether or not it is working according to design or is producing bugs?

No one denies a person can say the reults or not good you don't have to understand the process for that. But once you start suggesting changes you should at least know what you are changing.

If I oppose something I'll be sure to let you know. I'll use sentences like "I am against"
You can't see the difference between that and "It is supposed to be doing this"

The topic of the present thread deals with damage produced. More then once I have asked how those results are obtained and stated I don't get them.

I fail to see how this is always converted into myy opposition. You know I'm a tester because you insult me over it every chance you get. Tell me, if you were a tester and read a post by a person who was getting results you had not seen before what would you ask them?
To help learn more I explain in great detail where perceptions of what is the problem are incorrect and it is called defending the system.

The truth is the transports scatter. The question is are they being afforded too much benifit from this?

The scatter element is going to remain.
The numbers used might be changed.

I don't know how you became the Crusader for the poor Oppressed by Beta team forum users but I think you can stop now.
You are allowed to post your opinions. So am I. I post mine much less often and I do not need you to express them for me. Unless you actually get them right. So far you have been wrong on every count.

Once last time. I don't care what you change. After it is changed I will test the change to make sure it is working. And then if it is working as designed and some knoyhead posts it is screwed up I will say "No it is working as designed" And they will think that menas I am opposed to changing it. You have made it into some "You are with me or you are agin me" thing. No it's simply "It's working" or "It's a bug send a save"

If I add some comments about how it is supposed to work they might be pointless to you but I provide them so other people can gain a ltittle more insight into the issue.

"Turn of AV"

My response "OK" thats all you need "The AI uses it" OK so I say it. It does not stop you from turning it off and it explains to anyone who cares why it is there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

True, I saw this a bit in my early games, but I have had only one such engagement in the past several weeks, a small Dutch combat TF ambushed a small Jap unescorted landing TF at Brunei. Got the typical "Pound the first AK into Atomized dust sydrome and leave the others alone syndrome". And I intend to go out of my way as an Allied player to avoid these engagements ENTIRELY for the rest of the campaign.

Which is why I didn't vote for this one. It IS a problem, just because Mogami doesn't encounter it because he is an expert and only plays other experts doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but it is RARE problem, meaning very low priority.


But in the RARE instances these do happen they need to be resolved reasonably. There will always be LOTS of newbies, and if they are trotting around unescorted transport TFS all over creation, they really SHOULD have their little bottoms spanked from time to time....

Yes, but you inject into your posts that (a) It's our fault for not seeing the problem and (b) we are against fixing the problem

Both of these are (a) not appreciated and (b) completely false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You kill me. If that one encounter was the sole basis of complaint Joel would not be looking into the issue. It is posts like that using those kinds of examples that cloud the issue. It is fairly clear that that particular transport TF did not escape unscathed.
That result might be the normal. I don't think it tells us anything. Without the replay and file we can't tell if the USN missed the other 2 ships or failed to fire at them. Since you don't watch the animation you don't know either. All you do is cry you didn't sink all four.