RE: Surface Combat Sux

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: Surface Combat Sux

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: Surface Combat Sux

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:53:04 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Lets face it. There were a few people who were telling us the game design was wrong before they even had it on their machines. It is the "Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome.
Go back to when you first arrived at Matrix and read your own posts.
I am used to hearing it from you. When someone else has a problem and you arrive to take over the complaint I then have to spend a great deal of time and effort to let other people know that what "YOU" are posting is not the problem.

"It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done. " Zoomie1980 4-23-04

LOL! I usually don't get involved until you or some other WitP "legend" begins to dig their heels in and stick their head in the sand. It is CLEAR that there was a valid problem with the AutoVictory stuff. Clear people had a problem with upgrade paths. Clear people had a problem with research as it connected to upgrades. Clear the Allied ASW was a problem. Clear there is a problem with daytime surface combat as it pertains to unescorted transports.

And it is clear you or some other tester has denied, at some point, that none of those were problems and nothing more than the "game functioning as designed". And then, when the posters finally convince the developers that it is indeed a problem, you guys throw your hands up and either threated to "take your ball and go home", or simply claim "I don't really care one way or the other and never did..." Rich!

And I've been at Matrix as long as anyone. I've been here under at least a dozen different Monikers over the years. This is just my latest one.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 421

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 9:56:28 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, You spend enough time in here to make 20 turns per day.

And once again No your 4 Transport post only clouded the issue. It is not an example of what is being looked at. There is a large difference between a ship being fired on and missed and not fired on at all. You don't even know what the case for what you posted is because you didn't watch the combat and didn't save the replay. But then you come on the forum and post it as an example of a design flaw?

I've never had to hide who I am.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 2:59:47 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 422

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 10:04:58 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You spend enough time in here to make 20 turns per day.

And once again No your 4 Transport post only clouded the issue. It is not an example of what is being looked at. There is a large difference between a ship being fired on and missed and not fired on at all. You don't even know what the case for what you posted is because you didn't watch the combat and didn't save the replay. But then you come on the forum and post it as an example of a design flaw?

Absolutely, unequivicably, YES. It is a PERFECT example of the problem. It ILLUSTRATES the KIND of result MANY are REPEATEDLY seeing under this SPECIFIC circumstance. One ship in an unescorted transport task force absorbing a RIDICULOUS percentage of the shots in a daytime engagement with a surface combat TF. I don't need animations, save game files to demonstrate the problem or prove it exists. I have seen several simialr results in my own games, all involving the same type of situation coupled with many other posters who have posted the same exact thing. That's all the PROOF I, or the developers, and most others, apparently, need. The fact that YOU don't think that's good enough is part of YOUR problem and part of my problem with you.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 423

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 10:20:55 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

One ship in an unescorted transport task force absorbing a RIDICULOUS percentage of the shots in a daytime engagement with a surface combat TF.

It is absolutely no proof at all.

All it shows is one ship happened to be in the range of a small calibur weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

Viewing the combat clearly shows *Hey* only one ships name is shown ... guess thats why it's taking all the fire.

A round later ... *Hey*, two more ship names are now shown and they are now getting attacked too.

...

TF's break apart ... *Hey*, that 4th ship name never showed up ... guess it was never sighted ... that explains why it took no hits ... ah! I see, a Rain Squall! poor visability ...

AAR posts tell you *ABSOLUTELY* nothing.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 424

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 10:24:14 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, OK I am Pigheaded.

4 Transports in a TF ALL are fired at 200 times by enemy surface combat force. Battle ends when surface combat force runs out of main gun ammo.

1 Transport is hit 75 times and sinks
Another is hit 25 times and torpedo heavy damage sinks after battle
other 2 transports are missed.

This is not a problem.

4 Transports in a TF 3 Are spotted 2 sank 1 fired on Missed this is not a problem.

4 transports in a TF all are spotted 1 is targeted after is sinks another is targeted battle ends This is a problem

You don't know what the case is. Both examples 1 and 2 occur as well and they are not problems.

Your example does not look like a problem and we can't use it as an example but you don't know the simple truth. You just don't like the results. And for Allied TF getting bad results early in war is not a design flaw.

What is being looked at is when after TF scatter ships that are spotted are not targeted. A portion of the TF will most always escape but what is spotted and in range should be fired on. This does not mean this portion will be damaged or sunk or even hit. But they will be fired on. People who do not watch the combat replay will not know there is a difference.

Ship A in a TF may target a transport and fire 50 rounds hitting 25 times
Ship B in a TF may target a transport and fire 50 rounds hitting 2 times.

People who don't watch the combat will then post "The problem is still here. See where transport A took all the fire"

You may think I am being picky but the truth is I have to sort out the details. If because of posts like yours they change something it will change the results in games where there are no problems or correct the existing problem too far the other direction.

Not every problem player A experiances occurs in player B's games. The "fix" has to stop the problem in player A's game without introducing a new problem in player B's game. You understand that don't you?

That you cannot see this is not my problem. I know what I am doing.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 3:33:04 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 425

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 10:44:43 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK I am Pigheaded.

4 Transports in a TF ALL are fired at 200 times by enemy surface combat force. Battle ends when surface combat force runs out of main gun ammo.

1 Transport is hit 75 times and sinks
Another is hit 25 times and torpedo heavy damage sinks after battle
other 2 transports are missed.

This is not a problem.

4 Transports in a TF 3 Are spotted 2 sank 1 fired on Missed this is not a problem.

4 transports in a TF all are spotted 1 is targeted after is sinks another is targeted battle ends This is a problem

You don't know what the case is. Both examples 1 and 2 occur as well and they are not problems.

Your example does not look like a problem and we can't use it as an example but you don't know the simple truth. You just don't like the results. And for Allied TF getting bad results early in war is not a design flaw.

What is being looked at is when after TF scatter ships that are spotted are not targeted. A portion of the TF will most always escape but what is spotted and in range should be fired on. This does not mean this portion will be damaged or sunk or even hit. But they will be fired on. People who do not watch the combat replay will not know there is a difference.

Ship A in a TF may target a transport and fire 50 rounds hitting 25 times
Ship B in a TF may target a transport and fire 50 rounds hitting 2 times.

People who don't watch the combat will then post "The problem is still here. See where transport A took all the fire"

You may think I am being picky but the truth is I have to sort out the details. If because of posts like yours they change something it will change the results in games where there are no problems or correct the existing problem too far the other direction.

Not every problem player A experiances occurs in player B's games. The "fix" has to stop the problem in player A's game without introducing a new problem in player B's game. You understand that don't you?

That you cannot see this is not my problem. I know what I am doing.

What is about CONTEXT you people can't seem to understand. The example I posted is an EXAMPLE that does NOTHING MORE than ILLUSTRATE the BROAD AND GENERAL TREND that engagements of these kinds seem to produce the effect illutrated above and that effect is simply WRONG! If it happens once in a while, fine, chalk it up to chance, if it happens almost all the time under these general conditions (and it DOES), then its a problem. That's already been PROVEN and ACCEPTED! Regardless of whether YOU have accepted it.

And that has already been PROVEN and ACCEPTED as being a problem and will be looked at by the developers. It is a DONE DEAL, so you beating the dead horse is pointless. It is a PROBLEM, it has been DEFINED and RECOGNIZED as such no matter how much YOU may disagree.

And I don't give a damn WHAT the fix is or if there is even a fix that will be attempted. I am more that satisfied that this is now OFFICIALLY viewed as an anonomly that appears to be working improperly by the only people that really matter, developers. After that, I simply DON' T CARE! But you obviously do, so that's ENTIRELY YOUR problem, not mine.

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 9/10/2004 8:49:54 PM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 426

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 10:48:56 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, (Mandark laugh) Who do you think the developers give the changes to to verify they are working?

You can't read. I've shown why your example is not the example that is being used as a basis for any change. If you had never posted we would have been looking sooner. Your example did not prove there was a need to look it just took up our time to study and conclude we couldn't use it.

No one has ever posted a problem that a tester did not pick up and carry to the private forum. However when bogus posts are examined they slow the process down because they do not show a problem.

The extent of my opposition as you call it in this thread has been

1. I'm not seeing that, how are you getting it?
2. This is how it is supposed to work. (which I guess you interpet to be "It is working the way it is supposed to work") No I am letting you know what is supposed to be happening. I am not telling you what is happening in your game, I don't know that and am trying to find out

You can't tell me what is happening in your game because you are not watching. So you don't know if you are really having the same problem that was posted at the start. But you do want to jump in and point out another problem whether or not you are having it.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 3:58:14 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 427

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 10:54:50 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, (Mandark laugh) Who do you think the developers give the changes to to verify they are working?

You can't read. I've shown why your example is not the example that is being used as a basis for any change.

And you think I give a damn WHICH sample they are looking at? It is one example among and INFINITE number of examples anyone can get using the editor to generate this KIND of an engagement.

Again, stop being so full of yourself. I can't help it your entire friggin' life and sense of self worth is tied up in a computer game. The fact that this is now known and accepted as a problem is all I care about. Whose example they use to fix it, or if they even bother to fix it all is something I could care less about. Like you, I don't hardly ever even get these engagments in my own game. This thing will not effect my games at all one way or another.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 428

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:04:28 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Oh my. I'm full of myself?

This is not an arena for you to feed your ego by scoring brownie points off me.

I'll be around when your gone.

Any changes made to WITP would have been made if you had never been heard of.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 4:05:14 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 429

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:10:18 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Ok guys, this is getting way the Hell out of hand, and you are getting absolutley nothing accomplished. Zoomie, if you think the problem is that bad, and you think the devs won't look at it, all I can say is live with it or make your own version of WiTP. Arguing with Mogami and trading blows at each others egos isn't going to solve a damn thing.

I agree and respect what Mogami says. And after looking at AARs, reading this thread, and looking at my own game, I can say I don't see it as too much of a problem anymore. Certainly not one worth all this. I suggest, for both of your sakes, stop this flame war before you ruin the game for each of you. We are each entitled to our opinions, no matter how right, wrong, or stupid they might be. And it is not anyones job to change them. Respect each others opinions, and back down.

This is just a game, and continuing at this rate is going to hurt the game and the problem more than it helps it.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 430

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:23:42 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

This thing will not effect my games at all one way or another.

You certainly invest a lot of effort into something that will not affect your game.

Perhaps you post just to be seen to be fighting the big bad "Mogami"

and his evil henchman "Mr.Frag"

Feel free to continue your rant, I'm sure everyone in the forum is equally amused by your posts.

As Mogami says, "we're not going anywhere."

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 431

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:27:16 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done. " Zoomie1980 4-23-04

Hi, Kinda says it all for me. I know where he is coming from what I don't know is WHY?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 432

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:31:16 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, (Mandark laugh) Who do you think the developers give the changes to to verify they are working?

You can't read. I've shown why your example is not the example that is being used as a basis for any change. If you had never posted we would have been looking sooner. Your example did not prove there was a need to look it just took up our time to study and conclude we couldn't use it.

No one has ever posted a problem that a tester did not pick up and carry to the private forum. However when bogus posts are examined they slow the process down because they do not show a problem.

The extent of my opposition as you call it in this thread has been

1. I'm not seeing that, how are you getting it?
2. This is how it is supposed to work. (which I guess you interpet to be "It is working the way it is supposed to work") No I am letting you know what is supposed to be happening. I am not telling you what is happening in your game, I don't know that and am trying to find out

You can't tell me what is happening in your game because you are not watching. So you don't know if you are really having the same problem that was posted at the start. But you do want to jump in and point out another problem whether or not you are having it.

1. Use the editor. Create a situation in the editor with TF's that are made up in a similar fashion co-located so they engage in a surface action. The same general TYPE of result occurs virtually EVERY time. Another poster already did this and posted the AAR's. I guess you ignored that one, to. I see at least three other AAR's showing the same general type of of result with same general type of engaging forces under the same general conditions.

2. The broad average of ALL the results under these SPECIFIC TYPES of conditions is simply unrealistic. You and Frag may be able to adequately explain away each and every one of them, INDIVIDUALLY, but taken as an AGGREGATE, the GENERAL TENDANCY is an unrealistic result.

This is what I mean about fixing a problem in general DESIGN. You are approaching this as if this were a SPECIFIC BUG I am seeing in a particular game in a unique set of conditions duplicated only by having a save file of that engagement. You cannot duplicate this DESIGN LEVEL problem ( I am loathe to call it a "bug" ) in that fashion. Nor can you validate the "fix" by running one file with the same configuration over and over again.

The problem is that this GENERAL TYPE of engagement seems to be "broken". Each, individual one, is probably OK. ALL of them, taken together, is what is required to show the problem. Frag and your explanations of why my particular example may have worked out the way it did is a fine explanation for MY EXAMPLE. But it is wholly INADEQUATE an explanation for why virtually ALL similarly situated example results in roughly the SAME type of result.

The testing and validation techniques you two are using are what amounts to using UNIT test techniques to conduct a SYSTEM test. This is not a specific unit level problem, this is a broad system performance level problem only definable over large number of samples taken in aggregate. Parsing one simple replay file and forcing desired results will NOT NECESSARILY resolve this kind of a problem.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 433

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:37:16 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

This thing will not effect my games at all one way or another.

You certainly invest a lot of effort into something that will not affect your game.

Perhaps you post just to be seen to be fighting the big bad "Mogami" and his evil henchman "Mr.Frag"

Feel free to continue your rant, I'm sure everyone in the forum is equally amused by your posts.

As Mogami says, "we're not going anywhere."

I'm posting becasue you two seem to be unable to differentiate between problems that are specific "bugs" and problems that are more abstract, system level issues. properly addressing the two require two completely different approaches. Mogami is approaching this issue as if this were a problem with one particular AAR result, as if this were a specific "bug" reproduced only by me providing a save file of this example. It is nothing like that at all.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 434

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/10/2004 11:47:58 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Ok guys, this is getting way the Hell out of hand, and you are getting absolutley nothing accomplished. Zoomie, if you think the problem is that bad, and you think the devs won't look at it, all I can say is live with it or make your own version of WiTP. Arguing with Mogami and trading blows at each others egos isn't going to solve a damn thing.

I agree and respect what Mogami says. And after looking at AARs, reading this thread, and looking at my own game, I can say I don't see it as too much of a problem anymore. Certainly not one worth all this. I suggest, for both of your sakes, stop this flame war before you ruin the game for each of you. We are each entitled to our opinions, no matter how right, wrong, or stupid they might be. And it is not anyones job to change them. Respect each others opinions, and back down.

This is just a game, and continuing at this rate is going to hurt the game and the problem more than it helps it.

In this case, it has nothing to do with this particular issue anymore. It has more to do with the FACT that not every identified problem in the game can be solved with someones game file and recreation instructions. There are "bugs" and there are "design flaws". You can't "debug" a design flaw. Yes, this is a very minor, nearly inconsequential design flaw overall, but it is nevertheless, a flaw that has long since been identified as such by the coders! But it is not going to be fixed adequately if they are going to approach it as if it were the same scale of problem as the disappearing airlifted units bug. That was a specific "bug". this is a "design flaw" as minor a one as it may be. The AV toggle was a "feature" issue, a third entirely different concept.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 435

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 12:03:17 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, It appears hopeless. I am going to try one last time and then leave you to your own devises.

1. Having results that occur in many games DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF THE WAR can be caused by things other then the TF not targeting transports. Fail to hit a ship is not a design flaw. Failure to target a ship is. Examples where ships are fired on but not hit are not examples of where ships are not targeted. Since you cannot tell us what the example you posted was we cannot use it.

2. The subject of this thread is not "Poor Allied results early in War" It is "Ships not being targeted when spotted" once again not "My ships can't hit the broadside of a barn"

To be used as an example a player has to

1. Encounter enemy transport TF in daylight without escort
2. See that enemy Transports are spotted (you can see their name in animation)
3. Have enough surface ships to engage all the spotted ships.
4. See that no surface ship fire at the spotted ship (not sinks, or damages or even hits just fails to fire)

What cannot be used is when
1. Encounter enemy TF at night without escort. (might be a problem but not the same problem I am currently checking)
(more transports should not be spotted. However those that are spotted should be fired at if there are enough surface ships to do so )(The current problem with daylight is ships are being protected as if they had done a night time scatter when in fact they have been spotted)

2. Encounter with enemy TF in daylight without escort where all spotted ships take fire or there are more spotted ships then surface ships and the number of transports fired at is equal to or greater then the number of surface ships present. Just because they miss does not make it this problem.

This problem is scattered ships and spotted ships are being given the same protection. Once a ship evades (scatters) it should not be spotted and is immune to fire. Spotted ships are those that have been caught and they should be exposed to fire.

If you can't see what I am talking about it is because you choose not to. I'm really posting this response so all the other readers can understand.

This is what Joel is concerned about. Not poor shooting by Allies. There will be hundreds of valid surface engagements where the Allies do not hit what they shoot at.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/10/2004 5:09:59 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 436

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 12:29:07 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It appears hopeless. I am going to try one last time and then leave you to your own devises.

1. Having results that occur in many games DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF THE WAR can be caused by things other then the TF not targeting transports. Fail to hit a ship is not a design flaw. Failure to target a ship is. Examples where ships are fired on but not hit are not examples of where ships are not targeted. Since you cannot tell us what the example you posted was we cannot use it.

2. The subject of this thread is not "Poor Allied results early in War" It is "Ships not being targeted when spotted" once again not "My ships can't hit the broadside of a barn"

To be used as an example a player has to

1. Encounter enemy transport TF in daylight without escort
2. See that enemy Transports are spotted (you can see their name in animation)
3. Have enough surface ships to engage all the spotted ships.
4. See that no surface ship fire at the spotted ship (not sinks, or damages or even hits just fails to fire)

What cannot be used is when
1. Encounter enemy TF at night without escort. (might be a problem but not the same problem I am currently checking)
(more transports should not be spotted. However those that are spotted should be fired at if there are enough surface ships to do so )(The current problem with daylight is ships are being protected as if they had done a night time scatter when in fact they have been spotted)

2. Encounter with enemy TF in daylight without escort where all spotted ships take fire or there are more spotted ships then surface ships and the number of transports fired at is equal to or greater then the number of surface ships present. Just because they miss does not make it this problem.

This problem is scattered ships and spotted ships are being given the same protection. Once a ship evades (scatters) it should not be spotted and is immune to fire. Spotted ships are those that have been caught and they should be exposed to fire.

If you can't see what I am talking about it is because you choose not to. I'm really posting this response so all the other readers can understand.

This is what Joel is concerned about. Not poor shooting by Allies. There will be hundreds of valid surface engagements where the Allies do not hit what they shoot at.

All I can see are combat results. AAR's that have roughly the same general makeup of anywhere from 4-50+ enescorted transport TF's (AK/TK/AP's) being engaged by surface combat TF's of a MIXED vessle type of roughly a few CLs, maybe a CA, and 6-10 DD's, engaging in daylight. Almost EVERYONE of these examples show results where ONE transport gets 90+% of all hits, one other tends to get another 5-7% and the other 3-5% hit on one a few others. Attacking surface TF's made up all DD's attacking the same transport TF's do NOT seem to have the same problem, only attackers of MIXED type do, if that has any significance to you.

All I have to identify the problem are results. I don't know WHY they come out the way they do, nor do I really care, although you description of the problem source sounds just fine to me. I'm not really interested in the technical details of the underlieing model at all. I'm not interested in all the "scattering, spotting, shooting, whatevers....that's you and Joel's baliwick. And I am not concerned over the ensuing damage levels either. As far as I'm concerned the damage resolution from hits works fine. The spread of hits themselves that's at issue.

All I, as a USER, see and care about is the END RESULT taken over the AGGREGATE of these types of engagement. HOW you fix it, IF you fix it at all, is your issue and problem. The proof it has been fixed is when the USERS see a better "scatter" of hits across more AK's taken over the AGGREGATE of ALL similar type engagements. If one or two are still "whacky" well that's chance, but the averages should be more "realistic".

Reading on and on about all the intricate details of how surface combat is resolved leads me to believe the entire surface combat resolution engine is somewhat "over designed" from the get-go taken in context with the overall abstraction level of the game. I think Gary's ancient surface to surface combat resolution system in the old North Atlantic '86 game would have been just fine here as well. And that was what, maybe 50 lines of Applesoft basic code? But that's neither here nor there.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 437

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 12:42:51 AM

Oliver Heindorf

Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline

hey Zoomie, as I am on this forum from time to time, I am more than amused about your posts. not only in this thread but the entire 3 months would have been sooooooooooo boring here without your posts.

not only you have achived to insult the entire beta testers for nothing that you could have done better, you managed even that the whole readers here are mainly against your kind how you critzie the whole game.

if the game would be as bad as you describe, why dont you just leave and let us alone.

in another thread, you posted that rarly any games will last longer than 3 months on your HDD. WHEN IS THIS FREAKING DATE PLEASE.

go over and play arcade games.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 438

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 12:44:02 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Good one Oliver.

_____________________________

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 439

History of Beta Opposition - 9/11/2004 12:53:02 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, For anyone without time to read this entire monster. Here is the complete history of Beta opposition to finding cure for this problem.
Page 2 Nik "It's on list"
Frag proposed fix
Page 3 Mogami begins to investage problem (it's on list) In very first post top of page three says there might be problem
Page 7 Bottom Frag explain problem
Page 8 Mogami explains scatter. (since we think this is culprit)
Mogami says "scatter is too effective"
Mogami says "every spotted ship should be sunk" (providing of couse ammo and other thing allow)
Page 9 Mogami says "Don't care what changes made will test to see they work
page 10 Zoomie1980 appears for first time

quote:

Why do you folks always take such a black and white stance on EVERYTHING? 1 in 20 ships taking 95% of the hits is completely assinine no matter how you look at it, leadership, experience, anything. History does not in any way validate that. But that does not mean all 20 take 5%. That's just as assinine as the former! It is perfectly logical, say for the lead/first-encountered ship to take 50-60% maybe 65-70% at night, with #2 taking another 25% or so, with the rest scattered about, maybe half the other taking at least one or two hits with maybe 8-10 escaping completely unhit.

It is a matter of DEGREE. There are some aspects of this game that are in the EXTREME and that's what most people get worked up about.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 440

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 1:05:37 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

hey Zoomie, as I am on this forum from time to time, I am more than amused about your posts. not only in this thread but the entire 3 months would have been sooooooooooo boring here without your posts.

not only you have achived to insult the entire beta testers for nothing that you could have done better, you managed even that the whole readers here are mainly against your kind how you critzie the whole game.

if the game would be as bad as you describe, why dont you just leave and let us alone.

in another thread, you posted that rarly any games will last longer than 3 months on your HDD. WHEN IS THIS FREAKING DATE PLEASE.

go over and play arcade games.

LOL Oliver.

You missed out that the also has taken various shots at the developers as well, the betas, and especially Mogami, at the moment seem to be his latest targets. Something wrong with the Zoomie DL/targeting algorithms perhaps?

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 441

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 1:25:10 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

This issue is being worked on.

I would like to point something out if its not already been mentioned. A TF with any mission other than Combat TF should not be chasing merchants all over the ocean. If a Bombardment TF enters a hex with a Transport TF, it should use opportunity fire but still proceed with its primary mission. How many of you use the tactic of sending in a TF on a bombardment mission with the hope of catching a transport TF? I do all the time because I want the TF to sprint in and out at night.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 442

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 1:31:48 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

This issue is being worked on.

I would like to point something out if its not already been mentioned. A TF with any mission other than Combat TF should not be chasing merchants all over the ocean. If a Bombardment TF enters a hex with a Transport TF, it should use opportunity fire but still proceed with its primary mission. How many of you use the tactic of sending in a TF on a bombardment mission with the hope of catching a transport TF? I do all the time because I want the TF to sprint in and out at night.

Sorry to say that little rules twist never occurred to me. I've always used bombardment
when I want to bombard something, and surface action when I was chasing ships. Have
to keep this in mind for the future.

_____________________________

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 443

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 2:05:45 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, A TF set to retire (only enter target hex at night) will never engage in daylight surface combat in the target hex. The only way a retire TF can fight a day battle is if it and enemy TF exist in same hex other then target hex during daylight. However in this case the retire order would result in after the combat the TF would be heading to it's homeport and not the assigned target hex. (It is now retiring after combat.

None of the above has anything to do with the issue of this thread. It is provided simply to help players understand the effect of retire orders on surface combat or bombardment TF.
If you were already aware of all of this then.........never mind.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 444

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 2:22:55 AM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

Something wrong with the Zoomie DL/targeting algorithms perhaps?

He's given up on me, it's Mogami's turn

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 445

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 2:24:41 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I didn't scatter soon enough.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 446

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 2:25:34 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

lol, you two are better than the comody channel..

< Message edited by freeboy -- 9/11/2004 8:25:49 AM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 447

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 2:30:31 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, In the end. I consider all wargamers to be a band of brothers. If your not having fun doing what interests you and helps you understand a subject you love you are wasting your time. The games keep score the forum boards should not. Matrix/2by3 are gamers doing games for gamers. Every idea or opinion has merit and should be allowed freedom to be expressed without fear of starting a personal flame war or witch hunt.
The ultimate objective of the developers and testers is a game that makes as many people happy as can be.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 448

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 3:07:04 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

fun, oh yea thats why I play

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 449

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/11/2004 3:41:28 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

But it really does look like we have some sort "Capital ship leash" mechanism going on here. You get good scatter with JUST DD's but you get the "pummel one ship into Atomic Dust sydrome" when there is a CA or couple of CLs along with the DD's...... Maybe that could help the developers zero in better on seems to be a very narrowly scoped problem. Specifically, the problem seems to be only in DAYLIGHT action, and in addition seems to be limited to situations where the Surface Combat is a mix of Capital ships and DD's. DD's only seem to do as expected, even in daylight.

What a great thread. I love the fireworks.

Before the thread wanders off into oblivion: Could the foregoing be an issue? Personally, I'm doubting that leashing is designed in, but no one has really commented definitively. If there is any leashing, it may be part of the problem.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 450